A CASA Christmas Present Again?
Thread Starter
A CASA Christmas Present Again?
I have been trying to follow whats happening to the CASA Avmed Consultation on medical self certification and I am prompted by Ben Morgans (AOPA) excellent summation of the situation including the evident foot dragging by CASA. My opinion, FWIW and, since the Public Service is renowned for dropping bad news on public holidays, is that we are in for a very nasty Christmas Present from CASA Avmed.
This review and consultation of Australia's archaic aviation medical standards was foisted on CASA/Avmed by the obvious and now undeniable success of private pilot medical self certification in the UK and America.
Until 2021 (?) CASA / Avmed had successfully frustrated the push for reform of private pilot medical standards by pretended reform - the introduction of the "Basic Class 2 medical Certificate - available from any GP" this reform, as intended, was stillborn because it carried at least three poison pills; it required the application of a commercial drivers licence standard that was modified by CASA / Avmed with the addition of exclusions, it required the GP to report to CASA any "conditions" the GP might think the applicant might have and most importantly it required the GP to attest that the applicant "unconditionally" met the modified standard, Once the GPs and their insurers worked out who was going to be liable, since everyone has "conditions", this alleged reform was stillborn. From a CASA / Avmed viewpoint this program was successful since it staved off meaningful change for a further three or four years.
Once the industry had digested this bitter failure, they raised a new argument that CASA, now under obvious pressure for reform on multiple fronts, could not ignore - equity. The RAA, gliding federation and parachuting body have successfully operated under self certification schemes for decades; why should such a scheme by denied to Australian private pilots considering the success of self certification overseas? CASA had no answer.
The result is another consultation deliberately set up in my opinion to frustrate reform by the simplest and crudest method possible - restore equity by the destruction of RAA, GFA and parachuting self certification schemes. Misery loves company; 'there now, you are all equal again"!
What rattled my was an anecdotal comment that CASA is pressuring RAA to toughen its criteria. This was in addition to an earlier instruction by CASA that any pilot refused a Class 2 medical certificate by CASA was to be ineligible for an RAA operators certificate (in other words, "No escape).
Further evidence of CASA recidivism is the resurrecting of the entire color blindness restriction disaster.
I would imagine that unfettered access to pilot medical records is still on Avmeds agenda.
In addition the tone of the submissions by obvious Avmed insiders as well as multiple AAT transcripts indicates that Avmeds is a deliberately adversarial approach. The messages are always the same;"All pilots lie", "it is our job to discover what they are trying to hide", "drone operators should require medical certificates too", "only sick pilots want the system changed".
Be prepared for a very unpleasant discussion paper to be released during the Christmas holidays. CASA / Avmed is not going to give up without a fight and destroy the industry in the process. Whatever happened to "First do no harm"? This is going to be a repeat of the 2016 debacle, as I wrote then; "there is not a snowballs chance in hell that CASA wishes to voluntarily reduce surveillance and control of medical certificates, they have too many staff whose careers depend on maintaining control and institutions NEVER voluntarily surrender power ever..
All you will get in the end is: " I know the FAA has agreed to XYZ, but the Aviation Act does not permit that because of ABC, risk to the public blah, blah".. The desired end result is that CASA can say they responded to change, consulted widely and came up with a revised class 3 medical certificate that looks like its overseas equivalents, but still ties us into the medical straitjacket we now have to wear. Pointless exercise until the Act is changed."
This review and consultation of Australia's archaic aviation medical standards was foisted on CASA/Avmed by the obvious and now undeniable success of private pilot medical self certification in the UK and America.
Until 2021 (?) CASA / Avmed had successfully frustrated the push for reform of private pilot medical standards by pretended reform - the introduction of the "Basic Class 2 medical Certificate - available from any GP" this reform, as intended, was stillborn because it carried at least three poison pills; it required the application of a commercial drivers licence standard that was modified by CASA / Avmed with the addition of exclusions, it required the GP to report to CASA any "conditions" the GP might think the applicant might have and most importantly it required the GP to attest that the applicant "unconditionally" met the modified standard, Once the GPs and their insurers worked out who was going to be liable, since everyone has "conditions", this alleged reform was stillborn. From a CASA / Avmed viewpoint this program was successful since it staved off meaningful change for a further three or four years.
