CASA CLASS 5 Medical self-declaration - from 9 FEB 2024
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).
Instead we still have CASA’s hands all over this.
I am reminded of that ancient Chinese curse: “Be careful what you wish for….”
The following users liked this post:
C5, the reform when you are not having one.
C5, perhaps the most stupid ‘reform’ you could imagine, is based, according to Ms. Spence, on the success of RAAUS 40 years no problem. No mention of GFA 70 yr plus.
And she says it’s a ‘world first?’ How can you quote 40 yr RAAUS, currently c. 10,000 members, with no medicals to justify your ‘world first?’
It beggars belief.
Next look at 2000kg, you can fly your early model (just under 2000kg) C337 but not the later models just over. Seneca 1 but not the later model Senecas. Beech twin TravelAir but not your Baron, nearly identical systems.
But then really blow your mind you own a four or six seater and you can only carry 2POB. Why? Because RAAUS doesn’t crash due medical incapacitation and that must surely be due to only having 2POB.
By the way your four and six seat aircraft are less useful and therefore to some extent devalued.
This really is all so logical as long as you don’t think about it.
More ramifications for GA :- disincentive for IFR training and IFR X-country flights therefore more VFR into IMC accidents. Less work for instructors and flying schools, less experience in the safest form of flying which is the IFR environment.
Similarly C5 bans formation flying and aerobatics, again disincentive to improve skills.
And according comment here CASA require to access all you medical records. Question, what about human rights to privacy? Can ‘Big Brother’ ever be satisfied? Imagine all your records, over maybe 60 years, and allowing AVMED to troll through the lot. It’s obscene and there’s zero evidence that aviation specific medical examinations make one iota of difference to the safety of flight. Yes you might have instance of medical help to an handful of individuals.
The previous ‘reform,’ the C2 Basic was supposed to be the answer to the USA’s BasicMed. Read the fine print and note that ‘unconditional’ heavy commercial vehicle means that you can drive a truck load of avgas through any city on your conditional truck licence but not fly your Cessna privately with a Basic C2.
That makes sense doesn’t it? My head is being done in again.
If medical incapacitation is such a threat why not at least the same treatment to the drivers of motor vehicles? Surely we are all at far more risk on our crowded roads than flying over mostly sparsely populated areas?
You have to be disgusted at what CASA has done to GA, I’ve watched hundreds of flying schools and charter operators go out of business Australia wide. I see airline pilots come in on 457 visas. Aviation engineering and manufacturing go O/S and thousands of Aussie pilots squeezing into 600kg AUW RAAUS aircraft, not because those aircraft are suited to Australian conditions, but because there’s no AVMAD medicals.
Yes I know that RAAUS is going up to 760kg and it would be better not to have the weight and administration split, the whole lot should be through a Department of Government which follows the democratic principle of responsible government in the Westminster system.
And she says it’s a ‘world first?’ How can you quote 40 yr RAAUS, currently c. 10,000 members, with no medicals to justify your ‘world first?’
It beggars belief.
Next look at 2000kg, you can fly your early model (just under 2000kg) C337 but not the later models just over. Seneca 1 but not the later model Senecas. Beech twin TravelAir but not your Baron, nearly identical systems.
But then really blow your mind you own a four or six seater and you can only carry 2POB. Why? Because RAAUS doesn’t crash due medical incapacitation and that must surely be due to only having 2POB.
By the way your four and six seat aircraft are less useful and therefore to some extent devalued.
This really is all so logical as long as you don’t think about it.
More ramifications for GA :- disincentive for IFR training and IFR X-country flights therefore more VFR into IMC accidents. Less work for instructors and flying schools, less experience in the safest form of flying which is the IFR environment.
Similarly C5 bans formation flying and aerobatics, again disincentive to improve skills.
And according comment here CASA require to access all you medical records. Question, what about human rights to privacy? Can ‘Big Brother’ ever be satisfied? Imagine all your records, over maybe 60 years, and allowing AVMED to troll through the lot. It’s obscene and there’s zero evidence that aviation specific medical examinations make one iota of difference to the safety of flight. Yes you might have instance of medical help to an handful of individuals.
The previous ‘reform,’ the C2 Basic was supposed to be the answer to the USA’s BasicMed. Read the fine print and note that ‘unconditional’ heavy commercial vehicle means that you can drive a truck load of avgas through any city on your conditional truck licence but not fly your Cessna privately with a Basic C2.
