Take two Ritalin and ...
Thread Starter
Take two Ritalin and ...
CASA gets it wrong on Ritalin-taking pilot, finds tribunal
By ROBYN IRONSIDE AVIATION WRITER
4:46PM NOVEMBER 6, 2023
Australia’s aviation regulator has been reprimanded for denying a pilot medical clearance to fly because he is taking Ritalin for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Melbourne’s Oliver Nam was diagnosed with ADHD three years ago, and prescribed 40mg Ritalin a day to treat the condition.
The 35-year-old holds private and commercial pilot licences but was refused the class 1 and class 2 medical certificates required to operate aircraft in Australia, in late 2021.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard the Civil Aviation Safety Authority based its decision on the fact Mr Nam was using Ritalin, rather than his diagnosis of ADHD.
“Prior to his having been diagnosed with, and being treated with Ritalin for ADHD in 2020, Mr Nam had demonstrated significant air navigation skills,” the tribunal noted.
“According to CASA, Mr Nam was able to ‘obtain his pilots licence in record time’ and is a highly gifted individual with exceptional cognitive performance.”
It was not the ADHD diagnosis that concerned CASA which was considered “mild” but the use of Ritalin which was regarded as “the showstopper”, the tribunal heard.
CASA identified that the “potential side effects” of Ritalin use included anxiety, irritability, insomnia, dizziness, aggression, rapid heart beat, psychosis and fatigue masking.
Dr Michael Atherton, a CASA-designated mental health expert, said it was “well recognised in aviation circles that amphetamine-based medications have potential side effects, and these side effects potentially could lead to safety issues”.
“Medications such as amphetamines can affect perception, motor and cognitive skills and importantly, it is also harder for those using stimulants such as amphetamines to understand and have self awareness of when they are feeling tired,” Dr Atherton said.
Evidence was presented by psychiatrist David Tofler, Mr Nam initially experienced some anxiety along with headaches and a dry mouth when he began taking Ritalin, but these ceased when the dosage was adjusted.
In addition, neuropsychologist Robert Bourke found that “while medicated on Ritalin, Mr Nam had entirely normal and extremely high-level cognitive abilities”.
In their ruling, AAT members Chris Furnell and Stephen Lewinsky found CASA’s decision was based on the possibility of Mr Nam suffering side effects, rather than the reality.
“It was said (by CASA) that Mr Nam ought to be considered to experience side effects, if Ritalin had the potential to cause side effects for anyone,” said Mr Furnell and Dr Lewinsky.
“While it is appropriate to err on the side of caution when construing Civil Aviation Safety regulations … this does not constitute a licence for decision makers to ignore the plain meaning of the words used in the regulations.”
In conclusion, Mr Furnell and Dr Lewinsky ruled they were not satisfied that Mr Nam had not met the criteria required by CASA for the relevant medical certificates.
As a result, they ordered the original decision be set aside, and for CASA to reconsider Mr Nam’s application.
In doing so, CASA was instructed that Mr Nam “not be considered to have failed to satisfy the safety relevant condition criterion or the medication criterion by reason of his ADHD, his use of Ritalin or a combination thereof”.
A CASA spokeswoman said they were reviewing the AAT’s decision in Mr Lam’s case.
“We are committed to finding ways to support as many people as possible to be able to fly safely,” she said.
By ROBYN IRONSIDE AVIATION WRITER
4:46PM NOVEMBER 6, 2023
Australia’s aviation regulator has been reprimanded for denying a pilot medical clearance to fly because he is taking Ritalin for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Melbourne’s Oliver Nam was diagnosed with ADHD three years ago, and prescribed 40mg Ritalin a day to treat the condition.
The 35-year-old holds private and commercial pilot licences but was refused the class 1 and class 2 medical certificates required to operate aircraft in Australia, in late 2021.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard the Civil Aviation Safety Authority based its decision on the fact Mr Nam was using Ritalin, rather than his diagnosis of ADHD.
