Couldn't agree more – but, (for sake of discussion) –
Wombat - “My GP read the basic class 2 paperwork and said words to the effect that there is no way in hell he was going to sign anyone off “unconditionally”.
Couldn't agree more – but, (for sake of discussion) –
This is one of the 'flaws' in the Avmed system – a DAME sign off is a requirement with legal whistles and bells – insurance ramifications and etc. for commercial operations. But it begs the question – will the insurance company covering Fred's Bonanza accept a self declared medical? I reckon they would – take the money – and deny any claim made on the basis that Fred was 'unfit' to fly on the day of the prang. Evidenced that he had not been within cooee of a Doctor's office for years. This has sod all to do with Avmed though – a simple private record of annual check up by GP (and any treatments recommended and complete) would put a lid on the insurance denial of payout.
Wombat - “That means that the decision to fly is solely in the hands of the aviator, period.”
Couldn't agree more – but, (for sake of discussion) – there's a couple of bumps within the concept which need to be ironed out. The decision 'to fly or not to fly' has always been solely the decision of the individual, no matter what the medical certificate held. Which is great; and very much part of the 'command' discretion one could expect from a pilot, no matter the class if licence held. But, nearly all decisions made by pilots are based on 'knowledge' – of what they know, can see, hear or discover – depending on the level of training required to gain the qualification held. That may make 'em their own master – airborne – and decisions made based against certain knowledge are valid. What they are not is 'medical' experts and a self diagnosis made without a solid 'base line' is an elevated risk. Your car gets a 'once over' every year for rego – good to go out of the shed – but, there's nothing in that to guarantee 100% that it wont pack up half way home; it's a fair bet that it won't – and that is a reasonable assumption to make before a long road trip – you know the car is 'fit'. Same - same with pilots – a once year 'inspection' to make sure the 'essentials' are up to snuff; or have had the repairs required done is not too big an incubus; no need for 'official' interference; just common sense to check the tyres and under the bonnet once in a while. Would you go flying without a valid MR and a daily inspection?
Wombat - “By all means set a weight limit, but set it for the purpose of ensuring commercial and private licence capability limits don’t overlap.”
An old puzzle, but does setting a weight limit achieve anything? This is where it becomes debatable. Why select an arbitrary weight limit which precludes a fairly substantial range of popular light aircraft? Baron @ 2300 Kg – Bonanza 1726 Kg. A simple risk matrix, based on operations, annual flight time, type of operation etc would help define the actual 'risk' of medical incapacitation to a realistic median.
Oh, I don't know where the solution lays – but the UK and the USA seem to have managed to do it, quite nicely, without the ructions and angst. Perhaps we could just follow the lead of the 'gold standard' first world nations and just get on with it.
Toot – toot..
Wombat - “My GP read the basic class 2 paperwork and said words to the effect that there is no way in hell he was going to sign anyone off “unconditionally”.
Couldn't agree more – but, (for sake of discussion) –
This is one of the 'flaws' in the Avmed system – a DAME sign off is a requirement with legal whistles and bells – insurance ramifications and etc. for commercial operations. But it begs the question – will the insurance company covering Fred's Bonanza accept a self declared medical? I reckon they would – take the money – and deny any claim made on the basis that Fred was 'unfit' to fly on the day of the prang. Evidenced that he had not been within cooee of a Doctor's office for years. This has sod all to do with Avmed though – a simple private record of annual check up by GP (and any treatments recommended and complete) would put a lid on the insurance denial of payout.
Wombat - “That means that the decision to fly is solely in the hands of the aviator, period.”
Couldn't agree more – but, (for sake of discussion) – there's a couple of bumps within the concept which need to be ironed out. The decision 'to fly or not to fly' has always been solely the decision of the individual, no matter what the medical certificate held. Which is great; and very much part of the 'command' discretion one could expect from a pilot, no matter the class if licence held. But, nearly all decisions made by pilots are based on 'knowledge' – of what they know, can see, hear or discover – depending on the level of training required to gain the qualification held. That may make 'em their own master – airborne – and decisions made based against certain knowledge are valid. What they are not is 'medical' experts and a self diagnosis made without a solid 'base line' is an elevated risk. Your car gets a 'once over' every year for rego – good to go out of the shed – but, there's nothing in that to guarantee 100% that it wont pack up half way home; it's a fair bet that it won't – and that is a reasonable assumption to make before a long road trip – you know the car is 'fit'. Same - same with pilots – a once year 'inspection' to make sure the 'essentials' are up to snuff; or have had the repairs required done is not too big an incubus; no need for 'official' interference; just common sense to check the tyres and under the bonnet once in a while. Would you go flying without a valid MR and a daily inspection?
Wombat - “By all means set a weight limit, but set it for the purpose of ensuring commercial and private licence capability limits don’t overlap.”
An old puzzle, but does setting a weight limit achieve anything? This is where it becomes debatable. Why select an arbitrary weight limit which precludes a fairly substantial range of popular light aircraft? Baron @ 2300 Kg – Bonanza 1726 Kg. A simple risk matrix, based on operations, annual flight time, type of operation etc would help define the actual 'risk' of medical incapacitation to a realistic median.
Oh, I don't know where the solution lays – but the UK and the USA seem to have managed to do it, quite nicely, without the ructions and angst. Perhaps we could just follow the lead of the 'gold standard' first world nations and just get on with it.
Toot – toot..