That makes sense doesn’t it? My head is being done in again.
If medical incapacitation is such a threat why not at least the same treatment to the drivers of motor vehicles? Surely we are all at far more risk on our crowded roads than flying over mostly sparsely populated areas?
You have to be disgusted at what CASA has done to GA, I’ve watched hundreds of flying schools and charter operators go out of business Australia wide. I see airline pilots come in on 457 visas. Aviation engineering and manufacturing go O/S and thousands of Aussie pilots squeezing into 600kg AUW RAAUS aircraft, not because those aircraft are suited to Australian conditions, but because there’s no AVMAD medicals.
Yes I know that RAAUS is going up to 760kg and it would be better not to have the weight and administration split, the whole lot should be through a Department of Government which follows the democratic principle of responsible government in the Westminster system.
Not to mention that hundreds maybe thousands of qualified Australian pilots are heading to the USA because the American system values their skills. The fact that we have airline pilots brought in on 457 visas while Australia is hemorrhaging pilots to the USA is utterly disgusting. Whenever we have airlines crying about "pilot shortages" in the media, someone ought to rebut them with this inconvenient truth.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
(a) We are all presumptive liars so far as CASA AvMed is concerned. I am aware of cases in which medical practitioners involved in Basic Class 2 have been called by CASA AvMed to check whether the candidate had told the medical practitioner about some particular issue which CASA AvMed considered to be some dreadful risk.
(b) CASA AvMed wants to be in a position to second guess everyone, because CASA AvMed has grandiose delusions of superior expertise. (CASA AvMed has been encouraged in these delusions, through the CASA executive's failure to impose adequate governance around AvMed's activities.)
There is no option to proceed with your application without agreeing to this.
Pilot health
Pilot health would improve markedly through lack of stress if AVMED was abolished. Car driver standard is sufficient.
Safety of commercial flight would, if anything, improve due to increased competition by virtue of ease of entry and lower cost of training if the CASA regulatory environment was better standardised to the USA, logical, timely and at lower cost.
Reform can only happen if CASA is moved into a Department of Government.
Safety of commercial flight would, if anything, improve due to increased competition by virtue of ease of entry and lower cost of training if the CASA regulatory environment was better standardised to the USA, logical, timely and at lower cost.
Reform can only happen if CASA is moved into a Department of Government.
Pilot health would improve markedly through lack of stress if AVMED was abolished. Car driver standard is sufficient.
Safety of commercial flight would, if anything, improve due to increased competition by virtue of ease of entry and lower cost of training if the CASA regulatory environment was better standardised to the USA, logical, timely and at lower cost.
Safety of commercial flight would, if anything, improve due to increased competition by virtue of ease of entry and lower cost of training if the CASA regulatory environment was better standardised to the USA, logical, timely and at lower cost.
Not the solution in the current socio-political context, IMO.
On the issue of 'consent', I've complained to the OAIC about CASA's use of our sensitive medical information in studies. (You know that we 'acknowledge' that it happens each time we complete our medical applications/renewals/examinations, don't you.) CASA says it's allowed to do that, because the information is 'deidentified'.
I made an FOI request for access to documents showing CASA's procedures for de-identification, records of audits of compliance with those procedures and of 'penetration testing' of the system, consistent with OAIC guidance. Not a single document was produced. We are talking here about the most sensitive of our personal information: medical information.
And this assumes CASA's functions include doing or arranging medical studies using the information. I can't find that function in the CA Act. My fitness to fly is not affected by what CASA does with the information I submit.
But CASA doesn't care. We're just AvMed guinea pigs.
Have a look at what the DVA was discovered to have been doing with veterans' information, and the dishonest way in which DVA responded: Government shared veterans’ confidential medical data
I made an FOI request for access to documents showing CASA's procedures for de-identification, records of audits of compliance with those procedures and of 'penetration testing' of the system, consistent with OAIC guidance. Not a single document was produced. We are talking here about the most sensitive of our personal information: medical information.
And this assumes CASA's functions include doing or arranging medical studies using the information. I can't find that function in the CA Act. My fitness to fly is not affected by what CASA does with the information I submit.
But CASA doesn't care. We're just AvMed guinea pigs.
