[Peetwo]

AVMAD DRAFT Class 5 and Sen Fawcett QON??

Via AOPA Oz:

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia encourages all of our members and national supporters to download the DRAFT CASA EX**/24 Instrument for Class 5 Self-Declaration and to provide your direct feedback to both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Minister for Infrastructure.

DOWNLOAD THE DRAFT INSTRUMENT

Click to Download: CASA EX**/24 – Class 5 Medical Self-Declarations Exemption 2023 – DRAFT

SUBMIT YOUR FEEDBACK TO:

Pip Spence
Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Email: pip.spence@casa.gov.au

Catherine King MP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport & Regional Development
Email: Minister.King@mo.infrastructure.gov.au

BM via FB:

Included below is the DRAFT CASA Instrument for Class 5 Self-Declaration pilot medicals that has been withheld from the aviation industry - why is CASA playing games with public consultation?

Instead of seeking public consultation and feedback on their proposed Exemption Instrument, CASA have dragged the aviation industry through years of convoluted surveys and feedback questionnaires. Why?

AOPA Australia is encouraging members and industry supporters nationwide to download the draft instrument, review and provide direct feedback to both CASA and the Minister for Infrastructure.

\

Sandy's comment in reply:

Sandy Reith

As you would expect from our independent regulator we are given a foolishly restrictive proposal that flies in the face of the proven USA model. Their BasicMed allows IFR, arguably the safest flying ops environment and 2721kg which allows most private twins. But here in Bureaucratalia you’ll be fine in your twin Comanche but not in your Seneca 11 or Baron. Where’s the sense in a maximum 2000kg limit of aircraft type?

Does CASA have some statistics or accident histories that they are keeping secret?

This “reform” may help some but mitigates against IFR thus reducing IFR training and the incentive for aerobatics and formation flying. More complicating disincentive.

Once again the dysfunctional model of an independent regulator outside of a regular Department with a responsible Minister shows its deplorable lack of judgement and basic commonsense. All the latter at Australia’s expense, reducing our aviation sector strength and simply CASA looking after itself.

Get away from the Westminster model of governance with Ministerial oversight and accountability and this is the inevitable result. Our democracy is the poorer and GA today is barely half (if that) the industry that it should be.
Ring write contact your fed MP and State senators.

Speaking of 'statistics or accident histories' in relation to another AVMAD act of zealotry IE the Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots... Again.

...I note CM's latest UP post:

As I’ve noted before, MI, the medical standards haven’t changed in years. All that changes is the people and their personal opinions in CASA.

There was a brief period of enlightenment during which CASA administered the OCVA as a ‘third tier’ test. That occurred because there was a critical mass of people who understood their job was to implement the legislated means of demonstration of compliance with the legislated medical standards. Now there’s (again) a critical mass of people who believe their job is to implement their personal opinions on the colour vision requirements of the ICAO convention.

The CAD does not simulate an operational situation in fact. Everybody knows it.

Why do the zealots nonetheless pretend it does? Because they can. They know how prohibitively stressful and expensive it is for individuals to challenge them. And the zealots will die on the stupid hill of defending the CAD when that challenge comes. (This is one of the reasons the AvMed ‘service’ metrics are abysmal. They spend so much time on their personal crusades rather than their jobs.)

Don’t be fooled into believing the ACVA is some panacea. The zealots will only take the results of the ACVA into account after the candidate has already failed the CAD and therefore been assessed as not meeting the colour perception criterion. The ACVA is just an exercise in data gathering and justification for the restrictions that will be placed on you.

The zealots’ plan is that you will have to endure the expense and inconvenience of the CAD and the ACVA. You will then be extraordinarily lucky to get a medical certificate allowing you to fly at night.

CVDPA member Simon Choice passed the OCVA and the ACVA but AvMed still imposed a CVD-related ‘restriction’ on his medical certificate. Please read that sentence as many times as is necessary to convince you that you need to start fighting for yourself along with CVDPA.

I also note that Senator David Fawcett's written QON are yet to be answered by Su_Spence and CO - I wonder why??

Question No 79

1.Mr Marcelja indicated that the information on the CASA website did not reflect the intended policy.
a.Who has a role in authorising changes to the CASA website?
b.Does CASA have a policy or approved process for ensuring due diligence is applied to check for alignment with approved policy before changes are made?
c.If the answer to b. is YES, why wasn't this process followed?

2.Ms Spence also indicated that the information was inaccurate.
a.Who drafted the information which was published on the website?
b.What steps have been / will be taken to ensure that individual employees are aware of their responsibility to curtail their personal views and support the agreed corporate policy position?

---

Question 80

Providing evidence during Estimate (23 Oct 23) Dr Manderson discussed:
1. an international group of ''expert pilots and flying instructors''.
a. How many people were in the group?
b. How were the members of the group selected?
c. How many members of the group had recent (within the past 12 months) industry flying operations experience as CPL or ATPL qualified pilots?
d. How many members of the group had recent (within the past 12 months) industry experience as a flying instructor, flight examiner, approved testing officer or equivalent?
e. How many members of the group were CASA Flying Operations Inspectors?
f. How many members of the group were/are employees of CASA?

2. a meeting of colleagues from FAA, NZ, US DoD and ICAO.
a. How many of these colleagues had expertise in aviation medicine or academic/clinical fields related to the colour perception standard?
b. How many of these colleagues had expertise in aviation flying operations or flight examiners/instructors or equivalent?

3. that no medical certificates had been denied since the decision to review the operational test. This evidence was provided during a line of questions in respect of whether CASA would provide an ''unrestricted medical certificate'' to a candidate who has passed an operational test. While assertion that no medical certificates had been denied is technically correct, it is not accurate in the context of the Estimates hearing and evidence of restrictions being applied to candidates who have passed the operational test.
a. How many CVD candidates have been issued an unrestricted medical certificate since the OCVA operational test was announced by Mr Carmody??
b. How many CVD candidates have been issued an unrestricted medical certificates since the decision to review the operational test?
c. How many CVD candidates have been issued a medical certificate containing CVD related restrictions since the decision to review the operational test?
d. On what day and by what means did CASA make a public statement that the changes announced by Mr Carmody (2020) relating to CVD testing options and outcomes under CASR 67.150 (6)© were no longer going to be implemented / accepted by CASA AVMED?
e. What guidance was provided to DAMEs and CASA AVMED staff relating to changes CASA would implement during this period?

---

Question 81

A senior aviation medical officer from CASA has indicated in written communication to CVD stakeholders (30 Aug 23) that:
1. ''Passing Farnsworth and or CAD test is considered equivalent to a pass for PAPI practical test, noting only those pilots with severe CVD are offered ACVA because they cannot pass the desk-based test we are accepting as proxy for PAPI - especially the CAD''.
a. In practice, this reliance on a desk-based assessment has occurred over some years regardless of a candidates flight experience (ie: many have no flight time when they do their medical). What evidence is CASA relying on to apply restrictions on a pilot who passes on operational test (regardless of flight experience) where they have demonstrated that they can correctly interpret the visual cues provided by a real PAPI in a real operational environment?
b. How many CAD testing locations are available in Australia?
c. Is it the intent of CASA to change the 2020 provisions and require a candidate to undertake the CAD before having the option for an operational test?