Once the industry had digested this bitter failure, they raised a new argument that CASA, now under obvious pressure for reform on multiple fronts, could not ignore - equity. The RAA, gliding federation and parachuting body have successfully operated under self certification schemes for decades; why should such a scheme by denied to Australian private pilots considering the success of self certification overseas? CASA had no answer.
The result is another consultation deliberately set up in my opinion to frustrate reform by the simplest and crudest method possible - restore equity by the destruction of RAA, GFA and parachuting self certification schemes. Misery loves company; 'there now, you are all equal again"!
What rattled my was an anecdotal comment that CASA is pressuring RAA to toughen its criteria. This was in addition to an earlier instruction by CASA that any pilot refused a Class 2 medical certificate by CASA was to be ineligible for an RAA operators certificate (in other words, "No escape).
Further evidence of CASA recidivism is the resurrecting of the entire color blindness restriction disaster.
I would imagine that unfettered access to pilot medical records is still on Avmeds agenda.
In addition the tone of the submissions by obvious Avmed insiders as well as multiple AAT transcripts indicates that Avmeds is a deliberately adversarial approach. The messages are always the same;"All pilots lie", "it is our job to discover what they are trying to hide", "drone operators should require medical certificates too", "only sick pilots want the system changed".
Be prepared for a very unpleasant discussion paper to be released during the Christmas holidays. CASA / Avmed is not going to give up without a fight and destroy the industry in the process. Whatever happened to "First do no harm"? This is going to be a repeat of the 2016 debacle, as I wrote then; "there is not a snowballs chance in hell that CASA wishes to voluntarily reduce surveillance and control of medical certificates, they have too many staff whose careers depend on maintaining control and institutions NEVER voluntarily surrender power ever..
All you will get in the end is: " I know the FAA has agreed to XYZ, but the Aviation Act does not permit that because of ABC, risk to the public blah, blah".. The desired end result is that CASA can say they responded to change, consulted widely and came up with a revised class 3 medical certificate that looks like its overseas equivalents, but still ties us into the medical straitjacket we now have to wear. Pointless exercise until the Act is changed."
I wonder how comfortable AvMed is with the fact that each time a pilot slings a leg out of bed for a days aviation s/he self certifies. Must put a stop to that surely. And heavens to betsy a PIC is the sole person responsible for an aircrafts operation, how are these untrustworthy people given such responsibility?
That was a good summary Sunfish.
I believe it is indeed true, if you are "denied" a CASA medical, (that is, CASA says NO.) you can't jump over to RAAus.
But, a lot know they will be denied a medical next time, (or they just don't want to go through all the hassle) so the solution is to jump before putting yourself through all the hassle and possible/probable denial. (If you don't apply for a medical, you can't be denied.)
The the aviators self-certify each and every day they fly, (am I feeling good? Yes!) and go on to fly safely for many more years. But in the VH world, flying the same aircraft in many cases, you are a dnager to humanity.
RAAus and the others have all proven without a shadow of a doubt over 30-40 years that self-certifying is safe - for private flying.
I believe it is indeed true, if you are "denied" a CASA medical, (that is, CASA says NO.) you can't jump over to RAAus.
But, a lot know they will be denied a medical next time, (or they just don't want to go through all the hassle) so the solution is to jump before putting yourself through all the hassle and possible/probable denial. (If you don't apply for a medical, you can't be denied.)
The the aviators self-certify each and every day they fly, (am I feeling good? Yes!) and go on to fly safely for many more years. But in the VH world, flying the same aircraft in many cases, you are a dnager to humanity.
RAAus and the others have all proven without a shadow of a doubt over 30-40 years that self-certifying is safe - for private flying.
Whilst I agree with most of your well articulated summation, it’s worth calling out a couple things. Ben Morgan has been so inaffective to date that his most recent attacks have only ensured he won’t get what he wants and that he’ll probably ending up in court for defamation. Hope he has deep pockets….. Also, he and his cronies have been calling for the RAA to have tougher medical requirements. Just look at his so called AGAA response to the recent medical consultation. His sole mission in life is to try and kill RAA because he hates them with such passion. But then he says he represents GA and recreational pilots…. Wtf….
Could you quote the statements by Ben Morgan that you say are defamatory? Could you quote the statements by Ben Morgan, or any of his cronies, calling for RAA to have tougher medical requirements?
And you may be surprised to learn that Avmed and the medical industry are perfectly capable of aspiring to get its tentacles into sports aviation, unilaterally. The questions in the Part 67 'survey' were not the idea of Ben Morgan nor any of his 'cronies'.