Have a look at what the DVA was discovered to have been doing with veterans' information, and the dishonest way in which DVA responded: Government shared veterans’ confidential medical data
The following 4 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
Meanwhile, the lack of corporate integrity at the Bureau of Meteorology has been revealed in the Federal Circuit Court, in this judgment. Key paras of the judgment:
Dr Stone’s evidence is dealt with further on in this judgment. [Dr Stone is the BoM’s ‘Chief Customer Officer’ and ‘Group Executive Business Solutions.] The Court found his evidence unsatisfactory and not credible or reliable. He sought to explain away issues with his evidence. His explanations were unconvincing. The lack of credibility of Dr Stone’s evidence however not only impacts upon his evidence. It impacts on the entire narrative being put forward by the Bureau. It invites negative findings as to the whole of the narrative, despite the evidence of other witnesses.
...
...
In his oral evidence Dr Stone was an unsatisfactory witness. When pressed, he acknowledged that at [28] of his first Affidavit was untrue, when he said there was “no decision to be made about recruiting or not recruiting”. However, the Court is satisfied that the claim by Dr Stone that until after 1 July 2021 he did not have a budget for the GM-IR role and that was the reason for continually delaying recruitment action was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
...
Dr Stone had worked with Dr Johnson [the BoM’s CEO] for an extended period of time (approximately 15 years) and had followed Dr Stone from the CSIRO to the Bureau. Given the close and detailed style of management that I have found was exercised by Dr Johnson, it is inconceivable that Dr Stone would have taken any action in relation to the applicant without the knowledge and approval of Dr Johnson. The lack of credibility in relation to the majority of Dr Stone’s evidence, in the Court’s view, must be considered when considering the denials of Dr Johnson that the applicant’s exercise a workplace rights was not a substantial and operative factor in the adverse action that was taken against the applicant. This view is supported further by the failure of the Bureau to take reasonable steps to assign the applicant new duties or to allocate her to a lower classification position with income maintenance.
The Court is reasonably satisfied that the redeployment action was taken with the aim of managing the applicant out of the Bureau. That decision not to map the applicant to the position of GMID was taken by Dr Johnson (Transcript 1 November 2023, page 672). The decision reflected a desire to manage the applicant out of the Bureau. It was taken because she was a difficult senior employee who had actively and successfully exercised her workplace rights. On the available evidence, the Court is not satisfied that the Bureau has rebutted the evidentiary presumption contained within s 361 of the Act.
...
Dr Stone had worked with Dr Johnson [the BoM’s CEO] for an extended period of time (approximately 15 years) and had followed Dr Stone from the CSIRO to the Bureau. Given the close and detailed style of management that I have found was exercised by Dr Johnson, it is inconceivable that Dr Stone would have taken any action in relation to the applicant without the knowledge and approval of Dr Johnson. The lack of credibility in relation to the majority of Dr Stone’s evidence, in the Court’s view, must be considered when considering the denials of Dr Johnson that the applicant’s exercise a workplace rights was not a substantial and operative factor in the adverse action that was taken against the applicant. This view is supported further by the failure of the Bureau to take reasonable steps to assign the applicant new duties or to allocate her to a lower classification position with income maintenance.
The Court is reasonably satisfied that the redeployment action was taken with the aim of managing the applicant out of the Bureau. That decision not to map the applicant to the position of GMID was taken by Dr Johnson (Transcript 1 November 2023, page 672). The decision reflected a desire to manage the applicant out of the Bureau. It was taken because she was a difficult senior employee who had actively and successfully exercised her workplace rights. On the available evidence, the Court is not satisfied that the Bureau has rebutted the evidentiary presumption contained within s 361 of the Act.
Improvements in the medical regime.
Quote Clinton McKenzie:-
“In my opinion the primary reason for the substantial improvement in safety would come from pilots being more willing to have more frequent and frank discussions with medical professionals, without the fear of damaging AvMed overreactions.”
I think that the only evidence (statistics) about in flight medical incapacitation events causing unsafe flying is without evidence.
It could be held that generally pilot health might be improved, there’s zero evidence of the safety of flight angle.
“In my opinion the primary reason for the substantial improvement in safety would come from pilots being more willing to have more frequent and frank discussions with medical professionals, without the fear of damaging AvMed overreactions.”
I think that the only evidence (statistics) about in flight medical incapacitation events causing unsafe flying is without evidence.
It could be held that generally pilot health might be improved, there’s zero evidence of the safety of flight angle.