2. ''It is my view that in these mild to moderate groups there are potential safety concerns, borne out in the literature and accident records, but CASA will not be addressing this in the immediate future.''
a. Does CASA support the imposition of restrictions on Australian citizens based on the ''view'' of a CASA employee?
b. Does CASA support the contention that accident records prove that mild to moderate CVD pilots who have passed an operational flight test are a potential flight-safety risk?
c. Which accident records provide an evidential basis that there is a causal relationship between CVD pilots and decreased aviation safety?
d. What operational evidence did CASA rely on to decide it would no longer support the position reached under Mr Carmody that ''CASA has carefully examined all relevant safety issues and believes this new approach offers a practical alternative assessment for colour vision deficient pilots. We have listened to the views of pilots and made judgements based on research and evidence.''
e. Does CASA intend to take future measures in respect of mild to moderate CVD pilots?

3. ''Passing ACVA with severe CVD is one risk mitigation and the benefit is to allow progression to night flying and ATPL career, carrying passengers''
a. Does CASA support the contention that passing an operational test is just one step in a ''progression'' that involves a CVD pilot receiving a medical with restrictions that will be progressively reviewed and potentially removed?
b. How can this stated approach be reconciled with evidence at Estimate (23 Oct 23) that a candidate who passes an operational test will receive an unrestricted medical?

4. ''It is clear that the PAPI is not the sole safety concern here, more work needs to be done and PIR with additional budget resources to investigate safety aspects of severe CVD in the flight environment. Recognition and Reaction time in particular.''
a. Does CASA intend to provide funding to investigate other aspects of a CVD pilots performance such as recognition and reaction time?
b. What operational evidence exist to justify this approach?

Hmm...looking FWD to those QON being answered and the subsequent probing from Sen Fawcett at Additional Estimates...

MTF...P2

[Earl Lank]

What to say about the 'Class 5' medical certificate proposal?   It's an entirely unsurprising product of what happens when the wrong organisation runs the wrong process to presume to invent what's already been invented.   

It's neither a better mousetrap nor a rounder wheel.  It's the usual overreaching complexity.

[Peetwo]

Dear Dan??

Courtesy Sandy, via the AP email chains...

Dear Dan,

Once again CASA proposes a new standard for a private pilot medical. 

The last one, called a Basic Class2 was touted as a reform just a few years ago but failed due to its unrealistic strictures. 

So now due to industry pressure CASA has put forward yet another concept. A draft Bill private pilot self declared medical standard called Class 5 has been issued. 

Without going into all its other unnecessary restrictions I ask that you express to the Minister and the Board and CEO of CASA  that the current proposal of a 2000 kg aircraft weight limit is not realistic and is discriminatory. The USA equivalent is a weight limit of 2721kg applies to its much better and rational BasicMed standard which takes in virtually all private single and twin engine aircraft with up to six seats. 

For example here are two Piper Seneca six seat aircraft. This is a Seneca 1, it’s ok for CASA’s private pilot Class 5 medical standard, just under takeoff weight of 2000 kg. 



Below is the Seneca 2, slightly heavier than 2000 kg and has better performance but not ok to fly with the proposed Class 5 medical. 



Below is the Beechcraft TravelAir which is below the 2000kg cutoff so ok to fly according to the new proposed Class 5.



Below is my six seat Beechcraft Baron, same basic aircraft, but which has more powerful engines, therefore better performance, especially flying on one engine. Identical systems as the TravelAir, but is over the weight limit and thus cannot be flown by the Class 5 pilot. 



I must protest that a new rule is proposed without a scintilla of evidence that makes sense of discriminating against myself compared to other private aircraft owners with similar aircraft. 

I ask you as my representative to speak with Ms. Pip Spence and request that the draft legislation incorporate the USA proven and realistic weight of 2721 kg instead of the current proposed and nonsensical 2000 kg limit to be available for those of us that would benefit from the new Class 5.  

Kind regards,

Sandy 

PS please note that the c. 10,000 members of the low weight two seat category aircraft (Reacreational Aircraft Australia - RAAUS) are not required to undertake any aviation medical examinations. 

RAAUS history is 40 years successful operations. The gliding fraternity the same for 70yrs plus. 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dear Pip - L&Ks CM..

Via the AP email chains:

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 2:29 PM
To: 'Spence, Pip' <Pip.Spence@casa.gov.au>; 'Marcelja, Andreas' <Andreas.Marcelja@casa.gov.au>
Subject: FW: Webform submission from: Freedom of information request > Page components top [SEC=OFFICIAL] 

Dear Ms Spence and Mr Marcelja 

I write in my personal, private capacity.    

Attached is the response I received to an FOI request I submitted to get access to documents identifying the individual who authorised the addition of the question about ethnicity to the questionnaire to be completed by applicants for medical certificates.   (That FOI request, as with all of my FOI requests, are submitted in my personal, private capacity.) 

I should have learnt – long ago – not to be surprised at the many and varied ways in which CASA AvMed demonstrates that it is blissfully unaware of or insouciantly indifferent to the basic concepts of governance and accountability in the performance of the duties of public officials in a Commonwealth agency.    It turns out that - at least according to AvMed - no official authorised the addition of the question and thus there are no documents identifying that individual.   It was instead “a consensus decision made by the Senior Medical Officers (SMOs) at their annual meeting in February 2023”.       

It is therefore little wonder to me that AvMed-related documents are published and amended without your knowledge and without any record of what individual official authorised that action.   (As you should by now be aware, my application for access to the document evidencing the current determination of the CAD as a ‘third tier’ colour vision test returned no results, as did my application for access to documents identifying the official who authorised, and the official who actioned the decision to authorise, a particular change to the disgraceful, now-withdrawn Form 420.   Perhaps those decisions were made by a vote and communicated for action, orally.)     

I will now make an FOI request for the agenda/minutes/records of the 2023 annual meeting of the SMOs.   I note that less  CASA time and effort would have to be diverted to dealing with AvMed-related FOI requests if AvMed was subjected to proper governance, such that members of the public could ascertain, on the face of AvMed-related documents, who authorised the publication of the content, what changes have been made to the document and on whose authority, and when those changes were made and why.    That would obviate some FOI requests, either because the information sought by the FOI applicant would already be public or because the governance process would ‘trap’ actions that would otherwise end up precipitating controversy.   People’s interests are directly and profoundly affected by the bright ideas AvMed foists on them from time to time.    

That said, the primary purpose of my email is to deal with a substantial safety issue.   

Given the legion of studies which have produced data showing that sexual minority groups are at greater risk of suicidality than heterosexuals, when will CASA add questions about an applicant’s sexual preferences and gender identity to the medical certificate application questionnaire?   Just as cardio-vascular risk is relevant to the safety of air navigation and a candidate’s ethnicity is relevant to the assessment of that candidate’s cardio-vascular risk, suicidality is relevant to the safety of air navigation and a candidate’s sexual preferences and gender identity are relevant to the assessment of that candidate’s suicidality risk.   Consistency and the safety of air navigation demand the addition of the questions.  

Regards 

Clinton McKenzie  

FOI Decision PDF

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

The class 5 certificate is still born because it still requires a GP to sign off on a medical assessment before you are allowed to self assess.

I can just imagine how many GP's will be eager to sign off on say, a fifty something, they just met at a bulk bill clinic. This is the same trick that was used to destroy the last medical reform - no GP will be allowed by their insurer to sign off on a certficate 5.

