Culture change needed

[kaz3g]

Dear Trish

 

I am very sorry for your loss.

 

I work in the criminal courts and I see young people, mainly young men, with ADHD going before the magistrate for motor vehicle, substance abuse and behavioural offences in numbers that far exceed their relative proportion in society. The law makes little allowance for their medical concerns and sometimes the results are very harsh. I am grateful for your insights as they help me to understand.

 

I don't believe that more, and especially more draconian laws are the answer. There are already significant penalties for offences by pilots, including endangering and flying without the required licence or certificate. It is up to all of us who enjoy the privilege to hold ourselves and our fellow pilots accountable for what we do when flying.

 

If we continue to fail to speak up at appropriate times, we will share responsibility for and suffering of the consequences.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

I'd like to ask a question. Has anyone here ever reported an unsafe flying act, inaction, manouvre, attitude or anything at all to the raa? I don't want details, just a yes or no and what I want to know is what was the outcome of your notification?Cheers

In my case I didn't report the incident up to CASA (GA incident in a parachute plane), I took the view that it would be more effective to report it to the Aero Club who were the airport manager as well. In this case the Aero Club lectured and grounded the pilot from parachute ops for a period of time. The Pilot accepted the discipline and is today a successful ATPL operating in one of our major airlines.

I believe Peer pressure is more effective than draconian inappropriate legislation. The problem is we need to have the courage to apply the pressure. In spite of what many may think, I believe "... we are our brothers' keeper ...".

 

Maybe ... just maybe ... a gentle word from an older person in a non threatening private approach might have saved Michael's life ... sadly we will never know.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I work in the criminal courts and I see young people, mainly young men, with ADHD going before the magistrate for motor vehicle, substance abuse and behavioural offences in numbers that far exceed their relative proportion in society. The law makes little allowance for their medical concerns and sometimes the results are very harsh. I am grateful for your insights as they help me to understand.

An interesting view. I must say many of out here in society tend to have sympathy more for the victims than for the perpetrators of crime.

 

 

[Teckair]

I'd like to ask a question. Has anyone here ever reported an unsafe flying act, inaction, manouvre, attitude or anything at all to the raa? I don't want details, just a yes or no and what I want to know is what was the outcome of your notification?Cheers

Q1 yes

Q2 nothing

 

 

[Teckair]

There will always be people who do stupid things and blaming other people is a waste of time. The cause of this accident was the pilot.

 

A word of advice, be extremely careful who you get in a plane with, as it might just be the last thing you do, this has happened many times.

 

On one occasion I was at an airfield and there was a Drifter there and I noticed severe corrosion on the flying wires. I informed the pilot and advised that he not fly the plane and offered to help dismantle it so it could be trailered back to his home airfield. He elected to fly the aircraft home and said he would fly over clear areas, at the time I thought it probably would be better to fly over trees as they might break his fall if the wings folded. This guy was later killed in a accident with a different aircraft and as usual we do not know what happened but as far as I know the passenger although badly injured did survive.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

REPORTING & REMOVING

 

There are some people who are drawn to aviation with a personality that seeks risk, and little will stop them. The difficulty for RAA, CASA, other flying groups, and medical examiners, is how to identify them and preclude them, without discriminating against others who are able. The men (no women) I know who have been killed or very seriously injured mainly fall into that category.

 

1. A bombastic bloke, from the moment he started training, no one could tell him anything. He died flying an unfamiliar aircraft shortly after he got his licence. We still don't know if it was structural failure, low flying, aeros or a mishandled practice forced landing. He had left his ELT in the car, so it took days to find him.

 

2. A man in his 60's with a "Who cares - I know what I am doing" attitude to training, licencing, work and family. In defence of the man - he was hit on the head with a propeller that started unexpectedly while he was working on it. After that he divorced his wife, went off on various wild business schemes, alienated his family - but no diagnosis that said this man should not fly. His erratic flying, constantly getting lost, doing beat ups, was reported many times to CASA who were tired of it. The only way to catch him was to be there. Eventually they had enough but decided to only restrict him to a remote geographical area. Shortly after, he crashed, and took his best friend with him. He was flying at night, for which he was not licenced and ran into the ground short of the airstrip killing both instantly. He was RAA too with various overseas licences.

 

3. A RAA student, son of a GA pilot, bought a Bantam. Under the influence of a guy who was doing aeros in an unregistered plane, he started practicing low level aeros on his property. His father caught him at it and sternly warned him, as did his CFI and FI, but he was in awe of the guy. He mishandled it and broke every limb, lucky to be alive, but unable to support his young family, he was physically and financially unable to fly again.

