So, Sunfish; Are you therefore saying/implying /inferring that we should 'tell 'em nothing!':}:E

Think that someone has already suggested similar.:E

Readers, take a look at the Class 2 medical regulations CASR Part 67) as an example. (and probably all the Part 67 medical regulations)
CASR 67.155 Who meets medical standard 2.
There is no mention of sleep apnoea. It's 100% pure fresh steaming BS. Yes, it appears in their DAME guidelines - which are not regulations that you must abide by. It's BS. And people fall for it. Just say no to BS.
Also search the Part 67 regulations for these words: Height. Weight. BMI. all of which are lead to the sleep apnoea conclusions.
Height, or weight, are not declarable items within a Class 2 medical standard. They are using information gained improperly from you, against you. Yet, we cannot pass GO without declaring those things. It's not right.
(Clint - your thoughts on that?)

Which only creates the scenario of a CASA bureaucrat saying in effect;
'Your career or mine goes down the tube. Better it's yours!' :mad:

Hi T5

My view is that it's just one of the many manifestations of CASA Avmed overreach and exaggeration of risk. They've arrogated themselves to a position in which they presume to override the clinical opinions of the people with the expertise and liability for the health and treatment of their patients who happen to be pilots. My opinion is that CASA Avmed's behavior is, apart from the other comments I've made, simply unethical.

CASA Avmed is effectively dictating procedures that treating experts do not consider are, in all the circumstances, necessary, and CASA bears no responsibility!

Meanwhile, on my reading of the 'fine print' on an application for a medical certificate from CASA Avmed, you are purporting to 'consent' to them using information about you in their 'research' by submitting the application. Again, on my reading, there was no box to tick refusing consent. If my reading is correct, that's not "consent". That in my opinion is called "duress".

CASA Avmed seems to me to be on a mission to try to prove to the world that they know better than people with real expertise, but the main outcomes being achieved are the alienation of those people and their pilot patients.

I note a couple of key passages from Dr Rob Liddell's submission (here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...4_redacted.pdf ) to the aviation safety regulatory review. Dr Liddell was the Director of Aviation Medicine (which position subsequently became the Principal Medical Officer).
"The dangerous result of CASA's draconian regulatory measures...". Those words would not have been used lightly by a professional like Dr Liddell. And he knows what he's talking about.

In his submission to the CASA medical certification standards discussion (available here: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...scussion-paper) Dr Liddell said, among other things: As I said in my submission to the medical certification standards discussion, CASA Avmed has not provided any evidence to show that its relatively-recent change in behavior was a causally positive response to a substantial increase in medical-related accidents and incidents. That's because there was no such increase and, in any event, as Dr Liddell and others have pointed out in other terms, CASA's Avmed's "draconian regulatory measures" have had a "dangerous result".

Great to see a ray of hope across the ditch: The head of the NZ CAA has seen through the CVD bull**** propagated by various Avmed zealots.

Dealing with CASA
 

Will call some time over the weekend.