Furthermore, anyone with an excluding condition is back at square one at the mercy of CASA with thousands of dollars of specialist reports required.

How many accidents have been attributed to exotic medical conditions? Zero.

Then there is the question of access to people with disabilities.....

[Earl Lank]

CASA AvMed says that zero accidents due to ‘exotic medical conditions’ is caused by its pursuit of the noble cause of the safety of air navigation. Not sure how that works with all the pilots who fly without the ‘benefit’ of a CASA medical certificate, though…

There is a provision in the Civil Aviation Act that authorises CASA to make regulations contrary to the anti-discrimination legislation.

[Peetwo]

CASA AvMed says that zero accidents due to ‘exotic medical conditions’ is caused by its pursuit of the noble cause of the safety of air navigation. Not sure how that works with all the pilots who fly without the ‘benefit’ of a CASA medical certificate, though…

There is a provision in the Civil Aviation Act that authorises CASA to make regulations contrary to the anti-discrimination legislation.

This one? https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-in/viewd...04729.html

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission exemption
Under section 55 of the DDA and section 44 of the SDA, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) may grant exemptions from specified provisions of those Acts. On 26 November 2002 HREOC granted a conditional exemption to persons acting pursuant to the then existing Civil Aviation Regulations regarding medical fitness, or pursuant to amendments to those regulations that were proposed at that time, for a period of 5 years. The exemptions were granted subject to the condition that they were �to apply only where a person�s pregnancy (for the purposes of the SDA) or disability (for the purposes of the DDA) prevents the person safely fulfilling the inherent requirements of the role covered by the licence concerned�.(6)

In the process leading up to HREOC granting an exemption, submissions were received from a number of bodies. Most opposed the grant of an exemption, primarily taking issue with the current colour blindness standards and arguing that current colour blindness testing is inappropriately restrictive.(7) The situation in relation to colour blindness following the granting of the exemption appears uncertain as it may be argued that a disability constituted by a level of colour blindness that purportedly would result in the refusal of a licence does not prevent the person concerned from �safely fulfilling the inherent requirements of the role covered by the licence concerned�.

Civil Air also opposed the requirement that a pregnant air traffic controller be required to obtain two medical clearances in order to continue work after the 30th week of pregnancy. They argued that this requirement was unduly onerous.(8)

The exemption granted by HREOC relates only to medical fitness to hold licences granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). It does not relate to discrimination that may occur in the aviation regulations otherwise than in relation to licences.

[Earl Lank]

These are subsections 98(6A) – (6C) of the Civil Aviation Act:

(6A) The regulations may contain provisions relating to medical standards that are inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.

Note: See also Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2005.

(6B) The regulations may contain provisions that are inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.

Note: See also Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2005.

(6C) CASA must consult the Australian Human Rights Commission about any proposal that regulations be made containing provisions that are inconsistent as mentioned in subsection (6A) or (6B). However, a failure to consult the Commission does not affect the validity of any regulations so made.

That’s why, for example, Part 67 can make special provision for pregnancy, despite section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. A pregnant pilot’s medical certificate is suspended ‘automatically’, under CASR 67.235(1)(a) immediately after the end of the 30th week of gestation, or for a period CASA directs pursuant to CASR 67.235(1)(b).

In the 21st century, CASA AvMed still knows better than brain-addled pregnant women and their incompetent obstetricians. Just imagine the carnage that would occur if a pregnant women decided to do a few circuits in a Cessna 152 in the 31st week of gestation. Oh the humanity. OK for her to drive around in a 2,230 KG Toyota Prado with her four other children, though.

The mystique of aviation and cognitive bias are very powerful AvMed weapons.

[Peetwo]

The Empire Strikes Back (again) on CVD Pilots: Senate Estimates 12/02/24 

Via Senate Estimates:

Senator FAWCETT: Ms Spence, could I just point out the logic fault in this. The position Australia adopted in February 2020 was aligned with the FAA and with the New Zealand authority. Do you know how many licensed pilots are flying in America?

Ms Spence : We've got two issues.

Senator FAWCETT: Ms Spence, sorry—I'm asking you a question.

Ms Spence : No, I don't.

Senator FAWCETT: There are around 620,000—about 110,000 commercial pilots. They've had the system operating for a number of years with no incidents. Yet the assertion here is that because Australia has done this for a couple of years without incident, we must be on the wrong path. The US has been doing it for years, so I'm saying that the whole premise behind this paper is based on flawed logic.

Ms Spence : That paper is not the basis on which we are going forward. The issues that we raised—which we briefed you on separately—were the issues that we had with the operationalisation of the OCVA and what we are trying to do to address that. I might refer to my colleague.

Mr Marcelja : One of the things that we have really taken very seriously is the instability and the uncertainty about how this issue has been treated. To avoid the situation that you are recounting, where changes were made from different areas perhaps in an unstructured way, we are proposing to settle the policy forward through a regulatory process that actually puts a position out for consultation over the next probably six weeks and create a legislative instrument that captures how we treat colour vision in a way that is transparent and open and subject to review and scrutiny, so that we do not end up in the situation that you were talking about where people have instability and uncertainty.

As Ms Spence said, the paper that you have in front of you is not CASA's position. That is an internal discussion paper that some members of our medical community might have had. But we are taking it forward from a whole-of-CASA perspective that includes inputs from our operational areas, our flying standards areas and our medical areas. We intend to consult publicly to create stability.

Senator FAWCETT: I'm pleased to hear that. This may have only been a discussion paper, but it did start, until October last year, to have material impact on pilots and their professions and their ability to operate, because it was starting to be operationalised clearly without an internal review and approval process.

Ms Spence : And we are addressing that now, Senator.

Senator FAWCETT: I accept what you are saying and I welcome that—a good strong process—but I want to go back to the basis of principle. The whole discussion started with the fact that you believed that the operational test was a valid way to move forward as a third level of testing. Both you, I believe, and Dr Manderson made the comment that, should a pilot pass that operational test without any issues, they would be issued an aviation medical certificate without condition, note, restriction, endorsement et cetera. Is that still your principled position that you are seeking to find the evidence to work towards?

Ms Spence : We are working our way through that, and it will be the basis for a discussion paper, as Mr Marcelja mentioned. That is the intention. I don't think we have moved away from that, but we just need to make sure that we can actually turn the principle into a deliverable outcome.

Senator FAWCETT: You have highlighted in the evidence you have provided that there has been close dialogue with both the New Zealanders and the FAA. Have they indicated that they will change their position if you don't believe that you can reach that point?

Ms Spence : I think our issue is more around how we come up with a repeatable test. At this stage, we haven't had any conversations with the FAA or New Zealand to suggest that they would move away from their positions. But, again, we can take on notice if there has been any feedback along those lines.

Senator FAWCETT: If you don't believe that you can come up with a repeatable operational test that satisfies your safety requirements, does that mean that there will be a flow-on impact where you will stop any pilots that are licensed by the FAA?

Ms Spence : You are asking us to make assessments about something that hasn't actually happened yet. So I would rather let us get through the process that we are working through before we guess what happens after that.

Senator FAWCETT: It is the logical extension of your argument, though.

Ms Spence : I'm talking about what we are actually going to be consulting on. If, as a result of the consultation, we find ourselves unable to progress the way that we have been discussing, we will be open and transparent about what our next steps are. I don't know what other countries will do in response to anything that we do, either.