 

4. Son of GA pilots, mustering on their property in an aircraft not certified for aeros, crashed on the short trip from muster to base. Suspected he was horsing around at low level and stalled it with insufficient height to recover. Knew he shouldn't be doing this in that aircraft, but liked showing off. Had a "can-do, done it before" attitude. Did his training on the coast with people unfamiliar with him and the flying he intended to do.

 

5. Pilot was influenced by a commercial pilot who taught him how to fly IFR in clear weather (despite not being trained himself). He set out on a business trip through cloud, crashed in the fog, miles from where he thought he was. The commercial pilot was the subject of many reports, but it was difficult to define what was a personality spat, business jealousies (other charter op & school), and what was serious infringement. He wielded great influence over people who similarly flouted the rules - regarded them as applying only to lesser mortals - mostly those new to aviation. He was finally grounded when CASA mounted a case against him for not recording flying hours and using car mechanics to work on his charter aircraft.

 

How would you identify and preclude these rouge pilots? Notice that, in two of the cases, the rogue is not the one who died, but the one who influenced the behaviour of lesser pilots.

 

I strongly urge people to read Anthony Kern's book "Darker Shades of Blue : The Rouge Pilot" McGraw-Hill 1999 where he makes a study of risk taking in aviation and defines a rouge pilot. Then ask yourself, how are we to "legislate" them out of aviation. We can't, not without banning a lot of other people who have a right to participate. I think we need to understand human factors - not just the eat breakfast, plan carefully stuff that RAA pedals - the psychology which Tony Kern (and others) have researched. Our Instructors should be familiar with it and how to identify and remediate a rogue.

 

Another good read is "The Naked Pilot - The Human Factors in Aircraft Accidents" David Beaty, Airlife Publishing Ltd, England, 1995. This focuses on the heavy end but has lessons for light aircraft pilots.

 

A few years ago nearly every aircraft accident was 'Pilot Error'. Dissatisfied with that Robert Cohn wrote "They Called it Pilot Error: True Stories Behind General Aviation Accidents" It is a good thought provoking read that highlights other reasons why the flight ended in a fatal. He tries to put the story in the words of family, friends, witnesses (but it sounds a bit same-ish ie his words) and looks to the sequence of events before the fatal accident. Take him with a grain of salt though, he does admit that some of it is fiction - ie dramatisation of cockpit conversations where there are no witnesses or recordings, and tends towards calling for more "nanny" rules. He also has some glaring aviation mistakes. They are USA events under FAA rules, so students could be confused.

 

Tony Kern is particularly good - his job and passion are human factors and pilot training, coupled with education and research skills. The culture of flying has to change to make the rogue unwelcome. Only we can do that.

 

Sue

 

 

[kaz3g]

An interesting view. I must say many of out here in society tend to have sympathy more for the victims than for the perpetrators of crime.

Hello GG

 

There are some interesting dicta in our system of justice. They include that: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty; that he who accuses must prove; and justice must be tempered with mercy where mitigating circumstances are found. The last of these may be relevant in cases where the perpetrator, although legally responsible for his/her actions has a diminished culpability by virtue of a mental disorder.

 

A person with significant ADHD symptoms, in the absence of proper medication will have a great deal of trouble controlling his/her highly impulsive behaviour. If combined with other factors such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders or substance abuse, or an acquired brain injury, the ability to keep behaviour within the bounds of "normal" becomes almost non-existent.

 

The finding that such factors are present in a particular case doesn't avoid a finding of guilty, but it hopefully does act to mitigate the criminal act and be consequently reflected in the final sentence.

 

All that said, I have great sympathy for victims. I represent victims of crime in compensation hearings and I represent victims of family violence in intervention order applications. I have been a victim of a serious assault myself, GG, many years ago when I lost a year at school because of the injuries received. It took a lot of life experience to ease the anger I felt towards the guys who bashed me.

 

Im older now ... A lot older. My views have been formed after seeing all sides of the criminal justice argument---victim, prosecutor and defence. After experiencing a period of significant mental health problems in my life, I also gained some empathy for others in that situation.

 

Regards

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'd like to ask a question. Has anyone here ever reported an unsafe flying act, inaction, manouvre, attitude or anything at all to the raa? I don't want details, just a yes or no and what I want to know is what was the outcome of your notification?Cheers

Sorry i removed this post as it was not RAA revelant. i did report a GA pilot once and no action taken later involved in very public accident.

