A CASA Christmas Present Again?
Never tell CASA AVMED ANYTHING! If it can't be discovered in the actual Medical with the DAME it never happened.
It was a ‘psychiatrist’ in the anecdote, not a ‘psychologist’. Two similar but very different things. I think the psychiatrist is the one that shows you dirty pictures. (that is not a cue to tell us everything you know about mental health 43”, that is me being light-hearted about a serious subject.)
Never tell CASA AVMED ANYTHING! If it can't be discovered in the actual Medical with the DAME it never happened.
Not telling CASA Avmed is not the same as not obtaining proper and successful medical care. As the Abstract of the study notes above, plenty of pilots seek what the study calls "informal medical care".
The laws of physics mean that there is no causal connection between Avmed's levels of knowledge or ignorance of a person's medical history and that person's level of medical fitness. A person's level of medical fitness is what it is.
There are plenty of pilots out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing, and those pilots meet the aviation medical standards. They just don't have a piece of squashed tree from Avmed saying so.
(Note: I am not advocating that people should withhold information from Avmed.)
The laws of physics mean that there is no causal connection between Avmed's levels of knowledge or ignorance of a person's medical history and that person's level of medical fitness. A person's level of medical fitness is what it is.
There are plenty of pilots out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing, and those pilots meet the aviation medical standards. They just don't have a piece of squashed tree from Avmed saying so.
(Note: I am not advocating that people should withhold information from Avmed.)
Not telling CASA Avmed is not the same as not obtaining proper and successful medical care. As the Abstract of the study notes above, plenty of pilots seek what the study calls "informal medical care".
The laws of physics mean that there is no causal connection between Avmed's levels of knowledge or ignorance of a person's medical history and that person's level of medical fitness. A person's level of medical fitness is what it is.
There are plenty of pilots out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing, and those pilots meet the aviation medical standards. They just don't have a piece of squashed tree from Avmed saying so.
(Note: I am not advocating that people should withhold information from Avmed.)
The laws of physics mean that there is no causal connection between Avmed's levels of knowledge or ignorance of a person's medical history and that person's level of medical fitness. A person's level of medical fitness is what it is.
There are plenty of pilots out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing, and those pilots meet the aviation medical standards. They just don't have a piece of squashed tree from Avmed saying so.
(Note: I am not advocating that people should withhold information from Avmed.)
Aviation IS all fun and games, until somebody gets hurt, then its lawyers and economics....
BTW, your road license has similar conditions that you must report all long term medical conditions that may affect your driving ability to the issuing authority, and have a supporting doctors report on it. If you have an accident where an undisclosed long term medical issue was part responsible, good luck in court.
PS I'm all for fighting the aviation medical system, however my feeling is 'non-disclosure' is what AvMed secretly wants, then they don't have to make decisions or be liable for what happens if there is an accident. Make things hard for everybody, nobody wants to disclose, not our problem, it'll be their problem if it causes a crash. A version of the US DADT (don't ask don't tell) policy.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Jun 2023 at 02:09.
So you're saying that there is no pilot out there - not one - flying e.g. under the auspices of RAAus who meets the Class 1 or Class 2 medical standard but just doesn't have a piece of squashed tree from CASA saying so? You're saying that - by some magical process - a person's physical and mental state can be changed by what's in the head of someone sitting at a desk in Canberra?
I understand the legal arguments you're making. I'm making arguments about the immutable laws of physics.
I understand the legal arguments you're making. I'm making arguments about the immutable laws of physics.
So you're saying that there is no pilot out there - not one - flying e.g. under the auspices of RAAus who meets the Class 1 or Class 2 medical standard but just doesn't have a piece of squashed tree from CASA saying so? You're saying that - by some magical process - a person's physical and mental state can be changed by what's in the head of someone sitting at a desk in Canberra?
I understand the legal arguments you're making. I'm making arguments about the immutable laws of physics.
I understand the legal arguments you're making. I'm making arguments about the immutable laws of physics.
I also know that a number of pilots defer certain care as they know it will be problematic for their medical to proceed. So they 'postpone' seeking treatment, which as we know can be life threatening. This is a direct result of the regulations being unforgiving and cumbersome. I know if I report a mental illness I will be grounded indefinitely, then have to jump through CASA hoops to re-certify, because it's all via secret AvMed discussions I have no idea if and when I can get back to work. Where in reality the decision should be the sole domain of the pilot and their medical professionals to decide, provide a written report to CASA that everything's fine and move on. Therefore the pilot knows they can seek treatment, be cured and get back to work when they know they are ready, which can all be planned.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Jun 2023 at 02:29.
