Medicals for Raaus

[Guest micgrace]

Hi all

 

I thought that RAAus certificate as regards medical was the same as required for the issue of a driving licence in the respective state.

 

And you had to sign a certificate on renewal as to that fact.

 

Statistically overall a RAAus pilot with an undiagnosed medical condition would pose vastly less risk than say, a 767 commercial pilot. Especially as the majority of RAAus pilots certainly don't share airspace/airport with heavies although that is possible if certain well defined conditions are met and that includes PPL with current medical.

 

I used to get the usual medical for PPL. (till quit the whole thing) I always felt the chances of actually detecting someone with an underlying condition was very low. The DAME I went to was very through and a stickler for procedure. Overweight, smoke risk factor up, may refuse to issue class 2. Any related condition detected forget it. (At least from this M.D.)

 

Micgrace

 

 

[facthunter]

Until the late 80's in australia, as in most countries, Open heart surgery meant the end of a professional pilots career, full stop. Eventually, with a lot of persistence by a few dedicated individuals,( Cardiac Specialists) it was able to be shown that some pilots, post operative, properly treated, were able to regain a class 1 (ATPL), in australia where we may in fact have led the world in this regard. I think it's about 18 years since the first pilot was cleared back, as far as I know,the process continues. One significant factor is that these successful patients are highly motivated to do the right thing about their health. They are monitored, medicated (if necessary,) effect lifestyle changes ( exercise, diet, weight control, off the fags, stress management etc.) end up being healthier than they have been in years, and less of a risk.

 

If you're over 50, over weight, like good food & wine & puff when you go up a flight of stairs, & you want to keep on flying/living see a good GP before that stroke/cardiac event/diabeties diagnosis, Not after. Nev

 

 

[nong]

I know this wont be popular and will draw a fair bit of anger from some. I use to think the no medical option was a good idea, however now we are flying faster planes greater duration and pushing for the big weights. Perhaps it is time that the medical is revistited. Especially where the plane being flown has a passenger carrying ability.Ive recently heard of pilots no longer fit for GA moving into our ranks to continue to fly. This is no statement against their skills. Just that there is some people who know when to hang up the headset and others that do not.

 

Ive heard of Pilots with Diabetes, severe weight problems, Pilots being treated for depression with medication others with dangerously high blood pressure. I know that the requirements need not be as high as Ga owing to the fact we dont operate in control zones. however maybe some checkable level of health should be introduced.

We have a very carefully thought out medical standard and method of compliance. It was carefully crafted to meet the political imperative, whilst at the same time being easy to administer, with reference to the aim of keeping it simple and cheap. Medical exams are wasteful of the pilot's time and money as well as being a dubious use of a doctors time. Medicals constitute a disincentive. This is ultralighting, not GA, and this medical system is one of benefits of our system. In return, we accept a two person limit to control fatality numbers, and so the government cuts us some slack. This limit is of course the same whether you fly a Drifter or a plastic rocket. There is no point in revisiting this subject as it was worked out to perfection by the AUF and CAA (CASA) many years ago.

Fred

 

 

[Vorticity]

So if we are relying on our pilots to identify when their health is a risk, or a peer group to point out an issue to a friend, should we maybe have some aviation medical content in the RAAus syllabus?

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

The following link to the referenced PDF publication 'Assessing Fitness to Drive - Guidelines and Standards for Health Professionals in Australia':

 

http://www.austroads.com.au/aftd/index.html

 

may surprise most people by just what IS required, from a medical perspective, to retain a car drivers licence in Australia. However, I doubt if the medical profession is in a position to act effectively.

 

Cheers

 

Ken.

 

 

[facthunter]

Misconception.