I take your point and agree with it, Sandy. My words you quoted were not well expressed. I should have said: In my opinion the primary benefit of AvMed being abolished would come from pilots being more willing to have more frequent and frank discussions with medical professionals, without the fear of damaging AvMed overreactions. Whether that would causally change accident and incident rates would remain to be seen.
There's lots of evidence to show that people who don't currently need or hold AvMed certificates, and the medical professionals from whom those people seek advice, are capable of producing an outcome that doesn't include pilots suffering sudden incapacitation from undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions at a rate higher than the holders of Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificates. (I always take any opportunity to remind everyone: Passenger jets share the uncontrolled skies with aircraft that are not certified by CASA, and piloted by pilots who are not licensed by CASA nor medically certified by CASA, and that's gone on for decades; as has the operation of aircraft inside controlled airspace by pilots without CASA medical certification.)
There's lots of evidence to show that people who don't currently need or hold AvMed certificates, and the medical professionals from whom those people seek advice, are capable of producing an outcome that doesn't include pilots suffering sudden incapacitation from undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions at a rate higher than the holders of Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificates. (I always take any opportunity to remind everyone: Passenger jets share the uncontrolled skies with aircraft that are not certified by CASA, and piloted by pilots who are not licensed by CASA nor medically certified by CASA, and that's gone on for decades; as has the operation of aircraft inside controlled airspace by pilots without CASA medical certification.)
The problem with a confusing system of over regulation is that people start to ignore the law and do things their own way. That then breeds an environment of non compliance and leads to other behaviors that may be actually dangerous. A good example (going back to the roads again) is over use of 40 kph zones, people get sick of them on highways and arterial when they are just not needed, normalize speeding through them, and then forget and speed through a school zone and run over somebodies kids. Of course they can be then charged for the act afterwards, but the whole point of the 40 kph zone was to slow people in dangerous areas and stop the accident from happening. So you may not think that over zealous AvMed play a part in accidents, but when you earn distrust from the pilot body in general they will also ignore the important laws and points that are warranted.
what annoys me is the subtle changes in wording. For example The holder of an ATPL still holds a Commercial Licence and a Private Licence or at least always did. Some of the wording in particularly in Medical regulations may imply we don't, even though I don't believe that is the intention of it.
So reading the Medical regs alone can the holder of an ATPL fly his Kingair in private ops on a class 2 medical certificate with 10 people on board.
So reading the Medical regs alone can the holder of an ATPL fly his Kingair in private ops on a class 2 medical certificate with 10 people on board.
10 pax in Kingair
Xeptu:- “So reading the Medical regs alone can the holder of an ATPL fly his Kingair in private ops on a class 2 medical certificate with 10 people on board.”
You can hire a mini bus and drive a party of more than 20 anywhere across Australia with no medical.
You can hire a mini bus and drive a party of more than 20 anywhere across Australia with no medical.
The following users liked this post:
I don't think the 'medical regs' say what licence requires what class of medical certificate. That's done elsewhere in the regs.
The answer to your question is discussed in this thread. But you'll need sustenance.
The answer to your question is discussed in this thread. But you'll need sustenance.
The following users liked this post:
I’m still recovering from the giddy-spin caused by contemplating the implications of the factual errors and the illogicality of the puff piece about Class 5 in the latest Australian Flying. (Does CASA pay for advertising in Australian Flying?) The text within quotation marks in the article is attributed to the Principle Medical Officer of CASA:
Say what? I think the tortured sentence asserts that Class 5 is of no benefit to RAAus.
Doesn’t the implemented Class 5 protect RAAus’s commercial interests in fact? If an equivalent of UK PMD had been implemented in Australia - as it should have been - a whole fleet of more capable aircraft would have become available to the many RAAus members who could satisfy UK PMD requirements. UK PMD has higher MTOW and higher POB limits than apply for RAAus, and self-certification. With a POB 2 limit, I reckon many potential Class 5 applicants are likely to skip the rigmarole and stay Class 2 or go RAAus.
This is Alice In Wonderland stuff.
Who’s investigating the medical circumstances of pilots involved in RAAus incidents? Not ATSB. Not CASA. Where is this “data and information” published? If it comes from coronial inquiries – coroners are now the metaphorical ‘last man standing’ on investigation of RAAus fatalities – coroners inquire into ‘traditional GA’ fatalities as well.
