CASA CLASS 5 Medical self-declaration - from 9 FEB 2024
Exactly. So if self-declared Class 5 medicals become a thing and are deemed by all to pose no risk to safety vis-a-vis Class 1 and 2, why involve Avmed at all and ditch Class 1 and 2 altogether?
Shouldn't Class 2 Basic be good enough to cover commercial ops and let everyone else go free??
Shouldn't Class 2 Basic be good enough to cover commercial ops and let everyone else go free??
The following users liked this post:
Apart from astronauts, fighter pilots and (maybe) aerobatic pilots, there’s nothing special about ordinary pilots that cannot be comprehended and dealt with by a competent GP. AvMed has created its own faux speciality and club, off the back of ICAO and the cognitive bias of average members of the public.
Objective data is slowly prevailing over damaging AvMed overreach, but there are plenty of egos and pockets milking aviation medical certification. The path to enlightenment continues to be a long, expensive and stressful slog.
(I was looking again at ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6 (medical requirements) the other day and was reminded of gems like paragraphs 6.3.2.6.1, 6.4.2.6.1, 6.5.2.6.1, which say for class 1, class 2 and class 3 respectively:
I’m sure there remain zealots out there who would love to inflict that requirement to the letter in Australia, but fortunately the objective data has (mostly) prevailed.)
Objective data is slowly prevailing over damaging AvMed overreach, but there are plenty of egos and pockets milking aviation medical certification. The path to enlightenment continues to be a long, expensive and stressful slog.
(I was looking again at ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6 (medical requirements) the other day and was reminded of gems like paragraphs 6.3.2.6.1, 6.4.2.6.1, 6.5.2.6.1, which say for class 1, class 2 and class 3 respectively:
Electrocardiography shall be included in re-examination of applicants after the age of 50 no less frequently than every two years.
The following users liked this post:
I think the biggest overlooked problem today is blood pressure medication. The very first thing to go is sensitivity in your feet. I am in no doubt that this medication is responsible for the wrong pedal, too much accelerator events we are experiencing almost every day and at an age we wouldn't normally expect that to occur.
The following users liked this post:
https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and...on#Eligibility
Online applications will open 9 February 2024
There's an online course to do via Aviationworx.
Let's see who gets the first one and how long it takes. I'll be there.
Update 4pm:
Is the CASA online course in Aviationworx available today? NOPE. "Course currently under development"
Will it be there ready to go on Friday? I say "not a chance in hell."
I'll be back here early Friday.
Online applications will open 9 February 2024
There's an online course to do via Aviationworx.
Let's see who gets the first one and how long it takes. I'll be there.
Update 4pm:
Is the CASA online course in Aviationworx available today? NOPE. "Course currently under development"
Will it be there ready to go on Friday? I say "not a chance in hell."
I'll be back here early Friday.
The following users liked this post:
Having completed the course, are you sure you're safe to fly?!? No high blood pressure? Anxiety?? Profuse sweating during the test??
Maybe you need to see a GP.. or I'm sure there are a bundle of under-appreciated DAMEs out there who would be happy to charge you a bucket-load of your hard-earned instead.
Maybe you need to see a GP.. or I'm sure there are a bundle of under-appreciated DAMEs out there who would be happy to charge you a bucket-load of your hard-earned instead.
The following 3 users liked this post by PiperCameron:
The following users liked this post:
There’s 142 pages just published by CASA entitled Guidelines - Medical Assessment for Aviation. Most of it is devoted to exclusions.
One of the obvious is dementia, with a comment that someone with dementia may not realise that they have it. So, how could such an unfortunate pilot self declare fitness to fly?
An observant GP would pick that up in a short conversation.
One of the obvious is dementia, with a comment that someone with dementia may not realise that they have it. So, how could such an unfortunate pilot self declare fitness to fly?
An observant GP would pick that up in a short conversation.
There’s 142 pages just published by CASA entitled Guidelines - Medical Assessment for Aviation. Most of it is devoted to exclusions.