 

 

[Guest trishok]

Sorry i removed this post as it was not RAA revelant. i did report a GA pilot once and no action taken later involved in very public accident.

Flying Vizsla's comments on the Coroner's recommendations pertaining to RAAus's ability to police complaints and the fact that there is no register of pilots who are disqualified from flying, are just two of the matters discussed in depth by various witnesses at the coronial inquiry.

 

 

[facthunter]

In all this it is easy in hindsight. It takes a lot of skill and training to pick out the types who have risky profiles. I honestly think it is a bit too much to expect the average person to do it. You can keep the judgement to observed breach of rules. Some people get a bad reputation by rumour which can be deliberately made up for revenge purposes.

 

The law requires that "any person observing the unsafe operation of an aircraft" to report it. There may be requirements for specific persons to do it, but there is no exclusion, for anybody.

 

I must agree with the assertion that the older AUF/RAAus would" leak" who the informer was on occasions. This must NEVER happen. If it was known who the "dobber" was for a local "popular" pilot who did some "dumb" things. That person (dobber)would have a bad time of it. I don't blame the RAAus for this. They don't foster it, and would not condone it. It's just the tendency to not "dob" and the LOCAL "stick together mate" philosophy. Part of the culture of some of the people in RAAus. NOT something eminating from the RAAus management.

 

It's a hard balancing act. The accused must be able to defend himself, and can often work out who the person might be, or worse, who he thinks it is.

 

The whistleblower's life has never been an easy one. A direct approach avoids this, but there is no guaranteed result, At least you will have tried.. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My condolences to you and your family. I remember the details of Micheal's accident quiet distinctly as I was learning to fly that weekend and it certainly has had an impact upon me.

 

 

[Guest trishok]

http://www.coroners.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/coroners/findings.html,c=y

 

NSW State Coroner's Findings now published on website for:

 

Hainaut, Josef Pierre

 

O'Keeffe, Michael James

 

 

[Bandit12]

In all this it is easy in hindsight. It takes a lot of skill and training to pick out the types who have risky profiles.

I would suggest that it takes a lot more than the training that is provided to the average instructor. Remember that most of the big risk takers are wise enough to not do anything in front of an instructor (especially if they need a logbook signed off for a BFR or similar).

 

As Nev said, it is so hard to create that culture of reporting dangerous behaviours, and I suspect for many people it just becomes something where they write the incident off as "well, it's their life and will be their problem if something goes wrong - I'd never fly with them anyway".

 

Another factor that may contribute is the so called bystander effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect which has been pretty well documented over the years. The more people who observe a dangerous behaviour and look around to see that no one else is reporting or intervening, the less likelihood that it will be reported or acted on. Alternatively, everyone presumes that someone else will report it, and so they personally don't have to act.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

http://www.coroners.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/coroners/findings.html,c=yNSW State Coroner's Findings now published on website for:

Hainaut, Josef Pierre

 

O'Keeffe, Michael James

Thanks Trish.

Always good to read it first hand. Many coronial findings are never published.

 

One recommendation that is problematic is 3. (iv).

 

While it has been required when transferring registration of an aircraft to obtain and submit a "Condition Report", that is not a "Certificate of Airworthiness" (CofA), nor does it declare the aircraft airworthy, albeit that it may disclose features of the condition that may lead to the reader concluding that the aircraft is not airworthy. There is a big difference. There is no requirement to disassemble an aircraft to perform a condition report, so areas that are hidden by structures that don't lend themselves to ready inspection will not be checked.

 

I recall, there was some discussion in this case of possible corrosion in the tubular frame of the aircraft due to a salt water dunking. Although that was discounted as a relevant factor in this case, it is an example of a condition that in a long boom tube would require a fibre optic camera to examine properly. I doubt any L2 has access to such a tool. Engines are not dismantled as part of an inspection, so latent or developing problems may be undetected. In some aircraft a full inspection may require destructive processes to create inspection ports to parts of the structure obscured by permanent coverings.

 

The other aspect that bears on such an inspection is the fact that L2s are not legally permitted to grant a CofA, which can only be done by persons authorised by CASA. There's a good many fewer of these than there are L2s. Further, L2s do not have the professional indemnity insurance cover to protect them from litigation resulting from a disputed claim against issue of any statement of airworthiness. I suspect that is the reason that the RAA Inspection Report carries a large bold caveat that "...neither RA-Aus nor the person completing the report assumes responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of the aircraft."

