Utopia or Common sense?
Too true Sandy; all too true. Operationally, CASA remain unpardonable. However I did get a chance to have a long chat with P7 and to be honest – I reckon there is a faint hope that some medical sanity may prevail, provided CASA can be approached and a suitable vehicle can be found to allow ‘in-house arbitration’ between Avmed and the ‘victim of illness’. The nuts, bolts and rules would need to be worked out, as would the rules of engagement; for example legal counsel being allowed; or not allowed and the right to persist with a debate in the AAT or another venue. The ‘bear’ is policy – not the rules; but that is a discussion for a later date.
It is, as TOM say’s a bit of a Utopian notion. That said, in the case he witnessed, it was seriously possible that a couple of years of time, money, angst and aggravation (for both sides) could have been saved by a ‘sit down’ in which the CASA reasoning was explained in lay terms; the ‘victim’ being made fully aware of the CASA position and the reasoning behind the decisions made. Apart from being bloody good PR it would have been highly ‘cost effective’ and time saving.
The beauty part would be ‘operational’ – where a medical condition can impact being of critical importance to all, pilot, chief pilot, the public and CASA. With a sensible discussion the pilot in question may be ‘useful’ in certain operations; for example the ‘as or with co-pilot’ rider to a medical is the easiest to examine. Capt’ X is not completely disqualified, but Single pilot ops are not on. If it were possible to examine the ‘risks’ – across the board and tailor make operational medical restrictions to a case, it would be a whole lot quicker, cheaper and easier for everyone to get on with their lives.
It would take time and effort to do this; not to mention trust and honesty. This is why TOM thought a Choc Frog award was merited. Had CASA explained in the first instance their concerns as clearly as they expressed them in the AAT - then the trip to the AAT bunker could have been avoided. As it stands now, a negotiated settlement is in hand which will, with any luck at all, provide a sensible result, without compromising the operational or legal safety of anyone.
It is a fine idea; one I can support. Whether CASA want to play nice and industry cares to trust the Authority to do the right thing is up for grabs. As TOM said – the way CASA behaved during the hearing was excellent and the ready agreement to ‘discuss’ the matter between the ‘victim’ and themselves was a little ray of sunshine; it was just a pity that matters needed to end in conflict before common sense prevailed. Perhaps some good for all may result from the encounter – that would be nice – wouldn’t it?
Aye well, it’s all above my pay grade; to many if’s, but’s and maybe’s for me. But as an idea – I like it. We can hope the new PMO (nice fellah TOM reckons) has the wisdom to see a way to ease the pain of medical restriction confusion, save the aggravation – who knows……….
Toot – toot.
Too true Sandy; all too true. Operationally, CASA remain unpardonable. However I did get a chance to have a long chat with P7 and to be honest – I reckon there is a faint hope that some medical sanity may prevail, provided CASA can be approached and a suitable vehicle can be found to allow ‘in-house arbitration’ between Avmed and the ‘victim of illness’. The nuts, bolts and rules would need to be worked out, as would the rules of engagement; for example legal counsel being allowed; or not allowed and the right to persist with a debate in the AAT or another venue. The ‘bear’ is policy – not the rules; but that is a discussion for a later date.
It is, as TOM say’s a bit of a Utopian notion. That said, in the case he witnessed, it was seriously possible that a couple of years of time, money, angst and aggravation (for both sides) could have been saved by a ‘sit down’ in which the CASA reasoning was explained in lay terms; the ‘victim’ being made fully aware of the CASA position and the reasoning behind the decisions made. Apart from being bloody good PR it would have been highly ‘cost effective’ and time saving.
The beauty part would be ‘operational’ – where a medical condition can impact being of critical importance to all, pilot, chief pilot, the public and CASA. With a sensible discussion the pilot in question may be ‘useful’ in certain operations; for example the ‘as or with co-pilot’ rider to a medical is the easiest to examine. Capt’ X is not completely disqualified, but Single pilot ops are not on. If it were possible to examine the ‘risks’ – across the board and tailor make operational medical restrictions to a case, it would be a whole lot quicker, cheaper and easier for everyone to get on with their lives.
It would take time and effort to do this; not to mention trust and honesty. This is why TOM thought a Choc Frog award was merited. Had CASA explained in the first instance their concerns as clearly as they expressed them in the AAT - then the trip to the AAT bunker could have been avoided. As it stands now, a negotiated settlement is in hand which will, with any luck at all, provide a sensible result, without compromising the operational or legal safety of anyone.
It is a fine idea; one I can support. Whether CASA want to play nice and industry cares to trust the Authority to do the right thing is up for grabs. As TOM said – the way CASA behaved during the hearing was excellent and the ready agreement to ‘discuss’ the matter between the ‘victim’ and themselves was a little ray of sunshine; it was just a pity that matters needed to end in conflict before common sense prevailed. Perhaps some good for all may result from the encounter – that would be nice – wouldn’t it?
Aye well, it’s all above my pay grade; to many if’s, but’s and maybe’s for me. But as an idea – I like it. We can hope the new PMO (nice fellah TOM reckons) has the wisdom to see a way to ease the pain of medical restriction confusion, save the aggravation – who knows……….
Toot – toot.