 

I thnk it's a common misconception that we have no medical requirements. An individual can fudge most systems if they try hard enough, but that is not in the long term interests of anybody. There have been many instances of incapacitation and death on duty (or just after) of class one medical certificate holders. I also don't believe that there is any great evidence of a problem in this area in our ranks that would warrant more rigid (and more expensive) processes to be applied. We limit our liability with ONE passenger only, who is considered to be an INFORMED person, and is aware that we operate with concessions, including the medical condition which is " equal to that for a private car driver". This does not equate to the fact that you still drive a car , but the fact that you DO satisfy the medical standards to do so legally, (and responsibly). If it ain't broke, don't muck it up...... Nev..

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Hi allIf anyone has access Iwould be interested to know the actual statistics (if there is such available) or other observations of the breakdown of incident causes (no pun intended) These seem, to be for some reason, withheld.

 

Micgrace

This is an area where the statistics aren't all that clear cut. Forensic pathology is not always conclusive and with accident investigations based on factual evidence, there are many inconclusive investigations that could have been attributed to medical incapacitation but weren't.

 

By way of example, I did a high-profile investigation where the autopsy report was the most highly sought after piece of evidence by us and the media. Despite this pressure on the forensic pathologist, he was unwilling to commit to a cause of death despite finding extensive coronary disease and damage.

 

Back on topic, it seems the medical certification process for non-commercial pilots is just a butt covering political exercise. We've heard how people can die the day after their medical and how those who would fail can just fly without one.

 

Given the practical limitations of it the medical can't really attest to the future health of a pilot. The best it can hope to do is screen out some disqualifying conditions. But for RA and PPL level pilots it's really just a huge cost burden to those who are honest.

 

 

[Guest disperse]

if I had too pass a med .... I'd be going for a PPL ..... at least then I could take more than 1 extra person with me

 

 

[poteroo]

If a senior instructor thinks that a pilot is so out-of-touch that he advises that pilot not to fly.....why not refuse to sign off on the BFR until the pilot undergoes some re-training? It's been done before, and I expect there will be lots more in the future as our baby boomer generation begins to struggle with their manipulative and cognitive skills.

 

I think it's unreasonable to expect an instructor to make decisions about a pilots' fitness-to-fly based on a BFR and some aural questions. CASA has a similar problem with over 65 GA instructors - who need 6 monthly competency checks from the CFI. When I asked CASA why this was necessary - given that anyone over 60 undergoes much more extensive annual medicals - their reply was... the CFI might pick up on any flying reactions which indicate a medical problem !! Funny that - here we were all thinking that the DAME, the opthalmologist, the cardiologist, the pathologist, and the oncologist might all be more capable than the local CFI.

 

I think it's most unlikely that RAAus or CASA will require medicals for a CTA endorsement.

 

But, people need to be aware that in the USA, the FAA will not allow a pilot to fail a GA medical - then waltz over the runway to a LSA, (RAA equiv) school, and convert their licence. It's OK to convert while you hold a valid medical however - just not after you fail. I think we might anticipate a similar rule to be applied here.

 

happy days,

 

 

[antzx6r]

Good little tribute to RAAus in the latest Aus Flying mag. (Ask the Expert) Interesting thought on medicals was GA pilots seeing RAAus (with no medicals) as a "way out." His reply to that being "if a pilot has a medical condition that would influence his ability to fly then it would be very foolish indeed to operate any aircraft, whatever the registration!"

 

I'm wondering if this is how most RAAus pilots see this? i.e. Is it the cost or the fear of failing the medical? There does seem to be a large number of elderly RAAus pilots. Absolutly no disrespect to all those wiser pilots out there. The incident and accident record of RAAus speaks loud and clear that this is not currently a problem. But it's just a concening observation. And maybe some kind of standard check up from a local GP on a semi regular basis (without casa's little admin fee dumped on top) wouldn't be such an evil thing. I'm a little naive about this, so please correct me if i'm off base.:black_eye:

 

Cheers,

 

Ant

 

 

[Guest airsick]

But, people need to be aware that in the USA, the FAA will not allow a pilot to fail a GA medical - then waltz over the runway to a LSA, (RAA equiv) school, and convert their licence. It's OK to convert while you hold a valid medical however - just not after you fail. I think we might anticipate a similar rule to be applied here.

