[Peetwo]

Avmad News?? -   

Via Oz Flying:

Class 4 Medical slated for 2025

2 July 2024



The new Class 4 medical standard is unlikely to be introduced this year as CASA waits for the Class 5 post-implementation review to be done in early 2025.

Class 4 is not a self-declared medical standard, but requires an examination by a general practitioner rather than an aviation medical examiner.

Class 4 will come with some operating restrictions, which CASA says it will determine based on the experience with the Class 5 self-declared medical standard.

"A potential Class 4 medical standard could replace the existing Class 2 Basic," a CASA spokesperson said yesterday. "It would require a GP medical examination and would permit more operations than Class 5.

"The nature of the operations that would be permitted will be informed through industry consultation, risk assessments and the post implementation review of Class 5."

Class 5, which began in February, came with several operational limitations, including:

• private operations only
  
• MTOW must be 2000 kg or less
  
• VFR by day only
  
• no IFR
  
• must not operate above 10,000 feet AMSL
  
• no more than two people on board
  
• must not use a CASR Part 61 operational rating
  
• no aerobatics
  
• no formation flying
  
• must operate wholly within Australian territory.
  

"We’ve noted your feedback on the need to keep looking at the operational limitations and we’ll continue to gather safety and risk data to inform future decisions on whether we can remove or relax the restrictions," CASA CEO Pip Spence said at the time Class 5 was implemented.

"We’ll be conducting a post-implementation review in 12 months’ time as well as continuing to work on a Class 4 certificate that will create more operational flexibility with the involvement of a GP."

Once the new regime is in place, the hierarchy of medical standards is likely to be:

• Class 1 - CPL, needs a DAME medical
  
• Class 2 - PPL, needs a DAME medical
  
• Class 3 - ATC
  
• Class 4 - PPL or RPL needs a GP medical, but would have some operational restrictions
  
• Class 5 - PPL or RPL self-declared, needs no medical, but would come with some restrictions.
  

CASA is currently silent on the medical standard needed for Class 4, but a direct replacement for Class 2 Basic would mean using the unconditional commercial driver's licence standard.

Also in AvMad news, CM courtesy of the UP...

Avmed delays in granting medical certificates - CASR 11.140 - Part 2

Some of you may recall the thread I started, in June 2023, discussing the question whether CASR 11.140 keeps medical certificates ‘alive’ if an application is made, by the holder of a current certificate, for a new certificate of the same kind and CASA fails to make a decision on the application before the date of expiry stated on the certificate.

Correspondence with CASA ensued. CASA expressed the view that CASR 11.140 does not apply to medical certificates.

Because I cannot be disinterested in the matter, I sought advice from Cain Sibley of Clayton Utz. Those who, like me, watched closely the proceedings of the ‘RoboDebt’ Royal Commission will understand why I chose Mr Sibley in particular.

Mr Sibley’s conclusion is the same as mine. (See the photograph of the key paragraph from his advice, below. When I work out how to redact his signature from his entire advice, I’ll make that available to anyone who cares to read it.)

I wrote to Pip Spence and Jonathan Aleck at CASA in the following terms on Thursday 28 June 2024:

CASA’s interpretation of CASR 11.140 – operation in relation to medical certificates

Because I am not disinterested in the subject matter, I sought advice from Cain Sibley of Clayton Utz on the operation of CASR 11.140 in relation to medical certificates. (Those who, like me, watched closely the proceedings of the ‘RoboDebt’ Royal Commission will understand why I sought advice from Mr Sibley in particular.) His settled advice is attached.

Mr Sibley’s conclusion is the same as mine and contrary to CASA’s position. Though I’m not disinterested in relation to the issue, I find his conclusion entirely unsurprising and have always considered CASA’s position to be absurd. I will be publishing Mr Sibley’s advice and this email to you.

CASA’s interpretation of CASR 67.150(7) – operation in relation to the unchanged colour perception criterion

While on the theme of CASA’s position on the interpretation of the regulations, you may recall that in correspondence about the recent colour vision controversy CASA expressed a view about the application of CASR 67.150(7) to the circumstances. The question arose because pilots with colour vision defects kept receiving CASA correspondence citing CASR 67.150(7) as having some consequence in the circumstances, supposedly justifying a potential change in the pilot’s medical certification in relation to colour vision.

CASR 67.150(7) says:

“If a change is made to a criterion in an item of table 67.150, a person who held a class 1 medical certificate and satisfied the criterion immediately before the change, but fails to satisfy the criterion as changed, is taken to satisfy the criterion for 2 years after the day when the change is made.”

I note that not a single syllable of the colour perception criterion in the class 1 medical standard in CASR - item 1.39 of table 67.150 - has ever changed. I also note that not a single syllable of the CASR prescribing the means of demonstration with that criterion - 67.150(6) - has ever changed. Ditto the equivalent provisions for the class 2 medical standard.

CASA told the CVDPA that:

“While the criterion which are defined in the table have not changed, the criterion for colour perception is the only one which the regulations specifically call out a method for how it will be established. Our view is that the intent of 67.150(7) could apply to the method.”

CASA’s position therefore appears to be that CASR 67.150(7), which is expressed to apply only if “a change is made to a criterion in an item of table 67.150”, applies to an unchanged regulation, outside table 67.150, prescribing the way in which compliance with the unchanged colour perception criterion in table 67.150 must be demonstrated. Frankly, I find the position stated by CASA about CASR 67.150(7) to be more absurd than CASA’s position on the interpretation of CASR 11.140. (And by the way: the colour perception criterion is not “the only one which the regulations specifically call out a method for how it will be established”. See, for example, the hearing criterion in table 67.150.)

But, as I say, I’m not disinterested in these issues. Before I seek and publish Mr Sibley’s advice on the interpretation of CASR 67.150(7), could you please confirm that CASA’s position continues to be as quoted above.

I’ll keep everyone informed of any further correspondence.

---

peterc005

Very interesting argument and seems logical. Good to see someone is pushing this point.

---

Clinton McKenzie

Just imagine how different things would have been – how much stress and angst and uncertainty would have been avoided – if CASA had said over a decade ago when CASR Part 11 was made: “Don’t worry. If you put your medical certificate renewal application in on time, CASR 11.140 will keep your existing certificate in force until CASA makes a decision or your new certificate comes into force.”

Instead, CASA opted for an interpretation that keeps the ‘Sword of Damocles’ of expiry over our heads, even in cases in which the delay is the consequence of AvMed’s own unnecessarily complex and overreaching processes, knowing that few if any individuals can afford the cost and stress of going to the Federal Court to get an authoritative decision on the application of CASR 11.140. (That's one of the reasons for the RoboDebt juggernaut lasting for as long as it did. Fortunately two brave young women took the Commonwealth on in the Federal Court and RoboDebt finally came crashing down after years of unlawfully-caused damage. Mr Sibley's swept-under-the-carpet advice to DSS years earlier turned out to be correct.)

I realise there are complications for certificate holders who fly internationally with certificates with an expiry date on them, but the solution to those complications is not to ignore the very reason CASR 11.140 was put there in the first place and operates “in spite of any other provision of [CASR]”. It’s there to insulate certificate holders from the capricious consequences of chronic delays in CASA’s processes, the stand out example being medical certification.

---

peterc005

The points you make seem quite obvious, hopefully some peer-review will make CASA take notice.

---

zegnaangelo

how much did that piece of advice cost!

---

Clinton McKenzie

Here is a link to the entire advice, with Mr Sibley's signature redacted.

---

First_Principal

Clinton,

For several reasons your efforts have little effect on me directly, however I logged in to 'like' your methodical and thorough approach to such matters.

As I have seen, not just on this issue, you have clearly taken some time and expense to address things that unduly affect pilots in your country, and which you perhaps have a better ability than most to put forward in a clear and compelling way. That you've done so with persistence, but without excessive bashing of the regulator, is also to your credit. Well done sir.

FP.

---

QFF

Do we know by whom and why CASR 11.140 was drafted in the first instance? It seems to me to be one of the most common sense bits of the legislation and I would suggest the author should be asked to re-do the entire suite of aviation legislation in this country along the same vein.

---

Clinton McKenzie

I think most of the credit should go to the person who gave the instructions to the drafters of CASR 11.140 on the policy outcome it was to achieve. But my educated guess is that whoever that was is long gone from CASA.

MTF...P2