And you may be surprised to learn that Avmed and the medical industry are perfectly capable of aspiring to get its tentacles into sports aviation, unilaterally. The questions in the Part 67 'survey' were not the idea of Ben Morgan nor any of his 'cronies'.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Nov 2022 at 20:42.
Thread Starter
LB, t nasty detail is in the consultation summary.
As I read it, CASA is proposing Class 5 CERTIFICATE which would in theory involve self certification. So now the 10,000 odd RAA pilots, instead of making an annual declaration when they renew their membership, which is also their permission to fly, they now require a class 5 medical certificate.
So now RAA loses self certification as an adjunct to membership, because it now requires a pilot to have a MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, so RAA pilots are now covered by exactly the same administrative strait jacket as other certificate holders - they have been forced into the system where before they were outside it.
‘’And of course over time, the requirements of class 5 can be easily. tightened.
So Sir Humphrey wins again; in a professed desire to simplify and relax requirements, we do the reverse - 10,000 more medical certificates to play with.
As I read it, CASA is proposing Class 5 CERTIFICATE which would in theory involve self certification. So now the 10,000 odd RAA pilots, instead of making an annual declaration when they renew their membership, which is also their permission to fly, they now require a class 5 medical certificate.
So now RAA loses self certification as an adjunct to membership, because it now requires a pilot to have a MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, so RAA pilots are now covered by exactly the same administrative strait jacket as other certificate holders - they have been forced into the system where before they were outside it.
‘’And of course over time, the requirements of class 5 can be easily. tightened.
So Sir Humphrey wins again; in a professed desire to simplify and relax requirements, we do the reverse - 10,000 more medical certificates to play with.
Thread Starter
Toss bag, I was thinking the same about you.
’The idea of CASA / avmed as a necessary and effective gatekeeper is intellectually appealing but logically flawed. That is what British and American evidence demonstrates.
One could perhaps say that if you think you need a medical certificate for normal GA flight, then you don’t have sufficient mental abilities to fly.
’The idea of CASA / avmed as a necessary and effective gatekeeper is intellectually appealing but logically flawed. That is what British and American evidence demonstrates.
One could perhaps say that if you think you need a medical certificate for normal GA flight, then you don’t have sufficient mental abilities to fly.
Sunfish
For a while CASA published the number of medicals issued under this scheme and it was pitiful. Another mechanism they used to frustrate it was the selection of some medicals for CASA review. The Force foight back on these medicals and won.
If you ever needed a demonstration that CASA AVMED was not acting in the best interests of safety and was pursuing its own agenda, it is contained in ATSB reports. The ATSB has created 2 reports into pilot incapacitation in flight. If AVMED had real interest in improving safety, it would work on the identified issues from the top down. The things that CASA get hung up on and harass pilots with daisy chaining requests for medical tests do not appear on the ATSB list at all.
When AVMED came under the control of Rob walker he vowed to inprove AVMED. He moved on without visible signs of improvement, however I suspect some of the recent hopeful signs of improvement can be traced back to him. There are signs that cause optimism. There is a new permanent secretary for the DIIRD who has a reputation for bring changes to departments. Pip Spence is clear;y having a go and Dr Kate Manderson is the first non academic PMO for a liong time - maybe since Rob Liddell???
Also, we may have COVID to thank for some changes. With the current staff shortages in medice generally and general practice specifically, its hard to imagine that CASA will be able to attract any doctors to its review team. And as tight as things are now it will become desperately critical as the baby boomer doctors - who are continuing to practice in their late 60's and 70's - finally retire. It might force CASA back to trusting their DAME's and maybe - just maybe they might start to accept specialists opinions rather then their own behind-the-times low-rent generalists.
Until 2021 (?) CASA / Avmed had successfully frustrated the push for reform of private pilot medical standards by pretended reform
If you ever needed a demonstration that CASA AVMED was not acting in the best interests of safety and was pursuing its own agenda, it is contained in ATSB reports. The ATSB has created 2 reports into pilot incapacitation in flight. If AVMED had real interest in improving safety, it would work on the identified issues from the top down. The things that CASA get hung up on and harass pilots with daisy chaining requests for medical tests do not appear on the ATSB list at all.