 

Recently, the Board of Ra-Aus withdrew the requirement for a condition report to be provided with the registration transfer. This is apparently in line with CASA procedures for GA aircraft. It does not prevent a buyer from obtaining one prior to purchase, and I'd certainly recommend anyone purchasing an aircraft does so, but the bottom line is that the airworthiness of the aircraft is firstly the responsibility of the person issuing the CofA and thereafter maintaining that condition is the responsibility of the owner. The pilot shares in that, by being responsible for the safety of a flight.

 

To my knowledge, recreational aircraft only obtain a CoA once in their life (unless they need to be re-registered and the required documentation has been lost). As an example, my aircraft, which is a Primary Certified, Factory Built, obtains its CofA from CASA. CASA do not visit the factory to perform that service, but the factory must trailer the aircraft to CASA, assemble it, obtain the CofA, disassemble and trailer back to the factory.

 

It is totally impractical and would be a huge cost to aircraft owners to have to obtain a Cof A every year. To obtain a "Condition Report" from a L2 or LAME would be feasible (although for those in remote areas, it may be expensive), and may add some value, but not the level of assurance intended in the recommendation.

 

 

[Guest trishok]

Regarding YouTube videos showing dangerous activities and especially from the latest craze of posting videos showing participants engaged in dangerous and extreme "sports"...

 

The Police Sergeant representing the Crown requested that the Coroner make a statement to the News Media about the risks and dangers people, particularly young people, are prepared to take in order to get their activities filmed and broadcast on YouTube. He cited the YouTube videos posted by Michael doing spins etc. as an example.

 

This is one of the latest crazes that is resulting in absolutely fatal consequences in some instances. This practice is peculiar to this day and age of internet communication and today's risk taking (principally) younger generation, competing with their peers for recognition and one-upmanship.

 

The Coroner has not released a statement warning of this practice as of this date.

 

 

[turboplanner]

From memory the Victorian Government reacted very fast to the "planking" craze after a couple of deaths.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The underlying issue im my personal opinion is that we have to have a degree of responsibility for our own actions yet that line is not black and white. When we walk on a council provided concrete footpath we can reasonably expect that the council wont create a mantrap by digging an 8ft deep hole in the middle of the footpath without puting up appropriate signs and warnings and light etc etc. but a slab that has been lifted at a join by a cm by a tree trunk to me should reasonably be expected by the average walker, its what happens IMHO? That all said, there have been any number of civil cases over who needs to take responsibility for damages in exactly that example, yet if we go back a generation the 8ft hole may well have been dug and left completely un protected after working hours......

 

Like a pendulum I believe we have simply swung too far the other way.....but then its easy to say that when sound of mind and body and not suffering damages from a fall......

 

Ultimately I come back to my first point, being that the line betwen personal responsibility and negligence of someone else is not black and white its merely shades of grey.....There be Dragons, uncertainty and apparently lawyers there.......

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Where the Council provides a footpath, it then has a duty of care to make sure that footpath is safe.

 

So if a tree root pushes it up or even a wombat undermines it the duty of care remains with the Council.

 

It goes back to the bottle of ginger beer

 

I thought we'd reached the peak of stupidity when someone succeeded in suing the Shire of Cobram after diving into the Murray River and hitting a snag.

 

The Murry River and its snags of course has been there for tens of thousands of years.

 

I forget the reasons for the judges decision now, but it revolved around the fact that the Shire fenced off an area for parking, and promoted the section as a swimming hole, with signposts etc.

 

In doing that they had a duty of care to maintain the area in a state suitable for swimming.

 

So it was logical after all.

 

Council footpaths are a nightmare because there can be thousands of grade separations and cracks, but grinding machines have been developed and inspection schedules set up which automate maintenance.

 

My local council logs all complaints and puts them into a priority queue for attention, which addresses the waiting list, but I'm not sure how well this would stand up.

 

Which brings us back to comments on this thread suggesting safety is up to the individual.

 

Self Administration is self administration.

 

CASA have people on the ground around Australia and systems in place to manage bad behaviour by pilots.

 

Who said RAA was absolved from doing the same?

 

I think Michael's ADHD makes a big difference in this case, and the question is who had the duty of care to train him effectively, audit and supervise his behaviour?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I thought we'd reached the peak of stupidity when someone succeeded in suing the Shire of Cobram after diving into the Murray River and hitting a snag.