“Prior to his having been diagnosed with, and being treated with Ritalin for ADHD in 2020, Mr Nam had demonstrated significant air navigation skills,” the tribunal noted.
“According to CASA, Mr Nam was able to ‘obtain his pilots licence in record time’ and is a highly gifted individual with exceptional cognitive performance.”
It was not the ADHD diagnosis that concerned CASA which was considered “mild” but the use of Ritalin which was regarded as “the showstopper”, the tribunal heard.
CASA identified that the “potential side effects” of Ritalin use included anxiety, irritability, insomnia, dizziness, aggression, rapid heart beat, psychosis and fatigue masking.
Dr Michael Atherton, a CASA-designated mental health expert, said it was “well recognised in aviation circles that amphetamine-based medications have potential side effects, and these side effects potentially could lead to safety issues”.
“Medications such as amphetamines can affect perception, motor and cognitive skills and importantly, it is also harder for those using stimulants such as amphetamines to understand and have self awareness of when they are feeling tired,” Dr Atherton said.
Evidence was presented by psychiatrist David Tofler, Mr Nam initially experienced some anxiety along with headaches and a dry mouth when he began taking Ritalin, but these ceased when the dosage was adjusted.
In addition, neuropsychologist Robert Bourke found that “while medicated on Ritalin, Mr Nam had entirely normal and extremely high-level cognitive abilities”.
In their ruling, AAT members Chris Furnell and Stephen Lewinsky found CASA’s decision was based on the possibility of Mr Nam suffering side effects, rather than the reality.
“It was said (by CASA) that Mr Nam ought to be considered to experience side effects, if Ritalin had the potential to cause side effects for anyone,” said Mr Furnell and Dr Lewinsky.
“While it is appropriate to err on the side of caution when construing Civil Aviation Safety regulations … this does not constitute a licence for decision makers to ignore the plain meaning of the words used in the regulations.”
In conclusion, Mr Furnell and Dr Lewinsky ruled they were not satisfied that Mr Nam had not met the criteria required by CASA for the relevant medical certificates.
As a result, they ordered the original decision be set aside, and for CASA to reconsider Mr Nam’s application.
In doing so, CASA was instructed that Mr Nam “not be considered to have failed to satisfy the safety relevant condition criterion or the medication criterion by reason of his ADHD, his use of Ritalin or a combination thereof”.
A CASA spokeswoman said they were reviewing the AAT’s decision in Mr Lam’s case.
“We are committed to finding ways to support as many people as possible to be able to fly safely,” she said.
Apart from anything else I'd be just a little concerned that the "CASA-designated mental health expert" seemed to think that Ritalin is an amphetamine-based medication. He seems to be confusing it with Adderall.
It is a benzylpiperidine I believe, not an amphetamine.
Where do they find these experts?!
Well done Mr Nam
Where do they find these experts?!
Well done Mr Nam
Last edited by Clare Prop; 6th Nov 2023 at 10:23.
Thread Starter
Another refreshingly objective decision by the AAT.
The current crop of zealots in AvMed will ignore these words from the Tribunal's decision, but every AvMed guinea pig should mark their significance:
AvMed doesn't care about the plain meaning of the words used in CASR, if that meaning is getting in the way of AvMed's noble cause. It's what pilots with CVD are up against .... yet again.
I anticipate that CASA's 'reconsideration' of the decision set aside by the AAT in guinea pig pilot Tam's case will result in a long and expensive journey for Tam. It's in the interests of the safety of air navigation for AvMed to put him through that because ... AvMed can put Tam through that torture. AvMed's better and knows better than everyone else. Just ask them.
The current crop of zealots in AvMed will ignore these words from the Tribunal's decision, but every AvMed guinea pig should mark their significance:
While, as mentioned earlier, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution when construing CASR, the importance attributed to the safety of air navigation in the legislative context does not constitute a licence for decision makers to ignore the plain meaning of the words used in CASR.