When AVMED came under the control of Rob walker he vowed to inprove AVMED. He moved on without visible signs of improvement, however I suspect some of the recent hopeful signs of improvement can be traced back to him. There are signs that cause optimism. There is a new permanent secretary for the DIIRD who has a reputation for bring changes to departments. Pip Spence is clear;y having a go and Dr Kate Manderson is the first non academic PMO for a liong time - maybe since Rob Liddell???
Also, we may have COVID to thank for some changes. With the current staff shortages in medice generally and general practice specifically, its hard to imagine that CASA will be able to attract any doctors to its review team. And as tight as things are now it will become desperately critical as the baby boomer doctors - who are continuing to practice in their late 60's and 70's - finally retire. It might force CASA back to trusting their DAME's and maybe - just maybe they might start to accept specialists opinions rather then their own behind-the-times low-rent generalists.
The ATSB has created 2 reports into pilot incapacitation in flight. If AVMED had real interest in improving safety, it would work on the identified issues from the top down. The things that CASA get hung up on and harass pilots with daisy chaining requests for medical tests do not appear on the ATSB list at all.
The single most likely cause of pilot sudden incapacitation identified in ATSB’s reports is gastro (I’m paraphrasing) and, in many of those cases, the pilot cannot continue to perform duties. Can anyone cite the regulation which deals, in detail, with the preparation, testing and consumption of food by RPT flight crew immediately before and during duty? Surely there’d be one somewhere in the thousands of pages of regulations, given the safety implications.
Ask passengers on an RPT jet whether they would be scared if the flight crew are about to be given orange juice and a ham sandwich for lunch.
Ask the same passengers whether they would be scared if the flight crew have a colour vision deficiency.
That’s why Avmed generally gets away with what it does.
Thread Starter
Sadly. if Ben Morgans (AOPA) general comments about CASA thinking (16/5) are correct, CASA has cleverly moved the Goalposts by shiftiing the objective of extending self certification universally - iin other words, doing away with the need for a medical certificate entirely,, as accorded to the RAA and Gliding fraternities, in favor of a so called"'streamlined" certificate class 5 that EVERY pilot will require.
Thus the notional new "freedom" for PPL holders is purchased at the expense of the RAA and gliding community as predicted.
As for a "streamlined" class 5, I think we can count on the CASA legal crew to surround this dubious privilege with barbed wire such that anyone with a "condition" is subject to AVMED's tender mercies. Given the alleged size of the RAA pilot community - 10,000 (?) this should result in a vastly increased workload for AVMED staff.
I expect the associated regulations will be a shock to the RAA community.
Thus the notional new "freedom" for PPL holders is purchased at the expense of the RAA and gliding community as predicted.
As for a "streamlined" class 5, I think we can count on the CASA legal crew to surround this dubious privilege with barbed wire such that anyone with a "condition" is subject to AVMED's tender mercies. Given the alleged size of the RAA pilot community - 10,000 (?) this should result in a vastly increased workload for AVMED staff.
I expect the associated regulations will be a shock to the RAA community.
I recall saying something about this, starting about 3 minutes and 20 seconds into this:
We will soon see whether Dr Manderson has the same messianic delusions as her immediate predecessors like Navathe. Is Dr Manderson on a crusade in the belief that Avmed is the last bastion between aviation safety and aviation carnage, or will she be able to comprehend what the objective evidence and objective risk data show?
Sadly, the dumping, without warning, of the NZ Operational Colour Vision Assessment and its replacement with a newly invented Australian wheel, designed to trap and cull as much of the unclean CVD population as possible from the cockpits of commercial aircraft, does not auger well for an evidence-based and risk-based approach. (I have submitted an FOI request for documents relevant to the dumping of the NZ OCVA and its replacement with the newly-invented wheel called the ACVA.) We’ve returned to the dark ages where CASA Avmed seems to be congenitally incapable of understanding that, in modern civil aviation, CVD is an operational competence issue to be assessed by operational experts, not a medical issue to be micro-managed by the CVD industry.
Dr Manderson would hopefully be aware of published studies like the one with this Abstract:
For the education of Ms Spence, this is a classic example of what’s called a “perverse incentive”. A process that is theoretically aimed at ensuring pilots meet or exceed a particular standard of medical fitness has the opposite effect. And it’s why my view is that Avmed has now become a force inimical to aviation safety.