I also know that a number of pilots defer certain care as they know it will be problematic for their medical to proceed. So they 'postpone' seeking treatment, which as we know can be life threatening. This is a direct result of the regulations being unforgiving and cumbersome. I know if I report a mental illness I will be grounded indefinitely, then have to jump through CASA hoops to re-certify. Where in reality the decision should be the sole domain of the pilot and their medical professionals to decide, provide a written report to CASA that everything's fine and move on. Therefore the pilot knows they can seek treatment, be cured and get back to work when they know they are ready, which can all be planned.
My only point of disagreement relates to your statement that the perverse incentive is "a direct result of the regulations being unforgiving and cumbersome". It's actually a direct result of the way in which individuals in Avmed have chosen to interpret and administer those regulations. People with messianic delusions on a crusade in the belief that Avmed is the last bastion between aviation safety and aviation carnage interpret and administer the regulations differently than people who are able to comprehend what the objective evidence and objective risk data show.
And the mechanism which continues to have the single most profound practical consequences in the regulatory regime is always available to get around "unforgiving and cumbersome" regulations: Exemptions. That's why there are plenty of pilots flying 'legally' and 'safely' out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing.
My idea on AvMed is that it should be more like the ATSB. They investigate and publish causes of Aviation incapacitation, publish aviation related medical issues and papers and that is accessible by medical professionals who treat pilots as a guide. As well as providing guidance on what constitutes fitness to fly, rather than being the traffic lights on the subject. This then can be legally used by the medical practitioners to make reliable decision on a patients fitness to fly. The pilot then can work with their GP and specialists to maintain their own fitness, with some form of basic certification each year to ensure each pilot is maintaining their fitness.
Because of the liability implications you will not be getting GPs to just sign dodgy certificates so it would be a robust system.
Even without a doctors signature, you will still have to pass AFR/BFR/IPC or whatever regularly, so it would be obvious to those testers who is obviously unfit and who isn't. After all you were issued an non expiring license that says you are eternally competent as a pilot, and other approved pilot can deem you suitable to exercise your privileges.
I think safely may be a fine term, but legally is what I'm disputing. Just because AvMed does not know, does not mean it's legal. It would be up to a court/coroner report to find if you were legally able to fly on such an occasion, and depending on who's out to get you will alter how hard it will be to get out of that corner.
Because of the liability implications you will not be getting GPs to just sign dodgy certificates so it would be a robust system.
Even without a doctors signature, you will still have to pass AFR/BFR/IPC or whatever regularly, so it would be obvious to those testers who is obviously unfit and who isn't. After all you were issued an non expiring license that says you are eternally competent as a pilot, and other approved pilot can deem you suitable to exercise your privileges.
And the mechanism which continues to have the single most profound practical consequences in the regulatory regime is always available to get around "unforgiving and cumbersome" regulations: Exemptions. That's why there are plenty of pilots flying 'legally' and 'safely' out there who are not obliged to tell Avmed anything and about whom Avmed knows nothing.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Jun 2023 at 02:58.
The following users liked this post:
Sometimes my brain's not big enough to understand some of your arguments, 43. I didn't say that just because Avmed does not know, means it's legal. I gave your post a 'like' before you added that.
There are plenty of pilots who are not legally obliged to hold a medical certificate issued by CASA and are not legally obliged to tell CASA anything about their medical 'conditions'. Agreed?
Those are consequences of a regulatory regime created by exemptions granted by an organisation called "CASA", for whom the safety of air navigation is the highest priority. Agreed?
You seem to be trying to make the point that mere compliance with the civil aviation legislation - or exemption from it - does not automatically result in someone discharging their duty of care when taking to the skies. If that's the point you're trying to make, I agree. (BTW: It's also true that non-compliance with a statutory obligation does not automatically result in the circumstances of non-compliance constituting a breach of a duty of care.)
But that's the same outcome whether the person is obliged to have a CASA-issued medical certificate or is exempted from the obligation, and the same outcome whether the person is obliged to keep CASA informed of specified matters or exempted from the obligation. Agreed?