Over on the UP CM picks up on the revelations and dismal performance of Su_Spence and Marcel Marceau...

Clinton McKenzie

Who is going to be consulted, about what and why?

Ms Spence has now reverted to her usual prevarication tool: “consultation”.

I note that when CAD was inflicted, by Navathe and his fellow zealots, on pilots and aspiring pilots with CVD, there was no consultation with the people whose interests were adversely affected by that CASA action.

I also note that when the OCVA was ‘suspended', there was no consultation with the people whose interests were adversely affected by that CASA action.

CVDPA was told it would be consulted in the supposed ‘strengthening’ of the OCVA that was supposedly going on over the last couple of years. There was no consultation with CVDPA and that strengthening process wasn’t happening.

The only ‘consultation’ happened in an echo chamber built by CASA.
A lot of that happened on Ms Spence's watch.

The pretext of “confusion” and “lack of standardisation” in the administration of the OCVA

Pretext: an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs.

Here’s what actually happened:

The zealots were let loose to implement their personal opinion that anyone who fails the ‘clinical’ tests – the first two of the ‘tiers’ of testing prescribed in the regulations – fails to meet the zealot’s interpretation of the legislated medical standard, and that’s that. The only remaining issue for the zealots is the extent of the restrictions put on the candidate.

The zealots stuck with CAD as a purported third tier test because almost all, if not all, candidates who fail the first two tiers will fail CAD, because CAD is just a colour vision diagnostic test – the clue is in the name. (That said, I’ve heard, second-hand, of candidates who have ‘passed’ CAD. I am waiting to get first-hand evidence of any person having failed Ishara and Farnsworth but having passed CAD and then been issued a ‘clean’ medical certificate so far as colour vision is concerned. If you are that unicorn, could you please contact CVDPA.) Operational tests became a non-existent ‘fourth tier’ to be undergone after the CAD was failed and the candidate had already been assessed as having failed to meet the colour vision standard.

All of that was implemented in fact, in both correspondence and (the usual) uncontrolled changes to AvMed documents. As noted above, there was no intention to ‘strengthen’ the OCVA as a ‘third tier’ test. Indeed, one of the documents disclosed under FOI suggested that candidates be put through the expense of an ACVA, after failing CAD, as a means of validating the CAD.

CASA has just one job in relation to CVD: Determine one or more tests simulating an operational situation as ‘third tier’ test. That wasn’t being done because the zealots don’t want to do that, and have carefree indifference to what the law says because they’ve been encouraged to have that indifference through being left to their own devices.

How to justify all this? We all know the answer to that in CASA: Safety! The silly flight examiners were confused and not administering the OCVA in a standardised way. The OCVA had to be suspended because it was about to rain aluminium. Mere pretext.

Meanwhile, due to the lack of adequate corporate governance, CASA could not produce any written record of the determination of the CAD as a purported third tier test, by a person with the power of determination. How to sweep that under the carpet? Just say there’s no currently determined third tier test.

That suits the zealots’ crusade perfectly. Candidates currently don’t even get the chance to pass a third tier test that’s enshrined in legislation that CASA is supposed to administer, competently and disinterestedly.

(When CVDPA funds a Federal Court application re CASA’s one job, there will be some interesting consequences for CASA if the Court declares, among other things, that the CAD was not and could never have been validly determined as a ‘third tier’ test. All of the people who undertook CAD because CASA asserted it was a ‘third tier’ test may be a bit miffed, and justifiably so.)

How to say something true to obscure the truth

“It’s not true Senator. We are continuing to offer further testing.”

Yeah, but it’s not third tier testing, is it Ms Spence. It’s testing that’s “offered” after the candidate has already been assessed by AvMed as having failed meet the medical standard and AvMed has already decided to restrict the candidate, the only question being how much. That’s why Mr Marcelja mentioned the ‘flexibility’ provisions. AvMed is currently ignoring the third tier test provisions – they are inconvenient to the zealots – and using the ‘flexibility’ provisions to be ‘nice’ to candidates with CVD.

Currently that “further testing” is effectively the candidate spending time and money to get a stick with which AvMed will beat the candidate, after CASA has already decided the candidate fails to meet the standard and will be restricted in some way.

We can’t recall what those documents disclosed under FOI say

So Ms Spence and Mr Marcelja fronted Estimates knowing that they would be questioned about CVD and didn’t ask for a brief on, nor have available to them, the documents about the issue disclosed by CASA under FOI? Seems incredible to me.

Incredible: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed.

Either that, or incompetence. When I fronted Parliamentary committees, I was properly briefed and armed with every document necessary to support any answers I gave to the breadth of questions likely to be asked.

This was after CVDPA refuted the bullsh*t that no one ever failed the OCVA, by producing to CASA a CASA AvMed document that had been disclosed under FOI. When the PMO stated, at the meeting on 23 Jan, no one had failed the OCVA, CVDPA emailed Ms Spence and Mr Marcelja (and Dr Manderson and Dr Aleck) a copy of that CASA AvMed document, and quoted and highlighted in the covering email, the specific text from that document. (I could spend a week exposing and refuting other bullsh*t in the FOI documents about CVD.)

The constant appeal to ICAO might have some credibility if, first, Australia didn’t file numerous differences to ICAO and, secondly, if the current provisions of Part 67 didn’t comply with ICAO SARPs on colour vision deficiency.

The people whose job it was to give domestic effect to ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6 did so in legislation, now in what’s called Part 67 of CASR. Those people also arranged for the filing of differences. And it’s very interesting to note what differences Australia has filed in relation to the CASRs relating to colour vision.

Australia represents to the world that the CASR provisions for demonstration of compliance with the colour perception criterion – which haven’t changed in at least 20 years - comply with ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6. In fact, Australia represents to the world that one CASR provision for demonstration of compliance with the colour perception criterion exceeds ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6.

Australia tells the world that the CASR for demonstration of compliance with the colour perception criterion for class 3 in CASR ‘exceeds’ ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6 requirements. And that’s correct. It’s correct because Australia’s class 3 colour vision standard is the Ishihara test alone. That’s in CASR 67.160(6). There is no ‘tier 2’ or ‘tier 3’ test in Australia’s class 3 standard. The legislature has decided that Air Traffic Controllers must pass Ishihara, even though that’s in excess of ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6 requirements. (I’ll leave experts in ATC to decide whether that’s an ‘overkill’ in 21st century Australia and, if it is, to mount their own campaign for CASR 67.160(6) to be changed. My understanding is that it is due to long-held superstitions, in one of the ICAO contracting states, about different cultures and ethnicities having different emotional reactions to colours.)

Australia also tells the world – also correctly – that the provisions for demonstration of compliance with the colour perception criterion for Class 1 and 2 in CASR meet ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6. That’s because the ‘tiers’ of testing in CASRs 67.150(6) and 67.155(6) are consistent with ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 6.

Short point: Requiring a pass in Ishihara alone exceeds ICAO requirements. Requiring a pass in one of three tiers of testing, including a test simulating an operational situation, meets ICAO requirements.

That’s why, when the OCVA was being administered as a ‘third tier’ test and candidates who passed that test were issued with a ‘clean’ medical certificate so far as colour vision is concerned, Australia did not ‘file’ a new ‘difference’ from ICAO SARPS. That wasn’t necessary, because there was no change – and there has been no change - in the colour perception criterion in the medical standard or in the regulation prescribing the means of demonstration of compliance. All that’s changed is the people and their personal opinions in CASA.

