AOPA calls on CASA for private pilot medical reform

[facthunter]

We're NOT happy till you're NOT happy... CASA.

 

IF you understand it, contact us. We will immediately rectify the situation. Our Normal service will continue into the future..

 

Every investigation and recommendation ignored. . ' Tell the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure . (Darren Chester) there are flying objects (planes ) in his portfolio. and people who fly them have to train and exist, so get off his bum and fix it . Nev

 

 

[mike_perth]

Well I think the answer here is...don't go to the medical "on your company dollars" go at a time you are relaxed/comfortable and not preoccupied...like the time you clearly make to actually go flying. To me that would make much more sense - we all know these DAME visits are rarely cheap - like an important meeting with a high profile client, I wouldn't walk in distracted/stressed or under prepared I want to display myself at my best not my worst...a bit like how Id feel walking in to see my DAME.

 

 

[ave8rr]

CASA says it’s SAFE: Now end the dual standards on private pilot medicals

 

Wednesday, 24th October 2018

 

Mr Shane Carmody

 

Director of Aviation Safety, CASA

 

GPO BOX 2005

 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

 

Mr Rob Walker

 

Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement

 

GPO BOX 2005

 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

 

Mr Michael McCormack MP

 

Deputy Prime Minister

 

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

 

PO Box 6022

 

House of Representatives

 

Parliament House

 

CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

 

Dear Mr Carmody,

 

As you would be aware, the AOPA Australia since August of 2016 has sent numerous letters to your office, calling on CASA to explain why RPL and PPL pilots operating Australian (VH) registered aircraft with an MTOW of up to 600kgs, with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, have been denied the use of a self-certification private drivers licence medical. A medical standard that CASA has permitted pilots within the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited self-administration to use for the past 30 years.

 

No explanations have ever been provided to AOPA Australia or the general aviation industry, nor has any supporting risk-assessments or safety/medical studies been published by CASA to support it’s continued refusal to provide a self-certification private drivers licence medical for RPL/PPL holders.

 

My last such letter was sent to your office on the 18th September 2018, asking the following question;

 

“SAFE or UNSAFE, WHICH IS IT? is it safe for an Australian private pilot to fly an Australian registered aircraft with an MTOW of 600kgs in Australian airspace with one passenger on a self-certification private drivers licence medical?”.

 

On the 10th October 2018, Senator Glen Sterle announced to Australian Flying that he was seeking the support of the Senate RRAT Committee to initiate a Senate Inquiry into the self-administration of Australia’s general aviation industry, seeking to investigate the inequity in private pilot medicals between the RAAus and RPL/PPL holders.

 

Exactly one day later, on the 11th October 2018, Mr Rob Walker on behalf of your office responded with;

 

“The answer is yes. The key requirement, as you have rightly stated it, outside controlled airspace.”

 

Under the current regulations, CASA continues to deny RPL/PPL holders with access to a self-certification private driver license medical standard, forcing these pilots to buy their medicals from a private business - the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAus).

 

Under Section 9© of the Civil Aviation Act 1998, CASA is responsible for developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards.

 

Given that your office (via Mr Rob Walker) has acknowledged that it is SAFE for RPL/PPL pilots to use a self-certification drivers licence medical standard when operating VH registered aircraft with an MTOW of up to 600kgs outside of controlled airspace with one passenger – when can we expect CASA to promulgate this safe medical standard, making it available for all RPL/PPL holders?

 

This unfair and unreasonable situation cannot continue and AOPA Australia urges CASA to immediately announce the availability of a self-certification private drivers licence medical standard for RPL/PPL holders who wish to operate VH registered aircraft with an MTOW of up to 600kgs, outside of controlled airspace with one passenger.

 

Thank you in advance for your time and we look forward to CASA’s announcement.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

BENJAMIN MORGAN

 

Executive Director

 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia

 

 

[frank marriott]

For RPC pilots, possibly considering a RPL or believe they will get CTA (or weight increase) without a PPL type medical - Please remember Monk voted AGAINST medical reform for the RPL, do the blind supporters STILL think his actions are for the benefit of ANY recreational flyer.