But, this, in the very next paragraph:
So CASA’s admits it is “operating without a lot of data on medical incidents”, but considered “a lot of data and information” about RAAus incidents was sufficient to come to the conclusion that RAAus airspace incursions or controlled flights into terrain incidents were not because "the pilot hadn't seen a doctor; it wasn't a medical certification issue. It wasn't because they had a seizure, their blood sugar was low or they had a heart attack.”
I don’t know what this is intended to mean: “PPLs tend not to report incidents when they disqualified themselves from flying due to a medical issue.” Does that mean not reporting incidents in which they are involved after the pilot disqualified themselves from flying due to a medical issue? How can a pilot be involved in a reportable incident if they aren’t flying?
I suspect it is intended to mean that PPLs tend not to report to CASA circumstances in which pilots have disqualified themselves due to a medical issue. I’ll post the regulation on the matter below, but the ‘bottom line’ is that the holder of a class 2 medical certificate is not obliged to "report" a medical issue to CASA unless, among other things, the issue “continues for longer than 30 days”.
And where is the call for the RAAus ‘community’ to start reporting medical incapacitation to CASA to give CASA measures to evaluate the “effectiveness” of the RAAus arrangements? I know: absence of evidence of incapacitation due to medical issues in the RAAus community is treated by CASA as evidence of absence, but the absence of evidence of incapacitation due to medical issues in the GA community is not treated by CASA as evidence of absence. This is typical ‘cherry picking’ by AvMed.
The assertion that: “the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects no data on the medical class of a pilot involved” is just bullsh*t. Plain and simple. You can google this stuff. I plucked one ATSB report that has a whole section headed: “Medical and pathological information”:
The PMO seems seriously to be suggesting that CASA has lots of data and information about of RAAus incidents, sufficient for CASA to draw conclusions about the causes of those incidents at least so far as medical issues are concerned, notwithstanding that the ATSB and CASA leave RAAus and coroners to investigate those incidents, but CASA doesn’t have sufficient data to draw the same conclusion in relation to the people who hold certificates issued by CASA over many decades and whose incidents are actually investigated by ATSB occasionally.
On "reporting" of medical issues, here’s what the law says:
The first thing to note about that regulation is the “and” at the end of each paragraph. The criteria are cumulative. That means the obligation to report under that regulation does not arise unless all of the criterial are satisfied, and one of those criteria is the continuation of the condition for more than 30 days.
Further, whilst it is true that the definition of “medically significant condition” is Orwellian – it literally includes the words “no matter how minor” - the condition must result in the certificate or licence holder being impaired in his or ability to do an act that’s authorised. Not “might” result, not “could” result and not “probably” result. The words are “has the result”.
The next reg says:
Again, an “and” at the end of each paragraph and the condition must be such that it “has the result” of impairing the holder’s ability to do an act that’s authorised. And note: It’s not an obligation to report anything to CASA. It’s an obligation not to do the specified act until a DAME says the holder is safe to do it. (No doubt DAMEs are under an obligation to ‘tell all’ to CASA. That might partly explain pilots' reticence to raise issues, lest they get back CASA. And on that subject...)
Unfortunately, CASA ‘has form’ in saying one thing but doing another. The circumstances in which CVD pilots now find themselves, after 2 years of CASA not doing what it said it was going to do about the OCVA, is a typical example. All on Manderson's watch.
"It doesn't do much for our safety system to be spending a lot of time on the private pilot who's flying from A to B on a Sunday afternoon."
That attitude has been informed and reinforced by the experience of RAAus; then CEO Matt Bouttell was on the Technical Working Group (TWG) that placed Class 5 recommendations in front of CASA. RAAus supported Class 5 even though it stood to benefit them none.
That attitude has been informed and reinforced by the experience of RAAus; then CEO Matt Bouttell was on the Technical Working Group (TWG) that placed Class 5 recommendations in front of CASA. RAAus supported Class 5 even though it stood to benefit them none.
Doesn’t the implemented Class 5 protect RAAus’s commercial interests in fact? If an equivalent of UK PMD had been implemented in Australia - as it should have been - a whole fleet of more capable aircraft would have become available to the many RAAus members who could satisfy UK PMD requirements. UK PMD has higher MTOW and higher POB limits than apply for RAAus, and self-certification. With a POB 2 limit, I reckon many potential Class 5 applicants are likely to skip the rigmarole and stay Class 2 or go RAAus.
"One of the things the group looked at was whether RAAus experienced any safety issues that could have contributed to medical conditions as a result of not having a doctor assess a pilot," Manderson said.
