CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.

[Flightrite]

5 weeks waiting for a class 1 assessment, according to Avmed’s website the average time to issue a med cert is around 10 days, seems bullshit runs right thru CASA’s inept departments! A class 5 will only add to the problems but hey why not we already live in a two class society anyway!

Edited November 23, 2021 by Flightrite

[Blueadventures]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

In what would be a win win for all recreational pilots, PPL or RAAus, CASA is apparently working on a class 5 medical. This sounds similar to what we have in RAAus now. Will this be the requirement for class G aircraft? 

 

I have been wondering how CASA would justify two different medical standards for PPL or RAAus pilots flying the same Cessna 150,152 going forward. 

 

The only downside to class G medicals would be that RAAus would get less aircraft transferring out of the VH register.

 

I am PPL and raa cert pilot.

 

 https://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-19-november-2021

That's been my curiosity; if factory built <760kG is still maintained by LAME (I believe that's how it should be) and new medical is same as RAA currently then why would anyone signup / join just to pay registration renewal each year when no yearly rego charge currently.

[kgwilson]

4 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

 FAA and the UK body have a much more refined and simpler system CASA just dont seem to want to make life simpler

 

If they made anything simpler they would not be able to justify their large numbers of staff. In the UK CAA surveyed pilots and looked at 45 years of evidence and concluded that the class 2 medical had provided no benefit finding only 4 fatalities that MAY have possibly contributed to the crash but not one of the 4 had any conclusive evidence so it was scrapped in favour of self certification as per RAA. CASA could have done the same but making things simpler is definitely not in their MO. Quite the opposite it seems.

[walrus]

CASA has a habit of living by the old Lawyers joke: "we will give you all assistance short of actual help."

 

That is what they did to the Basic class 2 medical. On the surface it appeared to be reasonable - then you discover it was a commercial licence standard, there were a range of common conditions that excluded many and CASA asked for the examining doctors "unconditional" approval. My doctor looked at the paperwork , made a phone call to his lawyers and then told me he wasn't issuing any of these because CASA had neatly made him liable for anything that happened to me.

 

I expect the same this time, for example:

 

1) Allowing 760 kgs but requiring all work on the aircraft to be performed by a LAME or L2 or some other way of preventing owner maintenance.

 

2) Allowing PPL self certification - but removing their access to controlled airspace.

 

3) Allowing access to controlled airspace to RAA pilots, but only if the aircraft MTOW is less than 600kg and it is fitted and approved for IFR.

 

In other words, they will give with one hand while they take away with the other so that none of us are better off.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, walrus said:

CASA has a habit of living by the old Lawyers joke: "we will give you all assistance short of actual help."

 

That is what they did to the Basic class 2 medical. On the surface it appeared to be reasonable - then you discover it was a commercial licence standard, there were a range of common conditions that excluded many and CASA asked for the examining doctors "unconditional" approval. My doctor looked at the paperwork , made a phone call to his lawyers and then told me he wasn't issuing any of these because CASA had neatly made him liable for anything that happened to me.

It shouldn't be any suprise to anyone by now that governments are progressively offloading risk on to the people gaining from an activity whether it be money or excitement.

 

The common conditions represent a reasonably forseeable risk so the law requires CASA to take action. Having a doctor assess the risk is to be expected. It's exactly the same as you getting an electrician to fix any doubtful issues around the house. The doctor assumes the duty of care; the electrician assumes the duty of care.

 

Given that a fair volume of pilots are stepping out of GA because they know they are medically unfit to fly there, it's not surprising that doctors would be right onto that tactic, and not prepared to approve someone who is less than safe.

 

With the Driver's licence medical standard the pilot assumes the liability, and where we read in social media walking past the graveyard admissions that pilots are flying with serious defects and likely to drop of the perch at a moment's notice, just remember that nothing happens while nothing happens, but when they've just taken out a passenger or someone on the ground, they'll pay because they had the duty of care, and into the bargain may lose their driver's licence for making a false statement, because the conditions which are tested in the Commercial licence, are required to be stated on the standard driver's licence.

 

Solo isn't an exception. From time to time people boast on social media they don't need registration, licence or medical ever though they are sick because they are the only ones flying and it doesn't matter, but they forget they leave an estate and the estate can be sued for their negligence and if their falling aircraft happens to kill or injure someone, the family can be left destitute.

 

1 hour ago, walrus said:

 

I expect the same this time, for example:

 

1) Allowing 760 kgs but requiring all work on the aircraft to be performed by a LAME or L2 or some other way of preventing owner maintenance.

Already there would be an expectation from GA owners of 760 aircraft that they will not be discriminated against for identical operations, and they are probably broadcasting this on their favourite social media platforms.                                           

Given that Ultralights were allowed owner maintenance when they had lawn mower engines and a few bits of tube, this could open up pandora's box and see a complete reassessment of the RA class with the upper end shifting to LAME. Don't forget that when in recent times there have been engine issues, quite a large number of members claimed it was due to unprofessional maintanance standards.

 

1 hour ago, walrus said:

 

2) Allowing PPL self certification - but removing their access to controlled airspace.