 

Just think about it for a while. I would suggest RAA members need to seriously consider what they actually want and let their feelings be known (and I still have a CASA medical although with age it gets more expensive with extra tests which only after paying the money specialists then report still fit to fly).

 

Serious matters but blind acceptance will produce a predictable result.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

If Ben Morgan had done his homework he would mention that GFA glider pilots can fly motor gliders of up to 850 Kg gross weight, with a self declaration/private driver's licence medical INSIDE controlled airspace. This is also regarded as "safe".

 

Ben really ought to talk to people who are trying to help him.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Why wouldn't CASA & the politicians just say to Ben Morgan Just go away & join RAA-Aus. Problem solved.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Because then, according to CASA, the aircraft must be registered with RAAus. This is another anomaly. What does the aircraft REGISTRATION have to do with pilot capability?

 

That was a remarkably dumb post. RAAus and its members is rapidly sinking in my estimation.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Your opinion but CASA and Politicians can be remarkably dumb. The other point is that if you built it yourself then you can do all maintenance and modifications yourself. If not then L2 maintained which is a lot less arduous and less expensive that LAME costs.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Your opinion but CASA and Politicians can be remarkably dumb. The other point is that if you built it yourself then you can do all maintenance and modifications yourself. If not then L2 maintained which is a lot less arduous and less expensive that LAME costs.

You can already do this in GA experimental. And no - there is currently no capacity for a certified aircraft to be maintained by an L2 and retain its GA status and value and many GA pilots who you are suggesting should become members of RAAus have certified aircraft. There is a minefield of issues about the status of aircraft having gone to RAAus then being restricted from going back to GA

For sale etc.

 

Plus as yet we are still talking about far off into the future events like RAAus weight increases and CTA access for these pilots if they converted.

 

The likelihood is these changes will take far far longer than a more simple change of medical.

 

 

[kgwilson]

My point was referring to Ben Morgans letter, the aircraft he was describing & pilot privileges, all fit in to the existing RAA category so the aircraft could be re-registered with RAA & the pilot do a RAA conversion & could then self declare medical fitness. L2 maintenance for a 24 registered aircraft is less arduous and costly that the full Lame experience. You just pay an annual membership fee and aircraft registration. CASA & Politicians are far more likely to do what I said in post 156.

 

Personally I think we should go the way of the UK. PPL by day rules are a medical self declaration based on a car licence once before the age of 70 & every 3 years thereafter. The study they did and consultation with industry found that class 2 medicals had not improved safety at all and in 20 years they could not find any fatal crashes that could directly be attributable to medical issues. The problem is with their ties to the EU it only applied to UK licences flying non EASA aircraft. This is one of the bureaucratic EU issues that Brexit has to resolve.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

My point was referring to Ben Morgans letter, the aircraft he was describing & pilot privileges, all fit in to the existing RAA category so the aircraft could be re-registered with RAA & the pilot do a RAA conversion & could then self declare medical fitness. L2 maintenance for a 24 registered aircraft is less arduous and costly that the full Lame experience. You just pay an annual membership fee and aircraft registration. CASA & Politicians are far more likely to do what I said in post 156.Personally I think we should go the way of the UK. PPL by day rules are a medical self declaration based on a car licence once before the age of 70 & every 3 years thereafter. The study they did and consultation with industry found that class 2 medicals had not improved safety at all and in 20 years they could not find any fatal crashes that could directly be attributable to medical issues. The problem is with their ties to the EU it only applied to UK licences flying non EASA aircraft. This is one of the bureaucratic EU issues that Brexit has to resolve.

Yep I accept that he has specifically referred to current aircraft that would currently fit into RAAus. But of course he has to, because currently CASA are offering two levels of medical for different pilots flying the same model aircraft etc. so it is logical to establish fairness on that patch of turf first.

 

Any comparing of apples and oranges would be thrown out immediately ( even if a fruit salad was obviously coming)

 

But of course everyone is otherwise posturing towards the next step - weight increase, CTA entry and it needs the first step of fairness to be established beyond doubt.