One of the obvious is dementia, with a comment that someone with dementia may not realise that they have it. So, how could such an unfortunate pilot self declare fitness to fly?
An observant GP would pick that up in a short conversation.
One of the obvious is dementia, with a comment that someone with dementia may not realise that they have it. So, how could such an unfortunate pilot self declare fitness to fly?
An observant GP would pick that up in a short conversation.
BTW I know of at least one pilot who was flying with dementia, class one medical and chief pilot. It took several months of reports and a lost airplane (he forgot where he left it) to get his medical pulled.
Among the many illogical aspects of an endeavour that should be driven by pure logic and cold data is the assumption that compulsory medical examinations are the primary way in which risks caused by medical conditions are 'trapped' and, conversely, that having identified some 'exclusionary' condition in a person, the person is somehow prevented from flying. How is someone with dementia capable of remembering and carrying out all of what's necessary to commit aviation? Assuming someone with dementia has enough remaining capacity to be dangerous, how does identifying their condition (and even revoking their medical certificate if they have one) of itself stop the person doing dangerous things with aircraft?
The substantive 'trap' for risks caused by medical conditions is personal responsibility and checking and training and flight reviews and colleagues and family and friends and other contextual factors. An observant GP would indeed pick up a patient with dementia in a short conversation, but in most cases the GP (or DAME) will be the last person in the patient's life to find that out. In circumstances in which those contextual factors are lacking, no medical examination or certificate revocation is going to stop someone from flying if they are minded to, whether due to demented confusion or clear headed intent. There are people who go flying, deliberately, without the medical certificate required by law. Most of them survive, and the ones that don't survive usually spear in through a lack of competence rather than some medical condition.
The substantive 'trap' for risks caused by medical conditions is personal responsibility and checking and training and flight reviews and colleagues and family and friends and other contextual factors. An observant GP would indeed pick up a patient with dementia in a short conversation, but in most cases the GP (or DAME) will be the last person in the patient's life to find that out. In circumstances in which those contextual factors are lacking, no medical examination or certificate revocation is going to stop someone from flying if they are minded to, whether due to demented confusion or clear headed intent. There are people who go flying, deliberately, without the medical certificate required by law. Most of them survive, and the ones that don't survive usually spear in through a lack of competence rather than some medical condition.
Yep, a dementia sufferer could simply forget they have no medical and go flying in their own airplane even with mandated medicals. If you were to tighten medical requirements because of the extremely rare events of non compliance, then you end up like speed limits. That is, a stretch of road has several high speed accidents where cars traveling in excess of 200kph crash and cause deaths, so the limit is reduced from 100kph to 80kph. Will that have any effect on the road toll, no, because if the rate of excessive speeders remains the same on that stretch there will still be accidents. Or totally unrelated the excessive speeders may have already killed themselves so a reduction of deaths occurs on that stretch with no relation to the limit.
My primary concern with the current class 1 and 2 certification systems is the perverse incentive not to tell CASA anything or - worse - not to seek medical advice when in doubt, for fear of CASA's damaging overreaction if it finds out. Ms Spence said, straight-faced to a Senate Committee, that she believes no such incentive exists. Her PMO is aware of studies of thousands of pilots that demonstrate otherwise.
Yep, a dementia sufferer could simply forget they have no medical and go flying in their own airplane even with mandated medicals. If you were to tighten medical requirements because of the extremely rare events of non compliance, then you end up like speed limits. That is, a stretch of road has several high speed accidents where cars traveling in excess of 200kph crash and cause deaths, so the limit is reduced from 100kph to 80kph. Will that have any effect on the road toll, no, because if the rate of excessive speeders remains the same on that stretch there will still be accidents. Or totally unrelated the excessive speeders may have already killed themselves so a reduction of deaths occurs on that stretch with no relation to the limit.
The following users liked this post:
My primary concern with the current class 1 and 2 certification systems is the perverse incentive not to tell CASA anything or - worse - not to seek medical advice when in doubt, for fear of CASA's damaging overreaction if it finds out. Ms Spence said, straight-faced to a Senate Committee, that she believes no such incentive exists. Her PMO is aware of studies of thousands of pilots that demonstrate otherwise.