But if it’s about safety, what are you doing about FAA-certified candidates with CVD and NZ-certified candidates with CVD who are flying transport category aircraft in and out of Australia with ‘clean’ medical certificates?

Very good question Senator Fawcett. CVDPA also asked those questions of CASA – on invitation from CASA – and silence continues to be the stern reply. For obvious reasons.

It’s not about safety. It’s about AvMed zealots who’ve been encouraged to harbour grandiose delusions as to the significance of their personal opinions, through being allowed to, among other things, treat pilots and aspiring pilots with CVD as guinea pigs.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AVMAD PMO continues to defy logic on bollocks Class 5 medical?? - 

Via Oz Flying:

Unpacking the Class 5 Medical
20 February 2024


CASA Principal Medical Officer Kate Manderson spoke exclusively with Australian Flying about what the new Class 5 self-declared medical standard means for aviation and aviators.

A Class 5 medical has been on the GA wish list for several years, but despite Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) and several overseas jurisdictions operating on self-declared medical standards, CASA still refused to budge. The only concession was the Basic Class 2, which was only a shadow of what the GA community really wanted.

But the tide began to change with the Class 5 listed on CASA's GA Workplan. It seemed to the GA community that CASA was beginning to flex under the weight of evidence in support of a self-declared medical standard. So what have been the driving motivators that prompted CASA to yield to industry demands?

"What we're trying to do is make it so that more pilots can get a medical certificate more easily, and not making it so that they have to jump through the hoops that are needed for higher-risk flying," PMO Kate Manderson told Australian Flying.

"It's about responding to the industry's requests, but it's also about focusing CASA's attention where it should be, which is higher-risk operations like commercial aviation or ATC, rather than spending too much of our time on people who are low-risk.

"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.

"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."

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

"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.

Those restrictions

CASA has imposed controversial and unpopular restrictions on pilots operating under Class 5. Among the no-goes are aerobatics, formation flying, a 2000-kg MTOW limit, a 10,000-foot ceiling and IFR. According to Manderson, the issue is down to whether or not a pilot is capable of self-assessing their medical fitness for these flight activities.

"We are basing the aerobatics exclusion on science and physiology of g tolerance," she points out. "We've got quite a few decades of data on g tolerance, which goes back to centrifuge experiments done internationally.

"That tells us how g tolerance and spatial orientation are affected by certain medication and medical conditions. We know that these reduce g tolerance, which means you are more likely to have an incident or accident.

"We've looked at whether or not these things can be self-assessed, but you can't self-assess cardiac function, blood pressure response or cardiac rhythm response.

"If it's not self-assessable, then it can't be part of a self-declaration."

Formation flying was included in the bans because pilots can't assess their own vision, which ignores that fact that both the GFA and RAAus pilots have been forming-up for years without a demand to have their vision checked.

"The assessment was that with formation flying, it is not possible to self-assess the way the visual and orientation system works." Manderson said. "We acknowledge that RAAus and the Gliding Federation of Australia have plenty of experience flying formation safely.

"But for formation flying to be safe, the pilot needs to have good peripheral vision, visual acuity and depth perception. These are all things that you can't self-assess, and you can't self-assess the diseases that cause problems as well."

The RAAus experience has a habit of contradicting the CASA position, but as a Part 149 Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) they are free to administer as they like. CASA, however, operates under a risk framework into which Class 5 needs to fit to be implemented.

"We also looked at what size aircraft, number of passengers and where a Class 5 pilot would be able to fly," Manderson said. "This is a multi-layered complex system. One of the TWG members identified that we're adding layers of risk on top of layers of risk.

"Is there a point where we have to stop adding layers? CASA has a bunch of risk management layers that RAAus doesn't have.

"The TWG would have preferred to have had a higher altitude limit of 12,500 feet. But the 10,000 feet limit just comes back to human physiology.
"We’ve taken into account the human physiology and science that comes from many decades of science that determined that 10,000 feet is the point at which even a very healthy human can't maintain their oxygen saturation at reasonable levels."

And as for the 2000-kg MTOW limit ...

"Everyone was pretty happy with the 2000 kg limit," Manderson points out. "There was one dissenting voice, but everyone else was quite satisfied with 2000 kg.

"A lot of work was done by one of the TWG members to actually reference the Australian Civil Register to find out how many aircraft were covered by 2000 kg, and I think it came to 73%.

"Aircraft above that are getting into the multi engine aircraft, complex rotary wing and high-capacity, high-performance aircraft that ought not to be flown on a Class 5."

Exemptions, or lack thereof

Some pilots and aircraft will fall just outside the limits set for self-declared medicals. Why is it safe to fly a 2000-kg MTOW aircraft on a Class 5, but not one with an MTOW of 2010 kg? Surely under those circumstances CASA could provide exemptions? Apparently not.

"We won't be granting exemptions because we wanted to keep it simple," Manderson stated firmly. "The idea is that a large proportion of pilots flying compliant aircraft would be happy to become Class 5. Anyone who wants an exemption can get a Class 2.

"And the other thing is that exemptions would be getting away from the whole point, which is not having to jump through the CASA hoops, which the industry was quite adamant about; they don't want to have to go to a doctor or DAME or get specialist reports.

"If I'm going to give you an exemption, it's going to be based on you giving me evidence to do a risk assessment, which means all the things you didn't want to do."

Surprisingly, CASA is happy for Class 5 pilots to operate in controlled airspace, a volte-face on a vigorously defended position that to do so is unsafe. It is an attitude that has kept RAAus pilots out of CTA for decades. Now CASA admits the safety argument no longer stacks up, and in a huge reversal now considers it more dangerous for self-declared pilots to be excluded from CTA than admitted to CTA.

Kate Manderson: "We unpacked a lot of the assumptions around not allowing self-declared medical pilots into CTA, particularly the assumption that having a medical certificate means you are safer in controlled airspace than you would be outside CTA.

"We talked about how being in CTA might actually make it safer for someone who hasn’t got a medical certificate because now we have a way of making sure that that aircraft doesn’t come near anyone.

"Outside CTA, there’s no-one checking. Inside CTA there are other mechanisms that can be relied on to maintain separation and keep people safe.
"It was thought that having control over the aircraft in CTA was safer than keeping all Class 5s in uncontrolled airspace where we can’t see them."

Applications for Class 5 medicals opened on 9 February, with pilots needing to qualify by completing an on-line course and exam, and verifying that any of a long list of disqualifying conditions don't apply to them. 

So Class 5 is not a free-for-all medical standard, but it is workable for most people in the GA community and is a rare present from a gift horse that has a historical reputation of delivering nothing at all.

Sandy comment in reply... :

I read that article, didn't see what clown wrote its apology for C5. 

"There was one dissenting voice, but everyone else was quite satisfied with 2000 kg."

 "it is workable for most people in the GA community" 

"Aircraft above that are getting into the multi engine aircraft, complex rotary wing and high-capacity, high-performance aircraft that ought not to be flown on a Class 5." 

After all that twaddle, including 2000 kg already includes complex twins and singles, and obviously K. Manderson the TWG are completely clueless about their idiot 2000kg weight limit. 