Next time you board a commercial aircraft, ask yourself whether you’re sure that the folks in the cockpit are not among the 50% or so of the pilot population who are engaging in “healthcare avoidance behaviour due fear for losing their aeromedical certificate”. You can safely assume that the incentive in Australia is as perverse if not more perverse than in the US. And part of the incentive arises not just from loss of certification, but also from the prospect of costly and time-consuming tests that Avmed imposes to obtain certificate renewal, despite qualified opinion that the tests are not justified. (And one can only speculate as to the opportunity cost of all those medical resources being diverted to unnecessary tests and reports rather than something beneficial.)
My fear is that the natural response of medical bureaucrats with messianic delusions, to studies like the one whose Abstract I quoted, is to redouble their efforts to entrap all the criminals who aren’t throwing themselves under the Avmed bus. Of course, that would make things even worse and would be contrary to the objective evidence. The objective evidence is that all that aviation activity is happening safely out there even though there is so much withheld from Avmed and even though there is so much healthcare avoidance behaviour going on. And that’s setting aside all of the pilots who are exempted from Avmed interference.
If Dr Manderson wants to actually improve the health of the pilot population, the single most effective thing she and her team could do is trust pilots - and trust the medical professionals whom pilots trust - to be perfectly capable of maintaining and monitoring fitness, so that pilots are not living in constant fear of Avmed’s damaging and unqualified overreactions.
Sadly, the dumping, without warning, of the NZ Operational Colour Vision Assessment and its replacement with a newly invented Australian wheel, designed to trap and cull as much of the unclean CVD population as possible from the cockpits of commercial aircraft, does not auger well for an evidence-based and risk-based approach. (I have submitted an FOI request for documents relevant to the dumping of the NZ OCVA and its replacement with the newly-invented wheel called the ACVA.) We’ve returned to the dark ages where CASA Avmed seems to be congenitally incapable of understanding that, in modern civil aviation, CVD is an operational competence issue to be assessed by operational experts, not a medical issue to be micro-managed by the CVD industry.
Dr Manderson would hopefully be aware of published studies like the one with this Abstract:
Objective: To study healthcare avoidance behavior in pilots related to fear of aeromedical certificate loss.
Methods: Voluntary participation in an anonymous survey distributed to U.S. pilots.
Results: A total of 3765 pilots were included in the analysis. There were 56.1% of pilots (n = 2111) who reported a history of healthcare avoidance behavior due fear for losing their aeromedical certificate. There were 45.7% who sought informal medical care (n = 1721) and 26.8% who misrepresented/withheld information on a written healthcare questionnaire for fear of aeromedical certificate loss (n = 994).
Conclusions: Aircraft pilots may participate in healthcare avoidance behavior related to fear of losing their aeromedical certificate. Further work is necessary to address pilot healthcare avoidance.
Methods: Voluntary participation in an anonymous survey distributed to U.S. pilots.
Results: A total of 3765 pilots were included in the analysis. There were 56.1% of pilots (n = 2111) who reported a history of healthcare avoidance behavior due fear for losing their aeromedical certificate. There were 45.7% who sought informal medical care (n = 1721) and 26.8% who misrepresented/withheld information on a written healthcare questionnaire for fear of aeromedical certificate loss (n = 994).
Conclusions: Aircraft pilots may participate in healthcare avoidance behavior related to fear of losing their aeromedical certificate. Further work is necessary to address pilot healthcare avoidance.
Next time you board a commercial aircraft, ask yourself whether you’re sure that the folks in the cockpit are not among the 50% or so of the pilot population who are engaging in “healthcare avoidance behaviour due fear for losing their aeromedical certificate”. You can safely assume that the incentive in Australia is as perverse if not more perverse than in the US. And part of the incentive arises not just from loss of certification, but also from the prospect of costly and time-consuming tests that Avmed imposes to obtain certificate renewal, despite qualified opinion that the tests are not justified. (And one can only speculate as to the opportunity cost of all those medical resources being diverted to unnecessary tests and reports rather than something beneficial.)
My fear is that the natural response of medical bureaucrats with messianic delusions, to studies like the one whose Abstract I quoted, is to redouble their efforts to entrap all the criminals who aren’t throwing themselves under the Avmed bus. Of course, that would make things even worse and would be contrary to the objective evidence. The objective evidence is that all that aviation activity is happening safely out there even though there is so much withheld from Avmed and even though there is so much healthcare avoidance behaviour going on. And that’s setting aside all of the pilots who are exempted from Avmed interference.