I anticipate that CASA's 'reconsideration' of the decision set aside by the AAT in guinea pig pilot Tam's case will result in a long and expensive journey for Tam. It's in the interests of the safety of air navigation for AvMed to put him through that because ... AvMed can put Tam through that torture. AvMed's better and knows better than everyone else. Just ask them.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 6th Nov 2023 at 08:49.
The following users liked this post:
In their ruling, AAT members Chris Furnell and Stephen Lewinsky found CASA’s decision was based on the possibility of Mr Nam suffering side effects, rather than the reality.
(although I don't believe AAT cases can be used as precedents?)
It'll be interesting to see if/when/what happens when he next applies. Anyone know the bloke personally?
CS: The general practice of the federal government is to treat AAT decisions as precedents when it suits, and treat them as sui generis when it doesn’t suit.
The most recent and particularly egregious example is the treatment of Rex Patrick’s FOI applications for access to documents considered by the ‘National Cabinet’, which is actually an inter-governmental meeting. The original refusal to give access to the documents was on basis of an exclusion from disclosure of documents of the Federal Cabinet. Patrick sought AAT review and the AAT found that the ‘National Cabinet’ is not the, or part of, the Federal Cabinet whose deliberations are excluded from disclosure. The federal government then proceeded to insist that Patrick go through the same review process for all of the (refused) FOI applications for access to other documents of the ‘National Cabinet’.
During ‘Robodebt’ a troublesome AAT member who kept pointing out that ‘income averaging’ was not a lawful basis on which to raise debts against welfare recipients was not re-appointed. The government kept saying that some AAT decisions went one way and others went the other, while sedulously avoiding any appeal to the Federal Court to resolve the question.
Dr Arthur Pape’s application to the AAT about CVD back in the 80s was actually treated as a ‘test case’ and publicly funded on that basis, given the evident implications for the interests of the substantial number of people with CVD in the population. These days CASA insists on treating every CVD pilot as unique, requiring each of them to go through the same protracted, expensive and stressful process. Ditto the broader pilot population. CASA’s behaviour is designed to make external review as difficult, expensive and stressful as possible for individuals.
And it doesn’t matter how many times the AAT has told CASA not to trot out AvMed doctors to purport to give expert opinion evidence about the substance of their own decisions. They just keep trying it on. Because they can. And they treat the AAT with disdain.
The most recent and particularly egregious example is the treatment of Rex Patrick’s FOI applications for access to documents considered by the ‘National Cabinet’, which is actually an inter-governmental meeting. The original refusal to give access to the documents was on basis of an exclusion from disclosure of documents of the Federal Cabinet. Patrick sought AAT review and the AAT found that the ‘National Cabinet’ is not the, or part of, the Federal Cabinet whose deliberations are excluded from disclosure. The federal government then proceeded to insist that Patrick go through the same review process for all of the (refused) FOI applications for access to other documents of the ‘National Cabinet’.
During ‘Robodebt’ a troublesome AAT member who kept pointing out that ‘income averaging’ was not a lawful basis on which to raise debts against welfare recipients was not re-appointed. The government kept saying that some AAT decisions went one way and others went the other, while sedulously avoiding any appeal to the Federal Court to resolve the question.
Dr Arthur Pape’s application to the AAT about CVD back in the 80s was actually treated as a ‘test case’ and publicly funded on that basis, given the evident implications for the interests of the substantial number of people with CVD in the population. These days CASA insists on treating every CVD pilot as unique, requiring each of them to go through the same protracted, expensive and stressful process. Ditto the broader pilot population. CASA’s behaviour is designed to make external review as difficult, expensive and stressful as possible for individuals.
And it doesn’t matter how many times the AAT has told CASA not to trot out AvMed doctors to purport to give expert opinion evidence about the substance of their own decisions. They just keep trying it on. Because they can. And they treat the AAT with disdain.
The following users liked this post:
