[Peetwo]

Our public servant are no longer servants of the public Sandy, they are self servers.

Their obscene salaries will pale into insignificance after they retire and receive the nudge nudge wink wink rewards for services rendered during their tenure.

What a nice little earner.


Happy NY Thorny :-

On UP duty (yawn -   ) I note that there is a thread (currently active and not yet shutdown    ) that is endeavouring to discuss the CASA Avmed discussion paper...

Last post courtesy of thorny...

TB - "Following in from my comments in the PT61 thread, there were less than 100 responses to the letter the DAS put out".

You mean to tell me there are still 100 pilots left in Australia!!!!!
CAsA is obviously not doing its job stamping out these criminals, everyone should write to the minister and complain.

Besides thornbird's latest contribution, which risks possible moderator sanction due suspicions of sarcasm and possible CASA derogatory comment, there seems to be much confusion and scepticism on the real intent and purpose of the CASA bollocks DP...

Here is a small cross section of some of the UP posts:

drpixie - Is this the latest version of the Xmas eve fax - want to avoid discussion, put out a discussion paper when no one will see it?

---

Eyrie - Yep, drpixie, this IS the current version of the Christmas Eve fax. All 45 pages of it.


AOPA have pushed for a similar medical standard to that which will be used in the USA for PRIVATE PILOTS. The UK has brought in something similar.

Porter, nobody is even questioning the Class 1 yet CASA puts this and many other considerations on the table and has pulled the wool over the Minister's eyes.

The medical isn't for YOUR benefit, it is a risk mitigation exercise to protect people on the ground and others in the air. There is a complete lack of evidence that it does any good. Both in the US and Australia glider pilots operate on a self certification basis and RAAus pilots in Australia on a State car driver's licence (around 40% of pilots in Australia) so the experiment has been run for decades. You are at greater risk of killing an innocent pedestrian or a car full of of passengers coming the other way in the event of sudden incapacitation than you are of hurting anyone else in a small aircraft for the same reason.

Regulation should be evidence based and if there is no evidence, it should be abolished.

The CASA paper looks to me like a calculated insult to AOPA Australia.
CASA will manage to keep this whole thing going for decades to avoid taking action.

---

Old Akro -

So how does CASA determine for itself that you are a fit and proper person to hold the licence?

CASA does this via a network of delegated DAME's. The trouble is that CASA neither trusts them, nor the specialists to whom they seek additional opinion, nor the drug companies who make recommendations about side effects, etc, nor indeed the FAA who publish a much more comprehensive DAME manual than CASA.

Instead CASA centralises all decision making and review, but employs people with inadequate qualifications or experience, thus they have guidelines & protocols provided. But these are inadequate, contradictory and incomplete. And none of the administrative staff will take responsibility for going outside the guidelines (more than their jobsworth). So anything that is not black & white, enters a spiral of review until the pressure for a decision finally becomes overwhelming.

All CASA needs to do is:
a) harmonise its medical standards with other Australian bodies / overseas agencies. Australian aviation does not need unique standards for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.
b) make the DAME guidelines clear & easy (or copy the FAA one)
c) allow DAME's to have proper authority. They are well qualified, serious people, seriously, why can't they be the arbiter of who is fit to fly? They or their colleagues do it for driving, boating, scuba diving and a range of occupations. As much as we would like to think otherwise, pilots aren't a special breed.

---

Icarus2001 - I think you missed the point that Mr Approach was trying to make Akro. The DAME DOES NOT decide if you are a "fit and proper person" to hold a licence. They simply assess your HEALTH indicators against a set of standards.


Fit and proper is a whole other ball of wax.

---

Old Akro - Icarus

Got it now. But, without having read the relevant legislation, I would expect that a pretty much identical phrase appears regarding driving licences, boat licences and a whole range of other things from gun licences to explosives licences.

CASA stands alone in creating such convoluted, contradictory, ill defined medical requirements. It also stands alone in the bureaucratic structure it has created to administer this.

Other bodies find easy, cheap, efficient ways of dealing with these requirements. CASA pretty much stands alone in wanting to not delegate any authority and administer it all centrally in Canberra.

Don't believe me? Go and get a heavy truck licence (administered Nationally, but delegated to the state bodies). It involves medical requirements, skill & knowledge requirements and fit & proper person requirements. And a truck driver can do a whole lot more damage in a 40 tonne truck than I can in a 1.9 tonne light twin.

---

Sunfish - The problem is that CASA will pervert the idea of a relaxed medical standard for private pilots. They will do this by restricting existing privileges available to the new class (for example IFR, controlled airspace,etc.) or by hedging the new class with restrictions so as to make it meaningless (for example limitations in respect of cancer, diabetes and other common conditions).


What we have now is a meaningless system and I don't believe CASA is going to do anything but window dressing. The phrase "all assistance except actual help" comes to mind.

I could go on.

---

Eyrie - Sunfish, you got it in one. There won't even be any window dressing. This will drag on until everyone forgets it or there is a change of government which kills it. All according to plan.


I hope AOPA is on to this perversion of their proposal. BTW glider pilots currently can fly in controlled airspace in Australia on their self declaration medical so the experiment has been run.

All the evidence I've seen says medical incapacitation WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE IN A CLASS 2 MEDICAL is a very, very small cause of aviation accidents.
holdingagain, BOHICA may be your style but it isn't mine. 

 Which leads me back to the TB post...     

While on the CASA Avmed DP, this was from the horse's mouth Herr Comardy in the introduction to the DP:

Introduction

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been streamlining its approach to medical certification. The introduction of the new Medical Records System in March of 2016 was an important milestone in this effort. With a view to further advancing improvement in CASA’s medical certification process, individuals from all sectors of the aviation industry have suggested that CASA adopt some of the approaches recently introduced or being considered overseas, with a view to making the certification process in Australia quicker, less onerous and less burdensome administratively.

Aviation medicine is complex, involving medical, regulatory and legal considerations. Mindful of this complexity, we have decided that a wide-ranging discussion paper is the best way to canvass community views about medical certification in the sport and recreation, general aviation, aerial work, air transport and air traffic control sectors alike.

This discussion paper raises a number of issues, your responses to which will help us to determine whether to make changes to the current medical certification regime which encompasses class 1, class 2 and class 3 medical certificates, as well as the recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificates. The decisions taken in respect of one sector may well have implications for the others, and any decisions taken across the board will have implications for the aviation industry as a whole.

The discussion paper is intended to stimulate debate and raise awareness about our current approach to aviation medicine, the propriety of current medical fitness standards, the factors involved in aeromedical decision-making and related considerations and developments internationally and in other jurisdictions. Ultimately, our objective is to identify modifications to our approach that will make the most sense for Australia today and in the future.

If there are other issues or sources of information not included in this discussion paper, but which are relevant to medical certification for any of the affected sectors, we will be happy to receive comments on those matters as part of this process.

Input to the discussion paper will be accepted up to 30 March 2017 to allow plenty of time for all relevant areas of the public and aviation community to contribute.

This discussion paper will form the basis for future consultation between CASA and all affected stakeholders on the issues raised and any action CASA proposes to take. Such consultation would take place through a dedicated development team, possibly leading to release of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for industry and public consideration.

This discussion paper does not contain proposals for or draft regulations. That would be premature. What we need to do now is to identify and articulate the issues, and to begin to consider better ways to address those issues.

I appreciate the commitment in time and energy that people will make in providing comments on this important topic, and I thank you in advance for your effort and contributions.

Shane Carmody A/g Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety

MTF...P2