But wait, the huge elephant in the room gets not a single mention. 2 POB !!!!!!! Thus devaluing all four and six seat aircraft and the seven seat C6
Wonderful journalism.  

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Class 5 medical, what a dog’s breakfast.
How did those brilliant minds pick 2000kg? All this cleverly designed regulation only took about two years and thousands of hours, a supreme example of cogitation, not to mention the total waste of time by the some 600 respondents to CASA’s ‘consultation’ make work process.

What would all that amount to? All the inputs per hour of all concerned? A few $ million down the drain no doubt.

No aerobatics or formation flying for C5 but the gliding fraternity and RAAUS with no medicals are fine. But let’s discourage C5 pilots from improving their skills and providing work for instructors and flying schools.

The pick-a-box weight limit, or, pin the tail on the donkey, wouldn’t be hard to find one of those.

Let’s go with 2000 kg., that’s a nice round figure! We all agreed except one.

So you can fly with your single passenger in a six seat Piper twin Seneca 1 but not the Seneca 2. You can fly early model Cessna 337 but not the later model. Or a Beech TravelAir but not the near identical systems Baron.
You can now fly your Cessna 7/8 seat Cessna 207 but with only one passenger.
Kate Manderson thinks their C5 covers 73% of the fleet, doesn’t she realise that most of those are four and six seat aircraft?

And like the blighted Basic Class 2, unlike the USA BasicMed, IFR is forbidden. And just in case anyone forgets the crowing about the wonderful Basic Class 2 ‘reform’ of five or six years ago just remember that its ‘unconditional heavy vehicle’ requirement means ok to drive a truck load of avgas through any city on a (common) conditional driver licence but not fly your Cessna anywhere.

Next time we see a VFR into IMC accident and people die, do not forget that our ‘safety’ regulator discriminates against the take up of the Instrument Rating. C5 restrictions encourages pilots to stop flying IFR and discourages IFR training. In turn less work for flying schools, maintenance firms and parts suppliers which inevitably leads to higher overall costs. Flying by the Instrument Flight Rules is the safest and most efficient form of X-country flying.

Yes CASA has done it again, another Clayton’s reform, the reform you are having when you are not having one, and no one predicted it would be so bad. A new low point in the history of the CASASTROPHE.

[Peetwo]

AVMAD PMO continues to defy logic on bollocks Class 5 medical - Clinton McKenzie in reply?? - 

Previous post:

Via Oz Flying:

Unpacking the Class 5 Medical
20 February 2024


CASA Principal Medical Officer Kate Manderson spoke exclusively with Australian Flying about what the new Class 5 self-declared medical standard means for aviation and aviators.

A Class 5 medical has been on the GA wish list for several years, but despite Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) and several overseas jurisdictions operating on self-declared medical standards, CASA still refused to budge. The only concession was the Basic Class 2, which was only a shadow of what the GA community really wanted.

But the tide began to change with the Class 5 listed on CASA's GA Workplan. It seemed to the GA community that CASA was beginning to flex under the weight of evidence in support of a self-declared medical standard. So what have been the driving motivators that prompted CASA to yield to industry demands?

"What we're trying to do is make it so that more pilots can get a medical certificate more easily, and not making it so that they have to jump through the hoops that are needed for higher-risk flying," PMO Kate Manderson told Australian Flying.

"It's about responding to the industry's requests, but it's also about focusing CASA's attention where it should be, which is higher-risk operations like commercial aviation or ATC, rather than spending too much of our time on people who are low-risk.

"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.

"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."

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

"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.

Those restrictions

CASA has imposed controversial and unpopular restrictions on pilots operating under Class 5. Among the no-goes are aerobatics, formation flying, a 2000-kg MTOW limit, a 10,000-foot ceiling and IFR. According to Manderson, the issue is down to whether or not a pilot is capable of self-assessing their medical fitness for these flight activities.

"We are basing the aerobatics exclusion on science and physiology of g tolerance," she points out. "We've got quite a few decades of data on g tolerance, which goes back to centrifuge experiments done internationally.

"That tells us how g tolerance and spatial orientation are affected by certain medication and medical conditions. We know that these reduce g tolerance, which means you are more likely to have an incident or accident.

"We've looked at whether or not these things can be self-assessed, but you can't self-assess cardiac function, blood pressure response or cardiac rhythm response.

"If it's not self-assessable, then it can't be part of a self-declaration."

Formation flying was included in the bans because pilots can't assess their own vision, which ignores that fact that both the GFA and RAAus pilots have been forming-up for years without a demand to have their vision checked.

"The assessment was that with formation flying, it is not possible to self-assess the way the visual and orientation system works." Manderson said. "We acknowledge that RAAus and the Gliding Federation of Australia have plenty of experience flying formation safely.

"But for formation flying to be safe, the pilot needs to have good peripheral vision, visual acuity and depth perception. These are all things that you can't self-assess, and you can't self-assess the diseases that cause problems as well."

The RAAus experience has a habit of contradicting the CASA position, but as a Part 149 Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) they are free to administer as they like. CASA, however, operates under a risk framework into which Class 5 needs to fit to be implemented.

"We also looked at what size aircraft, number of passengers and where a Class 5 pilot would be able to fly," Manderson said. "This is a multi-layered complex system. One of the TWG members identified that we're adding layers of risk on top of layers of risk.

"Is there a point where we have to stop adding layers? CASA has a bunch of risk management layers that RAAus doesn't have.

"The TWG would have preferred to have had a higher altitude limit of 12,500 feet. But the 10,000 feet limit just comes back to human physiology.
"We’ve taken into account the human physiology and science that comes from many decades of science that determined that 10,000 feet is the point at which even a very healthy human can't maintain their oxygen saturation at reasonable levels."

And as for the 2000-kg MTOW limit ...

"Everyone was pretty happy with the 2000 kg limit," Manderson points out. "There was one dissenting voice, but everyone else was quite satisfied with 2000 kg.

"A lot of work was done by one of the TWG members to actually reference the Australian Civil Register to find out how many aircraft were covered by 2000 kg, and I think it came to 73%.

"Aircraft above that are getting into the multi engine aircraft, complex rotary wing and high-capacity, high-performance aircraft that ought not to be flown on a Class 5."

Exemptions, or lack thereof

Some pilots and aircraft will fall just outside the limits set for self-declared medicals. Why is it safe to fly a 2000-kg MTOW aircraft on a Class 5, but not one with an MTOW of 2010 kg? Surely under those circumstances CASA could provide exemptions? Apparently not.

"We won't be granting exemptions because we wanted to keep it simple," Manderson stated firmly. "The idea is that a large proportion of pilots flying compliant aircraft would be happy to become Class 5. Anyone who wants an exemption can get a Class 2.

"And the other thing is that exemptions would be getting away from the whole point, which is not having to jump through the CASA hoops, which the industry was quite adamant about; they don't want to have to go to a doctor or DAME or get specialist reports.

"If I'm going to give you an exemption, it's going to be based on you giving me evidence to do a risk assessment, which means all the things you didn't want to do."

Surprisingly, CASA is happy for Class 5 pilots to operate in controlled airspace, a volte-face on a vigorously defended position that to do so is unsafe. It is an attitude that has kept RAAus pilots out of CTA for decades. Now CASA admits the safety argument no longer stacks up, and in a huge reversal now considers it more dangerous for self-declared pilots to be excluded from CTA than admitted to CTA.

Kate Manderson: "We unpacked a lot of the assumptions around not allowing self-declared medical pilots into CTA, particularly the assumption that having a medical certificate means you are safer in controlled airspace than you would be outside CTA.

"We talked about how being in CTA might actually make it safer for someone who hasn’t got a medical certificate because now we have a way of making sure that that aircraft doesn’t come near anyone.

"Outside CTA, there’s no-one checking. Inside CTA there are other mechanisms that can be relied on to maintain separation and keep people safe.
"It was thought that having control over the aircraft in CTA was safer than keeping all Class 5s in uncontrolled airspace where we can’t see them."

Applications for Class 5 medicals opened on 9 February, with pilots needing to qualify by completing an on-line course and exam, and verifying that any of a long list of disqualifying conditions don't apply to them. 

So Class 5 is not a free-for-all medical standard, but it is workable for most people in the GA community and is a rare present from a gift horse that has a historical reputation of delivering nothing at all.

Via the UP:

Clinton McKenzie

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:

"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.

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.

"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."

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:

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.

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 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 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:

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

© 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.

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:

(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

© 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.

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...)

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.

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.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA CVD policy update? -   

Via latest CASA bollocks briefing: https://updates.communication.casa.gov.a...76d958ec1a

Plan to improve colour vision deficiency policy for pilots

Work is underway to settle and formalise colour vision testing options for pilots who are not able to pass clinical colour vision tests.

Our aim is to have new testing options available for pilots by the end of April that are formally determined in a legislative instrument.

The tests will recognise that many pilots with a colour vision deficiency can demonstrate they are able to operate safely and competently without any medical or operational restrictions.

Consultation is currently underway through our Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, and public consultation on the proposed testing options is expected before the end of March.

The options will include a practical assessment designed to demonstrate a pilot’s ability to effectively distinguish colours and coloured lights through a robust and standardised operational test.

Pilots who are unable to pass the prescribed Ishihara or Farnsworth colour vision clinical tests and are seeking to renew their medical certificate are encouraged to call our Aviation Medicine team on 131 757 to discuss their individual circumstances.

We will work hard to ensure this interim period gives rise to as little disruption as possible, while satisfying current safety and regulatory requirements.

Subscribe to our Consultation and rule-making mailing list to receive an alert when consultation opens.

Here we go again yet another totally non-sensical, bollocks, bureaucratic make work program from our Big-R regulator, with CASA AVMAD reinventing the CVD wheel? - FDS!

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

John O'Brien update on progress of CASA CVD policy - 

Via the UP:

johnobr

Another update

As a further brief update, I'm again pleased to report that good progress is continuing to be made. CASA have recently established a Colour Vision Technical Working Group (TWG) which supports the work of their Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). The TWG has already met twice in the past fortnight and is represented by a number of industry experts, including CVDPA.

The TWG has been considering and providing advice and industry sector recommendations into documentation, including a draft legislative instrument and flight examiner handbook appendix, which will form the basis of the new third tier operational testing under CASR 67.150 (6)©.

We expect more information to be published publicly soon, but in the meantime CVD pilots should take some comfort in knowing that things seem to be finally headed in the right direction and a favourable outcome should be achieved in the near future. The objective still remains to have this all resolved by the end of April.

Aviation medicine colour vision deficiency technical working group

The role of the aviation medicine colour vision deficiency (CVD) TWG is to:

• ascertain the pathway forward for pilots with CVD and the appropriate tests to undertake
  
• ensure the implementation of an Operational Colour Vision Assessment (OCVA) that is fit for purpose and has been assessed to standard.
  
  

Membership:

• Dr Jeremy Robertson
  
• John O’Brien
  
• Matt Handley
  
• Steve Cornell
  
• Lex Garriock
  
• Ray Cronin
  
• Dr Adrian Smith
  

Plus Sandy in reply:

Sandy Reith

Progress

Glad to hear that CASA is being dragged into the real world. Reminds of the advice that “the beatings will stop when morale improves.”

It should not be forgotten that all the angst and troubles for CVD pilots should never have happened in the first place.

And, if not for the dedicated work of a number of individuals, be sure that any real reforms would not happen if CASA was left to its own devices.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CVDPA Update | Colour Vision Testing (AOCVA) Consultation

Courtesy CVDPA, via YouTube:

CASA has opened consultation on a proposed legislative instrument which will see the reinstatement of an operational test, the passing of which will result in a clean medical with no CVD related restrictions.

Join CVDPA directors as they break down the proposed instrument, and what this means for CVD pilots.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA releases new uniquely Australian CVD pilot assessment policy?? -

Via Su_Spence online media page:

New colour vision testing policy finalised

Type - News
Date - 20 June 2024

We have finalised the new testing policy for pilots with colour vision deficiency.



Pilots can now book an Australian Operational Colour Vision Assessment (AOCVA) with certified flight examiners.

If a pilot passes the AOCVA, they will be issued with a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate with no restrictions.

‘We would like to thank and acknowledge the efforts of our stakeholders who have worked with us to find a pragmatic solution,’ says Andreas Marcelja, Executive Manager of Stakeholder and Engagement Division at CASA.

‘We believe that our revised policy ensures we address safety risks, while providing flexibility and certainty for colour vision deficient pilots.’

We would like to recognise and thank the Aviation medicine colour vision deficiency technical working group and the aviation community for their support to ensure the new policy is fit for purpose and provides change for affected pilots.

For more information, visit our Colour vision assessment for medical certificates webpage.

Plus via Oz Flying...

CASA Green-lights Colour Vision Assessments

21 June 2024


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) yesterday announced that pilots who were able to pass the Australian Operational Colour Vision Assessment (AOCVA) would be issued Class 1 and 2 medicals without restrictions.


The policy has been formalised after years of lobbying from politicians and advocacy groups, particularly the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) and its director Arthur Pape.

in 2014, CASA sent a letter to pilots stating that colour-vision deficiency could make them unsafe, and the following year continued to demand a Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test, which the CVDPA contended was inappropriate for operational situations.

CASA since established an Aviation Medicine Colour Vision technical working group, which reached unanimous agreement with the new policy last month.

"We would like to thank and acknowledge the efforts of our stakeholders who have worked with us to find a pragmatic solution,’ says Andreas Marcelja, Executive Manager of Stakeholder and Engagement Division at CASA.

"We believe that our revised policy ensures we address safety risks, while providing flexibility and certainty for colour vision deficient pilots."

The new policy adds to a raft of tests available to pilots with colour-vision deficiency, including Ishihara and Farnsworth Lantern tests.

More information is available on the CASA website.

Hmm...wonder how long it will take the bureaucratic medical zealots at AVMAD to start unwinding this version of the OCVA?? - 

MTF...P2 

PS: Strange that there is no mention on any of Fort Fumble's social media pages of this grand announcement - 

[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

[Peetwo]

CVDPA update on AOCVA: 11/07/24

Courtesy CVDPA, via YouTube:

Streamed live on Jul 11, 2024

In June 2024, CASA finalised their new Colour Vision policy, which reintroduced an operational flight test, the passing of which results in a 'clean' medical with no CVD related restrictions. 

Join CVDPA directors as they break down the final instrument, the progress of the implementation, and discuss what this means for CVD pilots.

Plus CM update to his PPrune thread "Avmed delays in granting medical certificates - CASR 11.140":

Clinton McKenzie

Ms Spence’s response, yesterday (10 July 2024) to my email dated 27 June 2024:

Thanks for sharing Clayton Utz’ advice in relation to the operation of CASR 11.140 in relation to medical certificates.

I’ve discussed it with Jonathan, and there is nothing in Mr Sibley’s advice that changes our position that CASR 11.140 does not apply in respect of medical certificates.

It is not unusual for there to be different interpretations of the civil aviation legislation and as you infer in your email, it is ultimately a matter for courts to determine the correct interpretation.

While we have different views on the legislative interpretation, that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss any practical concerns you have around the impact of our interpretation on the aviation community.

Should you wish to meet with me, Andreas and Jonathan to do that, please let me know.

My response this morning (11 July 2024):

Thank you for responding to my email.

I think the chronic delays in CASA’s medical certification processes are well known – CASA’s own published service delivery data have been there for all to see for years. And the impacts of those delays on a person who requires the certificate to lawfully earn a living or engage in their life’s passion should be obvious on a moment’s reflection by anyone with empathy. (For those without empathy, I’d commend the many submissions made by representative bodies and individuals to numerous inquiries into aviation regulatory matters and reviews of medical certification.) Those impacts would have been and continue to be avoided, with no risk to the safety of air navigation, if there were a regulation keeping medical certificates in force while CASA processed renewal applications submitted on time.

You have confirmed that CASA will persist with its interpretation, knowing the impacts and despite Mr Sibley’s reasoning and conclusion. As you say, it’s a matter for the Court. And we’ll see if – as with ‘RoboDebt’ – Mr Sibley’s conclusion turns out to be correct. I therefore do not consider that a meeting would be productive of anything for anyone, but I thank you for proffering it as a potential next step.

Before I seek and publish Mr Sibley’s advice on the interpretation of CASR 67.150(7) in relation to the colour perception criterion in the medical standards, could you please confirm that CASA’s position continues to be as quoted in my email to you of 27 June 2024.

And in reply:

Chronic Snoozer

It is not unusual for there to be different interpretations of the civil aviation legislation and as you infer in your email, it is ultimately a matter for courts to determine the correct interpretation.

The legislation should not be open to interpretation otherwise what is the point of rewriting regulations? The output has to be clearer, more succinct and logical, not to mention simpler than what came before. What is the benefit from going to court to get the “correct” interpretation of a vague piece of legislation? Just write it properly in the first place. In “pilot speak” would be handy too.

---

Clinton McKenzie

All words are open to interpretation, no matter who writes them and no matter the intended audience.

My view is that 11.140 is clear and succinct and is intended to achieve a very obvious and reasonable policy. And Mr Sibley's advice explains why there is no risk to the safety of air navigation arising from interpreting 11.140 as applying to medical certificates.

I can't help but conclude that CASA's interpretation is influenced by what's convenient for CASA (at the expense of people exposed to the vagaries of CASA delays in the medical certification process).

That's what happened in RoboDebt. A sycophant senior bureaucracy ran the system the way the government of the day wanted it to run, interpreting the legislation to suit that convenient outcome while sweeping under the carpet legal advice - such as that of Mr Sibley - that ultimately proved to be correct.

Sadly, the practical reality is that it falls to powerless individuals to fight these matters in court to get an authoritative interpretation.

---

Chronic Snoozer

All words are open to interpretation, no matter who writes them and no matter the intended audience.

Hence the proliferation of clauses containing the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt”, the hallmark of less than optimal wording.

Sadly, the practical reality is that it falls to powerless individuals to fight these matters in court to get an authoritative interpretation

The nub of the issue. The power imbalance.

---

triadic

AvMed would have to be the least trusted section in CASA, which is really sad as those that manage it should be out in the field on a regular basis, so that we get to know them and they learn how to understand the industry. In my now over 50 years in aviation, I can only recall ONE manager of Avmed that was a qualified (ATPL) pilot. Of course things were very differnt in days gone by, but there are many lessons to learn from on how things were managed in the past. But these days it is the rules and the i dotting and t crossing that is more important than having a manager that understands the industry and has the ability to make appropriate judgements.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Chalk & Cheese? - BasicMed (FAA) v Class 5 medical self-declaration (CASA)

I note there was an update to the US FAA BasicMed (Driver Licence) medical certificate: 

FAA Updates BasicMed Program

Friday, November 15, 2024

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration updated its BasicMed regulations to allow pilots to operate larger aircraft and carry more passengers. 

BasicMed, which took effect in 2017, allows pilots to fly without holding an FAA medical certificate provided they meet certain conditions. 

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 required the FAA to expand BasicMed to:

• Increase the number of allowable passengers to six from five, and the number of occupants to seven from six. 
  
• Increase the maximum aircraft takeoff weight to 12,500 lbs. from 6,000 lbs., excluding transport category helicopters. 
  
• Allow pilot examiners to conduct flight checks using BasicMed in aircraft that are covered by the BasicMed rule. Information for examiners is available here.
  

Pilots must meet specific conditions to operate under BasicMed. Among other things, they must have held a valid medical certificate at some point after July 14, 2006; the most recent medical certificate cannot have been denied, revoked, or suspended; they must complete a medical exam by a state-licensed physician; they must complete an online medical education course; and they must hold a valid U.S. driver’s license. 

BasicMed also includes certain limitations. Pilots cannot fly for compensation or hire and are restricted to flying at or below 18,000 feet altitude and at a speed no greater than 250 knots. 

Compare to our uniquely Australian recently introduced Class 5 self-declaration medical certificate...  :

The Class 5 medical self-declaration allows recreational and private pilots to self-assess and self-declare without requiring a medical assessment.

The pathway is for pilots seeking a recreational pilot's licence (RPL). It is also an entry point for those looking to be able to commence flight training.

The Class 5 medical self-declaration is an alternative to the current Basic Class 2 (BC2) medical certificate and Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioners Certificate (RAMPC).

Eligibility

You must:

• meet fitness and eligibility requirements
  
• complete and pass online training
  
• self-declare and operate in accordance with specified operational limitations.
  

If you are unsure of your health status, visit your health practitioner for advice before applying.

Operational limitations

Operational limitations include:

• Private operations only.
  
• Aircraft certificated maximum take-off weight must be 2000 kg or less.
  
• Must only operate under the visual flight rules (day VFR) by day (no IFR, no IMC, no night VFR).
  
• Must not operate above 10,000 feet above mean sea level.
  
• Must have no more than 2 persons on board.
  
• Must not use a CASR Part 61 operational rating. For example, instructor rating or low-level rating. For a complete list, refer to the definitions in CASR 61.010.
  
• Must not conduct aerobatics or formation flying.
  
• Must operate wholly within Australian territory.
  

Pilots can access controlled and non-controlled airspace.

Read the explanation for how the operational limitations for the Class 5 medical self-declaration were developed.

Wonder what Su_Spence and her minions know about mitigating safety risk in pilot medical certification that the US FAA doesn't?? - 

From Senate Estimates thread:

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASS has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are you hiding?
Ms Spence : Nothing. As we've explained before, the medical records don't allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you've asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren't airworthy.  Nothing. As we've explained before, the medical records don't allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you've asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren't airworthy.

MTF...P2