The following users liked this post:
Before every medical renewal I anticipate that something new and crazy will come out of ‘left field’ and, true to form, AvMed delivered again: The new question about the applicant’s ethnicity.
When CVDPA met with CASA to discuss AvMed’s return to the dark ages on colour vision deficiency, we touched on the unrelated issue of the ethnicity question. The PMO said that the question was about the assessment of the applicant’s cardio-vascular disease risk – ironically, another ‘CVD’ – and that the question was voluntary. When I asked what the consequences would be to the assessment if an applicant chose not to answer, I don’t recall getting a precise answer.
Last Tuesday I went to the DAME for my medical certificate renewal examination. At the point at which the DAME asked the new ethnicity question in the MRS, I said:
“I find that question offensive. What if I don’t answer it?”
The DAME said:
“Then we can’t finish the questionnaire and renew your certificate.”
There was nothing on the MRS screen stating or even hinting that the question is voluntary. And given that there was nothing on the MRS screen to that effect, it’s unsurprising that there was also nothing about the implications of not answering.
I am therefore not surprised at the DAME’s interpretation in the circumstances. The DAME proceeded to guess my ethnicity and answer the question for me.
The answer to the question, or a non-answer, must affect CASA’s assessment of the applicant’s cardio-vascular disease risk, otherwise asking the question would be a nonsense. In short, CASA will assess otherwise identical applicants (age, sex etc) as having different cardio-vascular risks on the basis of ethnicity alone. Therefore, the outcome must be that some applicants will, for example, be required to undergo tests that otherwise identical applicants would not be required to undergo, because of the applicant’s ethnicity.
My amateur research of Australian aviation accident and incident data does not indicate that pilots of particular ethnicities had a higher rate of accidents or incidents due to undetected cardio-vascular disease in the many decades before the ethnicity question was added to AvMed’s questionnaire. My amateur research of studies of cardio-vascular disease risk indicate that there are no biological differences between different ethnicities which cause different cardiovascular disease risk. There’s a correlation, because in many societies ethnic minorities end up in deprived socio-economic circumstances – unemployed, bad diet, substance abuse, inadequate or no medical care – which circumstances are the actual cause of cardiac disease. I’ll leave all that to the Australian Human Rights Commission to consider.
Meanwhile, my FOI request for access to documents recording how the different answers to the ethnicity question affect CASA’s assessment of applicants’ cardio-vascular disease risk returned no documents. Presumably the MRS was changed on ‘a nod and wink’, just like there’s no record of the decision - or of the implementation of the decision - to delete the offensive material from the appalling and now disappeared AvMed Form 420 about ASD and ADHD.
And just like there’s no record that CASA can find of the CAD ever having been determined as a ‘third tier’ colour vision test by someone with the power to do that, despite the CAD being used to destroy careers and career aspirations for years. The CAD has now been disappeared as a purported ‘third tier’ test, with no replacement, which means CASA is now preventing applicants with colour vision deficiency from complying with the CASRs which prescribe the means by which compliance with the colour vision criterion in the medical standard must be demonstrated. Read that twice: CASA is now preventing people from complying with CASR, by not doing its one job on CVD, which is to determine one or more tests that simulate an operational situation for the purposes of CASRs 67.150(6)(c) and 67.155(6)(c).
CASA’s response to my FOI request also revealed that the decision to add the ethnicity question was not made by any individual but was instead the “consensus” of senior medical officers at their annual group hug. There’s a novel approach to regulatory decision-making: Have a vote.
You couldn’t make this stuff up. But it’s what happens when regulatory authorities are left to their own devices for decades.
When CVDPA met with CASA to discuss AvMed’s return to the dark ages on colour vision deficiency, we touched on the unrelated issue of the ethnicity question. The PMO said that the question was about the assessment of the applicant’s cardio-vascular disease risk – ironically, another ‘CVD’ – and that the question was voluntary. When I asked what the consequences would be to the assessment if an applicant chose not to answer, I don’t recall getting a precise answer.