The Murry River and its snags of course has been there for tens of thousands of years.

 

I forget the reasons for the judges decision now, but it revolved around the fact that the Shire fenced off an area for parking, and promoted the section as a swimming hole, with signposts etc.

 

In doing that they had a duty of care to maintain the area in a state suitable for swimming.

 

So it was logical after all.

In my local council (Coffs Harbour) we had a similar thing occur but being a coastal town it was surf related, someone dived into the ocean hit a sandbar and became a quad..... The same examples of duty of care were central to the case but in this case the coastline is extensive, how could we reasonably expect each council to signpost the dangers of moving sandbars? How could we reasonably expect a regeme of sandbar mapping to occur. While the plaintiff succeeded in the original case it was overturned on appeal but was then taken to a higher court and I lost track if its resolved or still in progress.... Its often refered to when ever there is a discussion on duty of care and a google search usually brings up the details.

 

My claims that responsibility rests with the pilot was not absolute I purposly used the phrasing "...we have to have a degree of responsibility ...." which of course infers others also hold degrees of respoonsibility which is why I say its all shades of grey. As humans we wlways try and simplify where ever possible, its how we try and make sense of what happens around us, more often than not though something gets lost in that simplification.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

made a mistake

 

 

[Guest trishok]

 

Four months before the accident Michael told me that he did not believe he had ever had ADHD as a child. I, also, was in two minds about the validity of ADHD. Since the accident I have become convinced that ADHD does really exist, it is passed genetically from both sides of his family, he was handicapped by ADHD from a young child and the behaviours associated with undiagnosed/untreated ADULT ADHD contributed to the fatal crash.

 

HINDSIGHT - In seeking to make sense of the chain of events culminating in the tragic accident, and by way of finding an explanation for Michael's well-known risk-taking impulsive and at times aggressive behaviours and (seemingly) unpredictable style of relating , (in hindsight, following the accident), I asked the question "At what point of time did he outgrow ADHD?"

 

Michael was in complete denial about his childhood ADHD, and consequently there was no consideration of Adult ADHD being implicated in any problems he encountered in his day to day functioning and behaviours. He was diagnosed with ADHD by a specialist paediatrician at age 4 years. This diagnosis was verified by three other experts by the time he was 12, one of those experts was a leading Australian child and adolescent psychiatrist who spent considerable time and effort with Michael and the family.

 

The following is copied from =http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/guide/adhd-adult

 

"Adult ADHD Statistics

 

• ADHD afflicts approximately 3% to 10% of school-aged children and an estimated 60% of those will maintain the disorder into adulthood.
   
   
  
• Prevalence rates for ADHD in adults are not as well determined as rates for children, but fall in the 4% to 5% range.
   
   
  
• ADHD affects males at higher rate than females in childhood, but this ratio seems to even out by adulthood.
   
   
  

 

 

How Is Adult ADHD Diagnosed?

 

While researchers may disagree about age of childhood onset in diagnosing adult ADHD, all agree that ADHD is not an adult-onset disorder and must be verified from childhood. An assessment of ADHD symptoms and behavior from childhood may include any or all of the following:

 

• A questionnaire to determine if the adult had ADHD in childhood.
   
   
  
• School report cards, if available, to look for comments about behavior problems, poor focus, lack of effort or underachievement relative to the student's potential.
   
   
  
• Discussion with the parents to determine any symptoms during childhood.
   
   
  
• A complete history from the adult with the symptoms. He or she may self report symptoms in childhood.
   
   
  
• The developmental history would be consistent with ADHD, including evidence of problems with peers, other delays such as bed wetting, school failure, suspensions, or special interventions such as sitting in front of the class, etc.
   
   
  

 

 

A strong family history of ADHD may also be informative, given the strong genetic component of the disorder.

 

Other examinations may also be performed, including:

 

• A physical exam to rule out medical or neurological illness.
   
   
  
• Blood tests
   
   
  
• Psychological testing"
   
   
  

 

 

For those interested in acquiring knowledge about ADHD, I recommend investigating Professor Barkley's work, indicated below:

 

Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.