There are plenty of pilots who are not legally obliged to hold a medical certificate issued by CASA and are not legally obliged to tell CASA anything about their medical 'conditions'. Agreed?
Those are consequences of a regulatory regime created by exemptions granted by an organisation called "CASA", for whom the safety of air navigation is the highest priority. Agreed?
You seem to be trying to make the point that mere compliance with the civil aviation legislation - or exemption from it - does not automatically result in someone discharging their duty of care when taking to the skies. If that's the point you're trying to make, I agree. (BTW: It's also true that non-compliance with a statutory obligation does not automatically result in the circumstances of non-compliance constituting a breach of a duty of care.)
But that's the same outcome whether the person is obliged to have a CASA-issued medical certificate or is exempted from the obligation, and the same outcome whether the person is obliged to keep CASA informed of specified matters or exempted from the obligation. Agreed?
I suppose the question is 'if' you are exempted from the requirement to hold a medical 'certificate' are you still exempt from notifying the governing agency of any medical conditions. As with the conditions of disclosure attached to a drivers licence. Then if you are truly self certifying and something should go wrong, how well are you protected legally without an agency having approved your condition. I would suggest it would be an answer very similar to the car driving legalities. The later answers can really only be tested in court if somebody is injured and your 'condition' or 'fitness' were to be questioned.
I made the very naive mistake on my initial Class 2 issue of disclosing a mental illness which I suffered from in a finite period of time as a teenager, and the fact that I'd had LASIK - despite getting a near perfect core in the vision test. The total cost to confirm that these were not in fact current aero-medical issues ended up being over $1000 out of pocket. The aviation opthalmologist and psychiatrist that I had to see to certify that I was not visually impaired or insane both thought it was a ridiculous waste of time.
This initial issue was under the long-gone Dr Navathe's regime. Repeatedly calling them for updates only to have to jump through more hoops almost drove me to tears. I will make the point since then that my renewals have been straightforward and I saw a DAME2 for my last who issued it on the spot - it seems not all DAMEs have this 'accreditation'.
All of this to say I am convinced that the research cited in this thread earlier is correct and that there are many, many Class 1 or 2 holders that a) withhold information from their DAME and b) would never see their DAME as their GP.
Briefly scanning through the 420 FOI stuff that Clinton uploaded also makes me wonder how many of the people who work in CASA can actually go home and consider that they've done a solid day at work improving aviation safety...what a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
This initial issue was under the long-gone Dr Navathe's regime. Repeatedly calling them for updates only to have to jump through more hoops almost drove me to tears. I will make the point since then that my renewals have been straightforward and I saw a DAME2 for my last who issued it on the spot - it seems not all DAMEs have this 'accreditation'.
All of this to say I am convinced that the research cited in this thread earlier is correct and that there are many, many Class 1 or 2 holders that a) withhold information from their DAME and b) would never see their DAME as their GP.
Briefly scanning through the 420 FOI stuff that Clinton uploaded also makes me wonder how many of the people who work in CASA can actually go home and consider that they've done a solid day at work improving aviation safety...what a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
The following users liked this post:
The aviation opthalmologist and psychiatrist that I had to see to certify that I was not visually impaired or insane both thought it was a ridiculous waste of time.
Medical professionals with specialist qualifications and long experience in their specialisation apparently don’t know what they’re talking about, but Avmed people without the specialist qualifications and experience apparently not only do know what they’re talking about but know better than the professionals with specialist qualifications and long experience in their specialisation. It’s one of the many mysteries that contribute to the mystique of aviation.
Briefly scanning through the 420 FOI stuff that Clinton uploaded also makes me wonder how many of the people who work in CASA can actually go home and consider that they've done a solid day at work improving aviation safety...what a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Meanwhile, in the real world, their work is increasingly detracting from aviation safety.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
I have had more than one DAME say to me that `The less CASA AvMed are told, the better.`
Something which I find quite shocking!
Something which I find quite shocking!
If you flood the system with real issues, it collapses, which is what has probably happened at AvMed now. Once it's proven that most of us suffer all sorts of issues and pilots are no different then they can't operate the way they do without shutting down the whole industry and real change will happen. But that would take everyone being ultra truthful and disclosing everything.
Imagine if every pilot disclosed they had a single suicidal thought last year, what would they do? ground every single pilot until each one could be vetted for whether they intend to act on it?