How is this enforced? Let's say I am a GA pilot and I go to renew my medical. The Doc fails me so I decide to go off to my local LSA/RAA organisation and sign up with them. They ask me why I haven't got a current medical and I simply explain that I couldn't be bothered with the fuss and expense of renewing it, I would rather take up the cheaper alternative of RA flying instead.

 

How is the school meant to check this? It would require some sort of access to medical records by RAAus which currently doesn't exist here in Australia - not as far as I am aware anyway. How is it done in the US?

 

 

[poteroo]

Don't think the US LSA system has been going long enough for these situations to have been explored.

 

I have thought that a very forthright and specific Statutory Declaration might be in order for RAAus flying schools to place the onus 100% back on the applicant. It would seem to be something you'd insist on before signing off on a passenger carrying endorsement. But, if someone would lie about their medical - why would they even do a pax carrying?

 

It's all very grey,

 

 

[nong]

Wonderful news! Control Zone qualifications will NOT require a change to our current excellent medical system. Hooray for that. Why on earth any of you wished to impose formal medicals on the membership is beyond me, and happily, CASA also could not comprehend that one.

 

So lets all be happy and find something more interesting to discuss.

 

Ra Ra

 

 

[vme]

Hi Nong,

 

I have looked and cannot find any info on a decision to permit new RAA control-zone qualifications. I realise that this is the situation in the U.S. (just additional training/familiarisation), but have found nothing on the CASA site for Australia.

 

In fact all I could find was that professional pilots were campaigning for medicals for control-zone operation and additional passengers (up to 3) for a proposed CASR Part 61 Recreational Pilot's Licence. Not sure if this is still under consideration.

 

Would appreciate any advice you can give.

 

Many thanks

 

... Vince

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Vince,

 

there is a proposed revision of the RAAus Ops Manual that is in the final stakes of approval by CASA as I understand it.

 

That revision - we are told - contains, among other things, some new endorsements including CSU, Low Level and CTA.

 

Once approved and with an amendment to 95.55 we will be able to undertake a CTA endorsement and fly in CTA.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[antzx6r]

What is "CSU", and can the proposed Ops manual be viewed anywhere?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

CSU is Constant Speed Unit. As for viewing the Ops Manual I would be interested in seeing it to. While at Narromine I was talking to John Walmsley and he told me that there are moves to change the currency requirements so that if you haven't flown in 90 days you have to do a flight with an instructor (a sort of BFR). He said this was to bring RA-Aus into line with GA but GA has no such requirement. I am keen to see if this change is correct or not.

 

 

[Yenn]

CSU is as pointed out Constant speed unit. Would an endorsement on CSU cover us for variable pitch, which is a different thing. I see variable pitch as being a more difficult thing to master as the automatic control has gone and it would be easy to overdpeed the engine, or overboost it, meaning using very coarse pitch at high throttle settings.

 

As far as medicals go, I fall into the older age bracket and it is not a fear of failing the medical that stops me going back to GA, but the senseless extra cost. The medical cost me well over $100 last time I had one, ten years ago and now CASA have their paper pushing fee on top.

 

Of course CASA have a user pays policy and will keep dreaming up more things for us to pay for, just to be legal.

 

No good asking your MP about it all you wil get is a letter saying the minister will respond.

 

 

[poteroo]

One question which is being asked about 'CTA' is whether anyone wishing to only ever access the GAAP airports, eg Jandakot,Parafield,Moorabbin,Bankstown,Archerfield - would have to complete a 'full' CTA endorsement. This is a different (lower) category of airspace than CTA and capital city airports.

 

I have no info on whether there will be any split between CTA categories....but very much doubt it.

 

cheers,

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I am not an authority on it but I wouldn't think so. I would consider class C and D as being controlled. You need an airways clearance to get into these so I think this where the CTA endorsement would come in.

 

 

[vk3auu]

In one of the sessions at Narromine we were told that for convenience, CSU and variable pitch would be included in the same endorsement.