 

Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics (Voluntary Faculty)

 

Medical University of South Carolina

 

website: russellbarkley.org

 

 

Dr. Barkley's latest books:

 

1. Taking Charge of Adult ADHD ( http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley18)

 

2. The Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scalehttp://www.guilford.com/p/barkley20

 

3. The Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley19

 

4. The Barkley Functional Impairment Scale http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley21

 

Watch for his two new rating scales in May 2012:

 

1. The Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale - Children and Adolescents http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley22

 

2. The Barkley Functional Impairment Scale - Children and Adolescents http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley23

 

 

And Dr. Barkley's new book: Executive Functions: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They Evolved. (May 2012). http://www.guilford.com/p/barkley24

 

 

View ADHD Lectures by Dr. Barkley Online at http://adhdlectures.com/

 

For Continuing Education Credits, visit: http://www.russellbarkley.org/adhd-courses.htm

 

Dr. Barkley's Bimonthly Newsletter is The ADHD Report: http://www.guilford.com/cgi-bin/cartscript.cgi?page=pr/jnad.htm&dir=periodicals/per_psych&cart_id=54751.5199

 

 

 

 

[Guest trishok]

ADHD is not the cause of the tragedy, the cause is the pilot's attitude and behaviour.

 

 

[poteroo]

I would suggest that it takes a lot more than the training that is provided to the average instructor. Remember that most of the big risk takers are wise enough to not do anything in front of an instructor (especially if they need a logbook signed off for a BFR or similar).As Nev said, it is so hard to create that culture of reporting dangerous behaviours, and I suspect for many people it just becomes something where they write the incident off as "well, it's their life and will be their problem if something goes wrong - I'd never fly with them anyway".

 

Another factor that may contribute is the so called bystander effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect which has been pretty well documented over the years. The more people who observe a dangerous behaviour and look around to see that no one else is reporting or intervening, the less likelihood that it will be reported or acted on. Alternatively, everyone presumes that someone else will report it, and so they personally don't have to act.

I agree. The duty-of-care that an instructor owes their student is well understood, but when it comes to the level of duty-of-care that an instructor should exhibit to a trained pilot, or to pilots not well known to the instructor, or if the instructor is not at their home base, seems to be very much an individual decision. Instructors are neither trained, nor are they authorised by CASA or RAAus to intervene with offending pilots. The legal profession has in many cases entitled pilots to believe that they should accept no intervention, by anyone, and they become quite precious about their 'rights'. Now if both bodies were to appoint CFI's and PE's as proper delegates of both bodies, with the power to issue formal cautions - which would go into the offending pilots record - then we might see a change in behaviour. If nothing else, it would push these recalcitrants further away from habitation, and probably kill off the 'U-tube' culture as well.

 

happy days,

 

 

[M61A1]

I have dealt with genuine ADHD cases before, as well as a lot that I believe were misdiagnosed (usually at the insistance of a parent that wasn't interested in proper parenting). Because of the misdiagnosed ones, I was very reluctant to believe that it was real, this changed when we had some kids in our care that we were really struggling with. After considerable research and discussion with a paediatrician, we accepted the reality. It is my understanding, that it is caused by low frontal lobe activity ( the bit where you think ahead-consequences), which is why prescribing a stimulant is often the course of action. It always bothered me that the uneducated ones, would make accusations about about the kids being "doped up", not the case, they were on speed. We found that small levels of dexamphetamine did wonders ( all cases need to be assessed individually), their education improved, you could really see the change where they actually thought ahead about what they were doing, rather than just perpetually reacting to the environment without considering the result. Another "feature" of ADHD, is they can become so focussed that all else around them may as well not exist. Neither of these attributes are going to help a pilot.

 

The legal people and I really don't see eye to eye ( I know it's pointless and frustrating to argue with them), as far as recreational aviation (and life in general) is concerned (my opinion only), I built/accepted the a/c, I maintained it, I learned to operate it, I flew it, regardless of what I do with that a/c ( as long as I do not endanger someone else or their property) is nobody's business but my own, and the risk is all mine. No other person should be responsible for my actions, excepting if I have paid them in some way to accept that risk. Yes I am aware that the law doesn't see it that way, and I operate accordingly. However, I would suggest that all pilots consider the laws of physics before the laws of the land.

 

I did read once about a fellow who believed that the laws of physics were able to be legislated, and was very upset that parliament would not legislate time travel.

 

Also , an internet post about the "rules" and "laws",- Rules can be bent, but the laws cannot, if you must bend the rules, it must be executed flawlessly, otherwise the laws may apply.

 

Stop me if I'm waffling.

 

 

[facthunter]

Very philosophical. I do it, so why would I want to stop you. The laws of physics apply to all , equally and can be understood.. Mans laws are very selectively applied and generally incomprehensible..Nev