If Dr Manderson wants to actually improve the health of the pilot population, the single most effective thing she and her team could do is trust pilots - and trust the medical professionals whom pilots trust - to be perfectly capable of maintaining and monitoring fitness, so that pilots are not living in constant fear of Avmed’s damaging and unqualified overreactions.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 31st May 2023 at 03:38.
The following users liked this post:
I've seen far more evidence of pilots being able to manage their own medical status than AvMed. In most cases an actual event will happen where the pilot self grounds themselves until their own medical professionals say it's ok to continue. That's when AvMed puts up a wall of stupidity that basically calls the pilot and their medical professionals liars/idiots until AvMed can prove it it correct itself.
A lot of pilots I know that have had grounding events such as heart attacks were Class 1 holders for decades prior to the event, the yearly rigmarole and hoops did nothing to prevent the occurrence at all. But AvMed and CASA definitely put hurdles up for their return to flying. Mental health is even worse, there have been numerous pilot suicides (not involving planes), these pilots obviously did not get grounded prior by the system. However AvMed will put up a huge wall of requirements for those pilots who have sought help and treat them like they are suicidal for just having a run of bad days, even when the associated doctor says that the pilot is stable/cured or of no harm they will be required to have an expensive yearly report submitted.
Fair enough have extreme policy for those that have tried to dodge the system and are not getting help or are a genuine risk, however the current system definitely punishes the honest pilots for getting help they need. And if CASA does not trust all doctors/specialists, why not publish a list of specialists fro the more common things like cardiology, psychiatry and ENTs that are approved so pilots can seek them out.
A lot of pilots I know that have had grounding events such as heart attacks were Class 1 holders for decades prior to the event, the yearly rigmarole and hoops did nothing to prevent the occurrence at all. But AvMed and CASA definitely put hurdles up for their return to flying. Mental health is even worse, there have been numerous pilot suicides (not involving planes), these pilots obviously did not get grounded prior by the system. However AvMed will put up a huge wall of requirements for those pilots who have sought help and treat them like they are suicidal for just having a run of bad days, even when the associated doctor says that the pilot is stable/cured or of no harm they will be required to have an expensive yearly report submitted.
Fair enough have extreme policy for those that have tried to dodge the system and are not getting help or are a genuine risk, however the current system definitely punishes the honest pilots for getting help they need. And if CASA does not trust all doctors/specialists, why not publish a list of specialists fro the more common things like cardiology, psychiatry and ENTs that are approved so pilots can seek them out.
CASA Avmed reckons that the collective brains trust at one of its ‘Complex Case Management Meetings’, informed by their review of studies they’ve googled, makes them better placed than some mere specialist to decide the aeromedical consequences of some condition and what to do about it.
It’s like a bunch of private pilots getting together and, having flown a bunch of heavy metal time on Microsoft Flight Simulator, deciding that they are better placed than someone with a few thousand hours on type to decide the safety implications of something that happened in the cockpit of an aircraft of that type in the real world.
I’ve said it publicly, numerous times: Any idiot with access to the internet can do what Avmed currently does. Google up whatever is available about a ‘condition’, cherry pick the bits about the worst possible consequences of the condition, extrapolate that to an aviation disaster, demand whatever are the ‘biggest and best’ tests in relation to the condition as often as suits Avmed, or simply ‘ground’ the person, and steadfastly disregard any treating specialist opinion to the contrary.
I recently became aware of an applicant who disclosed he’d had a sports injury a while ago and was prescribed pain killers to take while he recovered from the injury. Avmed went ‘full retard’ and required the applicant to provide evidence that he was not addicted to pain killers. As if that response encourages the disclosing of information to Avmed.
It’s like a bunch of private pilots getting together and, having flown a bunch of heavy metal time on Microsoft Flight Simulator, deciding that they are better placed than someone with a few thousand hours on type to decide the safety implications of something that happened in the cockpit of an aircraft of that type in the real world.
I’ve said it publicly, numerous times: Any idiot with access to the internet can do what Avmed currently does. Google up whatever is available about a ‘condition’, cherry pick the bits about the worst possible consequences of the condition, extrapolate that to an aviation disaster, demand whatever are the ‘biggest and best’ tests in relation to the condition as often as suits Avmed, or simply ‘ground’ the person, and steadfastly disregard any treating specialist opinion to the contrary.