"If an RAAus aircraft had a safety incident like an airspace incursion or flight into terrain, it wasn't because the pilot hadn't seen a doctor; it wasn't a medical certification issue. It wasn't because they had a seizure, their blood sugar was low or they had a heart attack, so we considered a lot of that data and information."
"If an RAAus aircraft had a safety incident like an airspace incursion or flight into terrain, it wasn't because the pilot hadn't seen a doctor; it wasn't a medical certification issue. It wasn't because they had a seizure, their blood sugar was low or they had a heart attack, so we considered a lot of that data and information."
Who’s investigating the medical circumstances of pilots involved in RAAus incidents? Not ATSB. Not CASA. Where is this “data and information” published? If it comes from coronial inquiries – coroners are now the metaphorical ‘last man standing’ on investigation of RAAus fatalities – coroners inquire into ‘traditional GA’ fatalities as well.
But, this, in the very next paragraph:
CASA has admitted that they are operating without a lot of data on medical incidents, partly because the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects no data on the medical class of a pilot involved, and partly because PPLs tend not to report incidents when they disqualified themselves from flying due to a medical issue.
Manderson has called on the GA community to start reporting medical incapacitation to give them measures to evaluate the effectiveness of Class 5.
Manderson has called on the GA community to start reporting medical incapacitation to give them measures to evaluate the effectiveness of Class 5.
I don’t know what this is intended to mean: “PPLs tend not to report incidents when they disqualified themselves from flying due to a medical issue.” Does that mean not reporting incidents in which they are involved after the pilot disqualified themselves from flying due to a medical issue? How can a pilot be involved in a reportable incident if they aren’t flying?
I suspect it is intended to mean that PPLs tend not to report to CASA circumstances in which pilots have disqualified themselves due to a medical issue. I’ll post the regulation on the matter below, but the ‘bottom line’ is that the holder of a class 2 medical certificate is not obliged to "report" a medical issue to CASA unless, among other things, the issue “continues for longer than 30 days”.
And where is the call for the RAAus ‘community’ to start reporting medical incapacitation to CASA to give CASA measures to evaluate the “effectiveness” of the RAAus arrangements? I know: absence of evidence of incapacitation due to medical issues in the RAAus community is treated by CASA as evidence of absence, but the absence of evidence of incapacitation due to medical issues in the GA community is not treated by CASA as evidence of absence. This is typical ‘cherry picking’ by AvMed.
The assertion that: “the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects no data on the medical class of a pilot involved” is just bullsh*t. Plain and simple. You can google this stuff. I plucked one ATSB report that has a whole section headed: “Medical and pathological information”:
The instructor held a class 1 aviation medical certificate…
The student held a Class 1 aviation medical certificate …
The examiner held a class 2 aviation medical certificate …
The controller held a Class 3 medical certificate…
The autopsy of the examiner … identified a level of ischaemic heart disease capable of causing death in isolation from other factors, but there was no evidence of an acute cardiac event having occurred at the time of the incident.
No other significant medical issues were identified in any of the remaining pilots. Further, the toxicology results did not identify any substance that could have impaired the pilots’ performance or that were not noted in their aviation medical records.
The student held a Class 1 aviation medical certificate …
The examiner held a class 2 aviation medical certificate …
The controller held a Class 3 medical certificate…
The autopsy of the examiner … identified a level of ischaemic heart disease capable of causing death in isolation from other factors, but there was no evidence of an acute cardiac event having occurred at the time of the incident.
No other significant medical issues were identified in any of the remaining pilots. Further, the toxicology results did not identify any substance that could have impaired the pilots’ performance or that were not noted in their aviation medical records.
On "reporting" of medical issues, here’s what the law says:
67.265(4) If:
(a) the holder of a class 2 or class 3 medical certificate and a licence:
(i) knows that he or she has a medically significant condition; and
(ii) is reckless as to whether the condition has been disclosed to CASA; and
(b) the condition continues for longer than 30 days; and
(c) the condition has the result that his or her ability to do an act authorised by the licence is impaired;
he or she must tell CASA or a DAME about the condition as soon as practicable after the end of the 30 days.