The following users liked this post:
Those in Avmed with messianic delusions of being the last bastion between aviation safety and aviation carnage go home each day knowing they’ve prevented carnage by, for example, imposing their botched form and unqualified opinions and demands on guinea pigs who’ve declared a diagnosis of ADHD or ASD.
I have had more than one DAME say to me that `The less CASA AvMed are told, the better.`
Thread Starter
1. I've spoken with one Optometrist who successfully completed the training to qualify as an Aviation Optometrist.
However after reading the accreditation paperwork presented to her by CASA, she declined to sign it and has foregone the opportunity.
The reason, according to what she told me, was that the CASA contract required her to make a mandatory report to Avmed if there was any sign of deteriorating eyesight, regardless of whether the pilot met the required standard or not , AND WITHOUT SEEKING THE PILOTS PERMISSION.
She saw this as an attempt by CASA to insert itself into what she held to be the sacred doctor/patient relationship and she refused to accept it.
On reflection, in my opinion, the more CASA Avmed attempts to insert itself into the doctor/patient relationship the worse the safety outcomes are going to be. This is a predictable outcome. Britain and the U.S. at least have wised up.
2. The bureaucratic medical establishment, like AVmed, is a useless concept because their preferred outcome if you have ANY condition is that you stop flying and go away - its safer for the bureaucrats that way. They have absolutely no incentive to keep you flying and a big personal incentive for you to get lost.
By way of example, In a slightly different profession - law enforcement - I have an acquaintance who had a major health meltdown over a divorce that saw her hospitalised and treated for alcoholism with the full knowledge of the Police and the support of the Union. Thankfully she made a complete recovery, but that was never going to be good enough for the police HR/Medical establishment which exhibits AVmed traits. Naturally during treatment and recovery she was deemed "non operational" (ie grounded). It took three full years of her jumping through every medical and psychiatric hoop that the medical establishment could dream up - and changing the goalposts multiple times, and a union ultimatum to police command, before she was grudgingly made operational again, and that only with quarterly liver function tests in perpetuity. CASA avmed has exactly the same drivers.
P.S. The police force is crying out for more officers and trying to recruit new ones. Their own HR/AVmed/feminazis are forcing officers out at the rate of over 20 a month on spurious health and now ethics claims (eg domestic violence allegations during divorce proceedings) - which is way more than the recruitment rate..
However after reading the accreditation paperwork presented to her by CASA, she declined to sign it and has foregone the opportunity.
The reason, according to what she told me, was that the CASA contract required her to make a mandatory report to Avmed if there was any sign of deteriorating eyesight, regardless of whether the pilot met the required standard or not , AND WITHOUT SEEKING THE PILOTS PERMISSION.
She saw this as an attempt by CASA to insert itself into what she held to be the sacred doctor/patient relationship and she refused to accept it.
On reflection, in my opinion, the more CASA Avmed attempts to insert itself into the doctor/patient relationship the worse the safety outcomes are going to be. This is a predictable outcome. Britain and the U.S. at least have wised up.
2. The bureaucratic medical establishment, like AVmed, is a useless concept because their preferred outcome if you have ANY condition is that you stop flying and go away - its safer for the bureaucrats that way. They have absolutely no incentive to keep you flying and a big personal incentive for you to get lost.
By way of example, In a slightly different profession - law enforcement - I have an acquaintance who had a major health meltdown over a divorce that saw her hospitalised and treated for alcoholism with the full knowledge of the Police and the support of the Union. Thankfully she made a complete recovery, but that was never going to be good enough for the police HR/Medical establishment which exhibits AVmed traits. Naturally during treatment and recovery she was deemed "non operational" (ie grounded). It took three full years of her jumping through every medical and psychiatric hoop that the medical establishment could dream up - and changing the goalposts multiple times, and a union ultimatum to police command, before she was grudgingly made operational again, and that only with quarterly liver function tests in perpetuity. CASA avmed has exactly the same drivers.
P.S. The police force is crying out for more officers and trying to recruit new ones. Their own HR/AVmed/feminazis are forcing officers out at the rate of over 20 a month on spurious health and now ethics claims (eg domestic violence allegations during divorce proceedings) - which is way more than the recruitment rate..
Last edited by Sunfish; 1st Jun 2023 at 10:56.
I imagine I'm not the only one either. The Avmed horse has bolted already and all they're willing to do is stand around and watch.