I recently became aware of an applicant who disclosed he’d had a sports injury a while ago and was prescribed pain killers to take while he recovered from the injury. Avmed went ‘full retard’ and required the applicant to provide evidence that he was not addicted to pain killers. As if that response encourages the disclosing of information to Avmed.
There was once a story that a pilot had answered the question posed of have you ever seen a psychiatrist?
And he answered truthfully YES he had, and then all hell broke loose and he was grounded.
He HAD seen one, because his poor wife had schizophrenia, and he wanted to learn some strategies from the doctor as to how he could handle her condition more effectively.
And he answered truthfully YES he had, and then all hell broke loose and he was grounded.
He HAD seen one, because his poor wife had schizophrenia, and he wanted to learn some strategies from the doctor as to how he could handle her condition more effectively.
If I consulted an Oncologist about my wife's cancer, I wouldn't put down that I had consulted an oncologist on my medical. Its irrelevant to my medical profile. Im just consulting an expert for advice about someone else's issues.
To be honest, your friend was a bit naive. I hope they got it sorted quickly.
To be honest, your friend was a bit naive. I hope they got it sorted quickly.
The following 2 users liked this post by Balthazar_777:
Something that Australians and AvMed need to get over is that there is thousands of things a psychologist can help you deal with from eating disorders, irrational fears of things like shadows or clowns, fears of going outside or meeting people, to yes suicidal thoughts. The later being the extreme of depression and such. So to have a stupid tick box that wants to know if you've seen a mental health professional which is followed by having to prove you are not suicidal enough to fly a plane into something when you had a fear of cats you are trying to deal with is stupid. Its the same as saying "have you had any flu like symptoms" and then asking the pilot to prove they don't have cancer.
At some point AvMed will admit that at least half of active pilots have some form of mental illness and then what?
Why naive to expect that something that has nothing to do with air safety would ground you? It's more an indication of how stupid the system is that jumps to conclusions that pilots don't know when they are safe to fly or not, when they do that every other day up to a year between AvMed assessments. If they really want a safer industry mandate at least a weeks mental health leave a year and make all sick leave as leave that accrues and needs to be paid out when leaving the company. You will see companies ordering you to take sick leave each year to clear 'liabilities'. No one will need sick certificates or stat decs.
It would be interesting to know of anyone AvMed has grounded that went onto being incapacitated by their conditions vs those that self grounded after finding out themselves. I'm talking about pilots in long term careers that is, not somebody that found out on their first medical attempt. I know a number of pilots who had heart issues only months after aviation class 1 medicals including ECGs which found nothing wrong. Should they possibly sue AvMed for not picking up things that they should have, and could have been fixed prior to the occurrence? Or is AvMed going to admit their medical process is a joke, with no real safety benefit and let pilots take onus of their own health?
At some point AvMed will admit that at least half of active pilots have some form of mental illness and then what?
To be honest, your friend was a bit naive. I hope they got it sorted quickly.
It would be interesting to know of anyone AvMed has grounded that went onto being incapacitated by their conditions vs those that self grounded after finding out themselves. I'm talking about pilots in long term careers that is, not somebody that found out on their first medical attempt. I know a number of pilots who had heart issues only months after aviation class 1 medicals including ECGs which found nothing wrong. Should they possibly sue AvMed for not picking up things that they should have, and could have been fixed prior to the occurrence? Or is AvMed going to admit their medical process is a joke, with no real safety benefit and let pilots take onus of their own health?
"Why naive to expect that something that has nothing to do with air safety would ground you?"
Then why tell them? It's irrelevant. And it's not in the "spirit" of the question. In this case they are asking if you have consulted a psychologist for YOUR medical issues.
But I agree, seeing a psychologist is not a bad thing. Getting help for any mental health issues early is a great and positive idea. CASA need to grow up. Its ok for them to ask more questions, they do that to "fat" me all the time. I just answer them and get my medical. But they should not go overboard and i would hope they have a more mature understanding of the issues.
Then why tell them? It's irrelevant. And it's not in the "spirit" of the question. In this case they are asking if you have consulted a psychologist for YOUR medical issues.
But I agree, seeing a psychologist is not a bad thing. Getting help for any mental health issues early is a great and positive idea. CASA need to grow up. Its ok for them to ask more questions, they do that to "fat" me all the time. I just answer them and get my medical. But they should not go overboard and i would hope they have a more mature understanding of the issues.
The following users liked this post: