Medicals

[Yenn]

I note that there are some SAAA members who think GA pilots should have the same priveleges as RAAus pilots, namely no need for a medical. They are also suggesting that SAAA should step up in opposition to RAAus to run recreational flying of aircraft that RAAus does not run. That is more than 1 passenger, heavier or greater stall speed.

 

They are running short of finances and fees will all go up soon, but I would like to see the medical requirement removed from fun GA flying. I doubt that SAAA would be able to run the Sport Pilot licence, but maybe RAAus should give it some thought.

 

 

[Guest David C]

They are running short of finances and fees will all go up soon,

Yenn you must be psychic .. I've received an email today from the SAAA . The annual fees are rising to $185/ annum , a 6% increase .. Hows's that !

 

Dave C

 

 

[Spin]

What sort of numbers (of aircraft) are we talking about Yenn? Is it something RA Aus could realistically take on, considering that we have quite a bit of our own regulatory framework to get through yet, Part 103, Weight increase and Controlled airspace being some of them.

 

 

[poteroo]

SAAA are keen on the RPL, which allows flight in GA without a medical. It's different to RAAus in that they don't really want to fly weight limited aircraft. It will require a leap-of-faith for CASA - because most of the pressure for this appears to be from oldies likely to have difficulty in maintaining a Class 2 medical.

 

Note: In the USA, (but not here) - if you fail a PPL medical, you are going to lose your LSA, (RAAus equiv), as well. How long until.......?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

The more I think about Class 2 medicals, the more I realise how good the RA-Aus system is. I continue to renew my Class 2 because one day soon I might cross to the 'other side' and get a PPL. But the medical examination seems so irrelevant to the real risks and situations that can cause accidents - fatigue, alcohol, drugs, taking shortcuts in planning, lack of proper pre-flight checks, ...

 

How do you test for all these human factors issues? Best not to require medicals for recreational flying, but there should be other people 'checking you out' before you go flying, with a simple friendly conversation - a CFI, instructor, or even someone working on an aircraft in a shed.

 

 

[Yenn]

Not psychic. I got the letter a bit before you.

 

The loss of a medical causing pilots to not be able to get a sport pilots licence wouldn't apply if they got the sport licence and then didn't go for another medical. I know a lot of GA pilots are worried about losing their medical, it means that they can't fly their GA planes. They can transfer to RAAus but it is not of much use if they own a plane too heavy for RAAus.

 

I am not sure but I thought the RPL would only allow them to fly a plane with a 600kg MAUW, so there is not much in it for GA pilots.

 

 

[Yenn]

Following on from above, does anyone know what the safety benefits of a medical are?

 

How many accidents ar incidents have happened to RAAus pilots because of a medical problem? Also would the flight Medical have prevented the incident.

 

Years ago a friend of mine had a massive heart attack and died within about a month of having his medical for a commercial licence, he was in charge of a rescue boat, not flying at the time. I queried the Dr when I had my medical and he stated that the medical could not predict a hearrt attack. So what can it predict? Or is it something else of little use, but a good earner.

 

 

[facthunter]

Limit of 600 kgs for Rec licence- SAAA?

 

I have never heard that suggested Yenn, and I have been involved since the commencement of the move. Why would they want to impose that limit on themselves? There is a question of 2 POB/ or more than 2 POB, and the controlled airspace consideration. Weight per se. hasn't been mentioned. I've always said it should not be a factor anyhow. (Within reason)

 

Regarding the effectiveness of the medical being able to predict heart attack/strokes, It really doesn't. The ordinary resting echocardiogram MIGHT show if you have HAD a heart attack. The Bruces Protocol form of exercise ECG gives a quantitative assessment of heart function at the time but could CAUSE a heart attack ( and has done) but would not predict the likelihood of a stroke.. I have personal knowledge of at least 3 persons who have had a totally unpredicted heart attack, the youngest at age 28 and the others were fatal at around 45 and 58 years of age who had ALL passed a recent CLASS ONE medical I would suggest that a lifestyle and fitness regime might be far more effective, and an education programme put in place for pilots to recognise danger signs . (Breathlessness and chest pain, etc) and encouraged to visit their doctor on a regular basis, and look after themselves generally. Regarding just how many RAAus people have had problems with on board heart attacks, I don't know, but I would suggest that the record may be better than GA. Certainly I don't feel that it is worse. No information I have come across would indicate otherwise Nev.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

personally, I can't see any advantage of either the SAAA or RAA taking over recreational GA...and would add more restrictions and expense. having just gone through another medical renewal, I think its a good safety issue to get checked out anyway. if you get to the stage when you start failing medicals should you really be up there (ie over populated areas). At my age I reckon I got about 10 years left before age related issues may start to preclude me piloting aircraft and at that stage would have enjoyed about 40years of flying. so what will I do then you may ask...I've told the missus, I'am going to buy a big catamaran and become a Pirate..:gerg:

 

 

[facthunter]

Age Related Issues?

 

AGE RELATED?? It is not that simple. The CASA process has to meet international standards that have not altered for yonks and many interested and thoughtfull pilots, (and others). believe they are unnecessarily restrictive and safety considerations will not be reduced. There are already overseas examples in place, SO we are not trailblazing in any way here. It wouldn't be forced on any one either, merely an alternative OPTION with REDUCED benefits. Tomorrow it may be you, in the meantime if you are not disadvantaged please do NOT oppose something others want because you THINK (at the moment) that YOU don't want/need it. Nev

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

The standing joke about the pilot who had just passed his medical, and dropped dead when he got the Doctor's bill, is in reality not far from the truth.

 

The whole history of "aviation medical standards" is thoroughly mid-understood and what they are NOT --- is the end result of a thorough risk assessment process and analysis to determine what is a suitable standard of medical condition/fitness to fly.

 

What they were, originally, was a set of military medical screening standards designed to exclude all but the top 5% or so candidates for military flying training. Even in the military, it was not a matter of the minimum standard to fly.

 

 

 

As the starting point for the regulation of civil aviation, in most counties including AU (but excluding US) was a quasi military organization, staffed by ex-military types. Nobody gave a moments thought as to whether military screening standards were suitable medical standards for civil aviation pilots, the same standards were just imposed.

 

 

 

For example, when I first started, for CPL and up, you had to meet the eyesight standard without correction, even though you could later wear glasses, or more recently, contact lenses, as age caught up.

 

 

 

Clearly, wearing glasses had nothing to do with flying safely!!

 

 

 

When I got my first permanent flying job, the retiring age had just been increased from 45 to 50 ---- despite all the forecasts of death and destruction as crews collapsed in the air from "old age", it never happened.

 

 

 

It is close to the truth to say that, in Australia, "medical standards" that were set by RFC in WW 1, only started to be "relaxed" in Australia in the early 1960s. And how did some people whinge about "reduced standards would hit safety".

 

 

 

Strangely enough, the loudest whingers changed their tune as the normal effects of age started to catch up with them --- and all of a sudden they reckoned they could still fly safely --- which was, of course, true.

 

 

 

I have written on this subject quite extensively, my starting point is the huge FAA database, but to distill it all down:

 

 

 

There is no demonstrated connection between medical standards for pilots, as required by regulation, and any subsequent incident or accident caused by a medical event.

 

 

 

For the original FAA RPL, FAA conducted a huge study, and came to the above conclusion, and thus proposed the National Drivers License Standard (which is a standard, you may need a formal medical --- see the rules in every Australian State and Territory) as the medical standard for the FAA RPL.

 

 

 

There was a very unedifying eruption from the Association representing the FAA equivalent of a DAME (big $$$$ losses loomed) to the US DoT, and the medicos won, the FAA lost, and the take-up of the RPL was minimal

 

 

 

In many ways, this is the only reason for the FAA SPL, go just a tich down market, give it another name, SPL instead of RPL ---- and ---- when the usual moans about "dangerous pilots flying without some magic bullet called a medical" ---- have FAA/AOPA-US/EAA submit the Australia experience of more than 20 years of thousands of pilots flying on a "National Drivers License" medical standard ----- without one single demonstrable case of an accident due to medical causes.

 

 

 

Of course, in 1996, the then Australian Government adopted a new risk standard for assessing some aviation operations ---- where all involved affirmed they voluntarily accepted certain risks --- and that the CASA responsibility was to protect: "Other airspace users and those under the flight path of the aircraft".

 

 

 

 

 

It was this point in Government policy shift ( which didn't "fall from the sky" --- it took a bloody lot of effort by a handful of people -- not including the then SAAA and AOPA) that underpinned that the Australian RPL having the same medical standard as the (then) AUF Pilot Certificate.

 

 

 

In this day and age, all national aviation authorities give at least lip service to "risk management", but little really changes. In the CASA case, there is a very serious question about how the probability of a medical event will impact on "safety". IN reality, what is the "hazard, mitigation, residual risk and consequences".

 

 

 

For assessment of the risk, on an annual basis, it seems to be assumed that the pilot will fly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to assess the exposure. In fact it should probably be X:8760 of the annual risk, X being the number of hours flown a year, 8760 being the hours in a year.

 

 

 

Even AU airline pilots fly a maximum of 900 hours a year, so even their exposure to being in the air, when they have a medical problem, is only about 10% of the assumed annual risk --- and that is generally a 2% PA probability, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

 

 

So the "real" risk if a medical event having a safety consequence is, in somewhat over simplistic terms ( I am probably giving a real statistician the screamers) is "10% of 2%", which is a lousy way to put it, but you get the drift.

 

 

 

In summary, a very good ( FAA) case can be made, and has been made, to show that:

 

 

 

"There is no causal connection between the medical assessment standards for a pilot license of any class, and the hazard, residual risk and consequences of a pilot suffering a medical event in the air".

 

 

Put slightly differently:

 

 

 

"There is no relation between a pilot with a current medical of any class, and pilot morbidity airborne".

 

 

For all you PPL and up CASA medical certificate holders, who are forever whinging about "flying without a medical', I hope that helps ease your fears.

 

 

 

If you want to dispute what I have said, get onto the FAA web site and do your homework first --- the original RPL NPRM, the supporting material, and submission, and FAA disposition of input to the NPRM.

 

 

 

As far as I am concerned, all the above stated as fact, is fact, not an opinion.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Quite right Bill, I agree totally with your post. The current medical standards set by CASA are quite draconian and should be reformed to meet modern medical standards. In the past, medical issues, colour-blindness or general fitness (or lack there-of) would meet with a medical refusal. It is indeed very good to see a range of issues like colour blindness, blood pressure, heart irregularities (I have a friend who flies commercially with a pacemaker) and now diabeties being relaxed if effective controls are in place to keep everything in the normal range. In the other post regarding diabeties, three month checks by a DAME seem a little "over the top" I would have thought that a six monthly confirmation with your GP and a yearly check with a DAME would be quite affective. My earlier post reflected my opinion on another "regulator" being introduced into the arena with the proposition that it take over private GA (medicals being a major issue). I would much prefer the RAA remain the only governence on recreational flying (monetary commonsense) with an increase of weight to include experimental and simple four seat single engine aircraft VFR by day, OCTA without medicals. ( I can't see any major differences with the skills required to fly a Jab, RV6 or a C182) and for PPL and upwards, a reform in medical standards which is realistic that reflects modern medical controls on pre-existing conditions. As for age related issues, :black_eye: another good friend of mine stopped flying at 76 because his response time to things happening got to a stage where he thought it was too risky to continue. Wasn't a regulator/DAME that told him to stop flying but it was his decision. He is still fit and healthy, still drives across the Nullabor, still goes deep sea fishing and still enjoys going flying with someone else doing the driving.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thank You.

 

Bill H for your effort, well researched and expressed. We really do need to deal in the absolute facts of the matter when we are considering where we are going. It is that important. Regards Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Well that just about answers my question!

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Dunlopdangler,

 

Both the "non-standard colour perception" (rather than colour blind) and diabetic issues are studies in themselves, and the former is a running sore.

 

Both in US and Australia, the tale of an insulin dependent diabetic who wants to be a pilot or air traffic controller is an interesting tale of knee-jerk No! from almost always change averse bureaucrats.

 

It is a fact of life for a bureaucrat that, if he or she says Yes!, makes a decision for change, they have made that dreaded thing, "a decision".

 

Whereas, if they just say no, that is not a decision with anything like the same consequences, hence the well developed propensity to "just say no". Sad, but true.

 

The $$$$ involved, mostly from individual's pockets, even though many have benefited, in both the diabetic and non-standard colour perception cases, is a huge personal (even if taken voluntary) impost ----- even if the Government funded the colour vision AAT case.

 

Indeed, this is where Governments should ( but seldom do) put funding, cases that are going to help many, but are all too often beyond the individual, so such cases all too often never see the light of day.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

the current changes for type 1 diabetics (of which I am one) are in effect a qualified yes that looks like and smells like a continued no.

 

In my town there is one edocrinologist his initial consult costs are $350 which I pressume, like the DAME costs are to be 100% covered by you. You dont book a time with this guy, rather the process of triage is applied and you'll see him as your need dictates.

 

My wife with thyroid removal due cancer waited 4 months before he would see her so what chance me who wants to fly PPL rather than RAA.

 

I pressume it would be possible as planned in the city, though expensive. In the country its just a farce, or even more cost to go to the city to do what a good gp or a specialist physician could probably do.

 

Andy