(a) the holder of a class 2 or class 3 medical certificate and a licence:
(i) knows that he or she has a medically significant condition; and
(ii) is reckless as to whether the condition has been disclosed to CASA; and
(b) the condition continues for longer than 30 days; and
(c) the condition has the result that his or her ability to do an act authorised by the licence is impaired;
he or she must tell CASA or a DAME about the condition as soon as practicable after the end of the 30 days.
Further, whilst it is true that the definition of “medically significant condition” is Orwellian – it literally includes the words “no matter how minor” - the condition must result in the certificate or licence holder being impaired in his or ability to do an act that’s authorised. Not “might” result, not “could” result and not “probably” result. The words are “has the result”.
The next reg says:
(5) If the holder of a medical certificate and a licence:
(a) knows that he or she has a medically significant condition; and
(b) is reckless as to whether the condition has been disclosed to CASA; and
(c) the condition has the result that his or her ability to do an act authorised by the licence is impaired;
he or she must not do the act until a DAME certifies that the holder can safely do such acts.
(a) knows that he or she has a medically significant condition; and
(b) is reckless as to whether the condition has been disclosed to CASA; and
(c) the condition has the result that his or her ability to do an act authorised by the licence is impaired;
he or she must not do the act until a DAME certifies that the holder can safely do such acts.
To be clear, we're not going on a witch hunt for the pilot," Manderson stressed. "We don't want their ARN; we don't want to know exactly who they are, we just want to know if they were Class 1 or 2, BC2, RAMPC or Class 5.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 23rd Feb 2024 at 08:13.
To be fair road vehicle drivers have the same requirements for disclosure of medical conditions. I would say that the rate of disclosure for road users would be a lot less than 50%, probably no different in Aviation, especially among PPLs. Autism has been on the road safety hit list for a while now, at least in some states. As with the recent Daylesford crash, if you are aware of a medical condition, and it is part causation of a fatal accident, you will be charged with manslaughter. It can be just as frustrating if you are disqualified from driving on medical grounds with tests and reports required at your own cost. Considering how many drivers continue tod rive unlicenced or disqualified shows the system is a joke as it only punishes those that are doing the right thing anyway. Thousands of dollars in medical fees to prove fitness, or possibly the same in fines IF you get caught, as far as the threat of manslaughter charges, if you thought you would actually kill people you wouldn't do it anyway. Proves the point that education is far more valuable than punishment after the fact, or sitting on the ones doing the right thing pushing those that like taking chances under the RADAR.
I know several pilots that had un-diagnosed conditions (that they were unaware of) that led to more serious conditions later. Had they been educated enough to seek professional help earlier the more complicated results would have been avoided. Considering the aviation medicals did not pick up these conditions, most including cardiac issues, then the medicals were useless in ensuring aviation safety as intended. If these pilots were more engaged with their own medical professionals they would probably have recognized and corrected the conditions before they became a problem, without any need for CASA, AvMed or anyone else being involved. So my view is that the current situation of medical requirements actually is more dangerous than self certification, as it pushes pilots to be less likely to seek medical opinions in the formative stage of a condition for fear of huge consequences of just saying they had tests.
My point is that CASA should focus education in the early stages of flight training that pilots need to have a good medical team behind them and consult regularly for their own health and safety. Then have very strict penalties for pilots that willingly fly with known disabilities that are dangerous to air navigation. And not an arbitrary list, but after an incident, accident an investigation to see if that condition contributed. If it didn't who cares.
I know several pilots that had un-diagnosed conditions (that they were unaware of) that led to more serious conditions later. Had they been educated enough to seek professional help earlier the more complicated results would have been avoided. Considering the aviation medicals did not pick up these conditions, most including cardiac issues, then the medicals were useless in ensuring aviation safety as intended. If these pilots were more engaged with their own medical professionals they would probably have recognized and corrected the conditions before they became a problem, without any need for CASA, AvMed or anyone else being involved. So my view is that the current situation of medical requirements actually is more dangerous than self certification, as it pushes pilots to be less likely to seek medical opinions in the formative stage of a condition for fear of huge consequences of just saying they had tests.
My point is that CASA should focus education in the early stages of flight training that pilots need to have a good medical team behind them and consult regularly for their own health and safety. Then have very strict penalties for pilots that willingly fly with known disabilities that are dangerous to air navigation. And not an arbitrary list, but after an incident, accident an investigation to see if that condition contributed. If it didn't who cares.
Last edited by 43Inches; 23rd Feb 2024 at 21:30.
PPLs non disclosure?