Last Tuesday I went to the DAME for my medical certificate renewal examination. At the point at which the DAME asked the new ethnicity question in the MRS, I said:
“I find that question offensive. What if I don’t answer it?”
The DAME said:
“Then we can’t finish the questionnaire and renew your certificate.”
There was nothing on the MRS screen stating or even hinting that the question is voluntary. And given that there was nothing on the MRS screen to that effect, it’s unsurprising that there was also nothing about the implications of not answering.
I am therefore not surprised at the DAME’s interpretation in the circumstances. The DAME proceeded to guess my ethnicity and answer the question for me.
The answer to the question, or a non-answer, must affect CASA’s assessment of the applicant’s cardio-vascular disease risk, otherwise asking the question would be a nonsense. In short, CASA will assess otherwise identical applicants (age, sex etc) as having different cardio-vascular risks on the basis of ethnicity alone. Therefore, the outcome must be that some applicants will, for example, be required to undergo tests that otherwise identical applicants would not be required to undergo, because of the applicant’s ethnicity.
My amateur research of Australian aviation accident and incident data does not indicate that pilots of particular ethnicities had a higher rate of accidents or incidents due to undetected cardio-vascular disease in the many decades before the ethnicity question was added to AvMed’s questionnaire. My amateur research of studies of cardio-vascular disease risk indicate that there are no biological differences between different ethnicities which cause different cardiovascular disease risk. There’s a correlation, because in many societies ethnic minorities end up in deprived socio-economic circumstances – unemployed, bad diet, substance abuse, inadequate or no medical care – which circumstances are the actual cause of cardiac disease. I’ll leave all that to the Australian Human Rights Commission to consider.
Meanwhile, my FOI request for access to documents recording how the different answers to the ethnicity question affect CASA’s assessment of applicants’ cardio-vascular disease risk returned no documents. Presumably the MRS was changed on ‘a nod and wink’, just like there’s no record of the decision - or of the implementation of the decision - to delete the offensive material from the appalling and now disappeared AvMed Form 420 about ASD and ADHD.
And just like there’s no record that CASA can find of the CAD ever having been determined as a ‘third tier’ colour vision test by someone with the power to do that, despite the CAD being used to destroy careers and career aspirations for years. The CAD has now been disappeared as a purported ‘third tier’ test, with no replacement, which means CASA is now preventing applicants with colour vision deficiency from complying with the CASRs which prescribe the means by which compliance with the colour vision criterion in the medical standard must be demonstrated. Read that twice: CASA is now preventing people from complying with CASR, by not doing its one job on CVD, which is to determine one or more tests that simulate an operational situation for the purposes of CASRs 67.150(6)(c) and 67.155(6)(c).
CASA’s response to my FOI request also revealed that the decision to add the ethnicity question was not made by any individual but was instead the “consensus” of senior medical officers at their annual group hug. There’s a novel approach to regulatory decision-making: Have a vote.
You couldn’t make this stuff up. But it’s what happens when regulatory authorities are left to their own devices for decades.
The following users liked this post:
What if you identify as Chinese, and female even if your ethnicty is actually Inuit and you were born a biological male and have had no hormone treatment nor surgery?
Can the DAME override your choice of ethnicity and gender?
So many ethical and moral questions to ponder.
Not sure if I can cope.
Mick
Can the DAME override your choice of ethnicity and gender?
So many ethical and moral questions to ponder.
Not sure if I can cope.
Mick
The following users liked this post:
You'd have to ask CASA, but don't expect an answer.
In the wake of the addition of the ethnicity question, I wrote to CASA and asked:
The AvMed questionnaire is, after all, supposed to be about safety risk assessment, isn't it?
Unsurprisingly, silence continues to be the stern reply.
And for the record, my view is that those questions, and the ethnicity question, are offensive, unnecessary and probably unlawful if - as seems to be the inevitable consequence of the different answers to the ethnicity question - otherwise identical applicants are assessed as having different cardio-vascular disease risks and subjected to different testing requirements/certificate conditions/refusal to certify because of the applicants' different answers to the question.