 

David

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Just seems stupid to me that they would spend money on something that already exists. But hey, that's what committees do I guess...

 

And I can't see me checking those forums nearly as often as I check these. If the other members here are like me then how effectve is it going to be?

 

 

[nong]

Hullo Vince

 

Mike's reply pretty well covers it. RAAuS staff have developed both a training syllabus and a set of conditions to govern ops in controlled airspace. This material was presented to CASA and is reported to have been well received. It is very reliably reported that CASA staff made it abundantly (and humorously) clear that our existing medical system is regarded as eminently satisfactory. The material will form part of the next version of our ops manual which is currently expected to be distributed to members during this year.

 

It might be worth noting here that CASA, and indeed society in general, regards Regular Public Transport operations as being the top safety priority. Next would be commercial passenger carrying charter ops. A few rungs lower would be RAAuS flying schools and commercial 'adventure flights' in so called 'war birds'. Near the bottom would be RAAuS 95.10 single seaters and single seat hang gliders.

 

In keeping with this prioritisation of safety, the regulation of each activity becomes less demanding and the oversight activity less draconian as we work our way down the scale. At the bottom of the scale a pilot must control every aspect of safety to his/her satisfaction. At the top end, a pilot has very little control over maintenance aspects of the operation and many aspects of the planning and conduct of a flight are delegated to others.

 

Cheers Fred

 

 

[vme]

That's terrific Fred .. hopefully it will permit access to six regional city airports in Queensland. Thanks also to Mike.

 

Now only that 5000ft thing to go :-)

 

Regards

 

... Vince

 

 

[Guest Ginger]

No medical for RAA

 

I am sorry to re visit this thread but I have just had a very impressive diving medical.

 

I note that there was an apparently medical related double fatality reported in the accident forum and someone else was complaining of nausia / headaches after flying.

 

I have always thought the no medical RAA was dodgy and after the diving medical now realise that it is necessary, can be made practical and commend it to all within the RAA community.

 

My medical issues are:

 

Mitral Valve murmer

 

Hypertensive but managed with medication.

 

Prostate enlargement

 

Polyp in my right nostril

 

I need to wear glasses

 

My brother has advanced type 2 diabetes and 2 other siblings have tablet managed diabetes.

 

I have a few fillings in my teeth

 

I am 62

 

Sometimes I suspect that I may have the precursers of Alzheimers.

 

From the above list you would think that I am very high risk and shouldn't be diving let alone flying. However if they were honest, how many RAA pilots have a complete bill of health not many I wonder.

 

My Diving Medical Examiner had some kind of accreditation for Diving medicals and was an enthusiastic diver as well.

 

I had to answer a long list of yes/no questions with with comments for anything that might need explanation.

 

Whenever one of my issues came up the examiner gave me an explanation of the condition, the possible effects should it take effect during a dive and how to manage it during a dive or before deciding to dive.

 

The examination concluded with a very good (I am no lawyer) disclaimer. I acknowledeged that I was aware of the problems and that examination was limitited by the information provided by myself. I was given a conditional clearance for diving training. The examiner provided two copies of the report, one for me and one for my diving instructor.

 

The whole process took about one hour and only cost $88.

 

I finished satisfied that the health aspects of my diving training had been dealt with. I am still allowed to dive. This is in complete contrast to the slack way health is treated within RAA.

 

To those who oppose the need for medicals are you really sure that they are not needed or is it because you are afraid you would loose your licence. Are you kidding yourselves. In the diving medical the issues were faced in a forthright and honest manner, I am allowed to dive and I now know how to deal with my medical issues, that has not been the case with RAA.

 

A little to the side of the above is the special requirements for eyewear. I found it really annoying that I was allowed to commence flying training without the instructor pointing out that it may be a good idea to get some aviation glasses I was after all wearing glasses when I signed up. Fortunately Rocko is working on a paper to cover this subject.

 

Sincerely

 

Ross Parrott