43inches, with respect, not sure why PPLs would be less likely to disclose medical conditions, CPLs and ATPLs would have more to lose and generally fly far more hours than the PPL who only flys when the spirit moves.
Be that as it may, making comparison to the risks of driving v. flying, consider that most PPLs would be in cars a lot more hours than flying. I think we all accept the incalculably small risk that we might be harmed due to someone’s medical incapacitation on or near our roads, noting that medicos and the system do prevent some people from driving.
I think it’s also AVMAD’s intention to protect the public from falling Cessnas due to medical incapacitation. I have a better idea, install meteor shields over all public spaces.
Be that as it may, making comparison to the risks of driving v. flying, consider that most PPLs would be in cars a lot more hours than flying. I think we all accept the incalculably small risk that we might be harmed due to someone’s medical incapacitation on or near our roads, noting that medicos and the system do prevent some people from driving.
I think it’s also AVMAD’s intention to protect the public from falling Cessnas due to medical incapacitation. I have a better idea, install meteor shields over all public spaces.
43inches, with respect, not sure why PPLs would be less likely to disclose medical conditions, CPLs and ATPLs would have more to lose and generally fly far more hours than the PPL who only flys when the spirit moves.
Be that as it may, making comparison to the risks of driving v. flying, consider that most PPLs would be in cars a lot more hours than flying. I think we all accept the incalculably small risk that we might be harmed due to someone’s medical incapacitation on or near our roads, noting that medicos and the system do prevent some people from driving.
I think it’s also AVMAD’s intention to protect the public from falling Cessnas due to medical incapacitation. I have a better idea, install meteor shields over all public spaces.
Be that as it may, making comparison to the risks of driving v. flying, consider that most PPLs would be in cars a lot more hours than flying. I think we all accept the incalculably small risk that we might be harmed due to someone’s medical incapacitation on or near our roads, noting that medicos and the system do prevent some people from driving.
I think it’s also AVMAD’s intention to protect the public from falling Cessnas due to medical incapacitation. I have a better idea, install meteor shields over all public spaces.
I think there are many that do not realize how much non compliance occurs in aviation, especially away from cities. It wasn't long ago that a station owner was killed flying home, basically unlicensed with a stomach full of alcohol and got caught out by last light and crashed. Had he not crashed, no one would have known he was doing it regularly.
I knew of several AFR where a candidate turned up in their own aircraft from the country with an expired AFR, one argued about the price and flew home without conducting said AFR. Another was operating as a flight instructor for several years without a medical and so on, only got caught out because they turned up for an interview at a city school and when asked his medical expiry he said he hadn't had one for years.
AFRs etc
Agreed your airline pilot will get attention for obvious symptoms that might have bearing on fitness to fly. In the other hand a big percentage of private flying is with passengers who may judge their pilot’s fitness also.
The real question has to be is it such a problem of magnitude that’s a great worry in the first place?
In regard to AFRs that requirement is a latter day invention and though opinion seems to be all for the idea I disagree on this blanket requirement, and like so many opinions around aviation matters there’s no empirical supporting evidence of the overall efficacy of such regulation. The three takeoffs and landings no pax rule is one additional measure regarding recency.
In my view at least aircraft owners, CPL holders and instructors should be exempt from the AFR, and this would boost GA in those areas leading to more flying and overall safety.
In regard to instructors and medicals, sensibly no medical is required in the USA where the student has soloed.
And again when was this ever some problem that will be solved by an AVMAD medical?
The real question has to be is it such a problem of magnitude that’s a great worry in the first place?
In regard to AFRs that requirement is a latter day invention and though opinion seems to be all for the idea I disagree on this blanket requirement, and like so many opinions around aviation matters there’s no empirical supporting evidence of the overall efficacy of such regulation. The three takeoffs and landings no pax rule is one additional measure regarding recency.
In my view at least aircraft owners, CPL holders and instructors should be exempt from the AFR, and this would boost GA in those areas leading to more flying and overall safety.
In regard to instructors and medicals, sensibly no medical is required in the USA where the student has soloed.
And again when was this ever some problem that will be solved by an AVMAD medical?
The problem is over-regulation. Too many laws and then people just don't follow them, creating a less safe environment, you have to either then rule with an iron fist and force compliance, or how it is now, the vast majority just get away with it. Very similar to speeding on the roads, the daily rate of non compliance with speed limits on roads would be huge, the government collects a tax on that instead of stamping it out.