In the wake of the addition of the ethnicity question, I wrote to CASA and asked:
Given the legion of studies which have produced data showing that sexual minority groups are at greater risk of suicidality than heterosexuals, when will CASA add questions about an applicant’s sexual preferences and gender identity to the medical certificate application questionnaire?
Unsurprisingly, silence continues to be the stern reply.
And for the record, my view is that those questions, and the ethnicity question, are offensive, unnecessary and probably unlawful if - as seems to be the inevitable consequence of the different answers to the ethnicity question - otherwise identical applicants are assessed as having different cardio-vascular disease risks and subjected to different testing requirements/certificate conditions/refusal to certify because of the applicants' different answers to the question.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
Class 5 requires no check-up with any medical professional of any kind - not even a GP! I realise that's the same as RAAus, but isn't this a step too far? Perhaps designed to fail so CASA can say to GA in general "we gave you what you asked for and look what happened!"??
That's like trusting a truck driver to not be sleep-deprived and high on drugs before he crashes, killing four police officers... but never mind. Let's go!
The following users liked this post:
Meanwhile overseas. UK PMD allows you to self certify in aircraft up to 5700kg (additional restrictions for above 2000kg) and carry up to 3 passengers (4 on board). USA BasicMed allows self certification up to 2700kg and 5 passengers (6 on board). And we argue about the pittance that CASA/AvMed throw at us as possibly being to loose? Again another example of Aussies making life hard for themselves, when places like the USA with an aviation industry size and density so far higher than us it's just pathetic how tight our laws are.
The following 4 users liked this post by 43Inches:
Thread Starter
There's another insidious thing or seven in CASA medicals Clint, more "do not pass go, do not collect $200":
Applicant's declarations: I authorise:
1. CASA to seek medical information in relation to me from any medical practitioner who has treated me, from medicare health records, and so on.
There is no option to proceed with your application without agreeing to this. Is that some sort of blackmail or coercion?
And what happened to Doctor-patient confidentiality?
I'm sure if any doctor was asked by CASA "giz a look at their file" would say - "you know what, how does NO sound?"
I'm sure the Dr would ask your consent to hand it over first, to which you'd say "you know what, how does NO sound?"
What happens then? Or if the doctor says sure CASA, but let me prepare an estimate for you, or, MY costs will be $300 an hour to do this for you, (seek patient permission) with a minimum 4 hours payable. Cash or Card?
And the next one:
All information provided by me in this application is true and correct and that I have read and understood the Guidelines – Medical Assessment for Aviation and the operational limitations.
These guidelines are 142 pages long and the only ethnicity mention (but not by that word) is the acknowledgement of country.
I very much doubt declaring your "ethnicity" is a criteria within CASR Part 67. Just like declaring your height and weight isn't in there either (last time I looked).
Applicant's declarations: I authorise:
1. CASA to seek medical information in relation to me from any medical practitioner who has treated me, from medicare health records, and so on.
There is no option to proceed with your application without agreeing to this. Is that some sort of blackmail or coercion?
And what happened to Doctor-patient confidentiality?
I'm sure if any doctor was asked by CASA "giz a look at their file" would say - "you know what, how does NO sound?"
I'm sure the Dr would ask your consent to hand it over first, to which you'd say "you know what, how does NO sound?"
What happens then? Or if the doctor says sure CASA, but let me prepare an estimate for you, or, MY costs will be $300 an hour to do this for you, (seek patient permission) with a minimum 4 hours payable. Cash or Card?
And the next one:
All information provided by me in this application is true and correct and that I have read and understood the Guidelines – Medical Assessment for Aviation and the operational limitations.
These guidelines are 142 pages long and the only ethnicity mention (but not by that word) is the acknowledgement of country.
I very much doubt declaring your "ethnicity" is a criteria within CASR Part 67. Just like declaring your height and weight isn't in there either (last time I looked).