Given the training for controlled airspace is very simple and the aircraft already qualifies and there is no change to risk, why would anyone want to change this.

 

1 hour ago, walrus said:

 

3) Allowing access to controlled airspace to RAA pilots, but only if the aircraft MTOW is less than 600kg and it is fitted and approved for IFR.

There is already a working pathway for an RA Pilot/Aircraft to use controlled airspace.

In a recent discussion it was surprising to see the number of people who simply hadn't opened the books to see what this was.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs is falling for the "flying is especially dangerous" line. You will see the problems if you apply the same arguments to other pursuits.

For example ,ladders, playing bowls, driving to church on sunday.

Why single out flying for the draconian application of liability rules? Here is a clue... the ONLY innate fear a newborn baby has is falling.

For myself, I am happy to be responsible for harm and damage I do. What I don't want is for some stupid bureaucrat to fence me in with stupid rules which assume I am a complete idiot.

[turboplanner]

21 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Turbs is falling for the "flying is especially dangerous" line.

I'm not falling for anything, just pointing out your current obligations and the fact that if increasing the MTOW results in an increase in risk, then someone has a duty of care to eliminate that risk. Nothing new in that.

21 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

You will see the problems if you apply the same arguments to other pursuits.

For example ,ladders, playing bowls, driving to church on sunday.

Put a ladder up incorrectly or use it incorrectly and you are paying.

Employ someone to use a ladder and you assume the duty of care to see that they put it up and use it correctly, and  are likely to be found negligent if you don't.  Nothing new about that except that the Guideline "Falls from Heights" specifies additional steps that need to be taken above two metres.

 

Playing bowls the management has a duty of care to ensure there are no forseeable risks present like trip hazards. Nothing new about that.

 

Driving to church on a Sunday is an exception because our State Governments still cover the risk with third party insurance, and they have a LOT of prescriptive rules which they'll fine you for if you don't adhere to them.

 

21 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Why single out flying for the draconian application of liability rules? 

No one is singling out anyone, just some people slow on the uptake that these days they own the duty of care in sporting and recreational activies just like many other activities. Where in the presriptive era they could flout the rules and when it all went wrong and someone was injured or killed the State picked up the bill or the injured suffered at their own expense.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

For myself, I am happy to be responsible for harm and damage I do. What I don't want is for some stupid bureaucrat to fence me in with stupid rules which assume I am a complete idiot.

 

[Student Pilot]

All too hard........just give up

[Bruce Tuncks]

I mentioned ladders because they are the most dangerous item around. Harry Schneider survived being a German soldier in WW2 and then a glider test-pilot for 30 years. He nearly died when he fell from a ladder.

And bowls is the most dangerous game in Australia, based on mortality figures. Pro rata, more people die playing bowls than any other sport, including parachuting.

[walrus]

Turbo, with respect, regarding medical risk, you fall into the common CASA laid trap.

 

1) You talk of medical risk without quantifying its application to flying an aircraft for recreation and enjoyment.

 

2) You believe others(doctors) can and must exactly quantify risk.

 

3) You then take an absolutist position on risk management which is unsustainable.

 

 

Firstly for a known medical condition to produce what I would call an "adverse aviation event",  the pilot would have to know about the condition, ignore whatever treatment regime they are required to undergo. Then they would have to ignore warning signs of incapacitating illness, embark on flight and succumb. As per the British experience this happened 4 times in 45 years!

 

Doctors cannot give an absolute unconditional assessment on anything and CASA knew that requiring such a statement would sabotage the Basic Med 2. The best Doctors can do is produce a "balance of probabilities" assessment which is highly subjective even after thousands of dollars of tests by specialists. Yet even then CASA won't often accept the results! This is hypocrisy. Every person at any age has conditions of one sort or another.

 

Risk management is a two sided process. It is NOT about absolutes. It requires balancing perceived risk against all of the costs of ameliorating that risk. The whole reason the medicals are even an issue is because this has not   been done and CASA refuses to adopt risk management protocols for ANYTHING!

 

Risk management is a relatively exact science that leaves little room for pontificating would be "professionals" to grandstand and grind their axes.

 

So a self certification medical standard needs to balance the costs of the alleged increased in risk to the community against the benefits to the community of an increase in aviation activity by an increasing number of pilots who would otherwise not be flying.

 

 Some idea of the disaster that is Australian medical aviation can be gauged by the British expereince - 4 accidents in 45 years versus the millions of dollars paid in Australia to specialists as pilots try to argue with a stubborn and unresponsive CASA.

 

To put that another way, why not make five point harnesses, annual drivers licence medicals and retests, crash helmets and fireproof suits mandatory for all passenger cars? Such an action would definitely lower the road toll but it is equally obvious that the cost, both direct and indirect, would be stratospheric - ayet we allow CASA to do exactly that to recreational and GA aviation!

 

 

Furthermore have an observation to make: The entire CASA regulatory edifice is now so bad that it   is only a matter of time before it becomes unusable. In the medical area, I have been told numerous times that commercial pilots now have two doctors: their DAME and their "Real" doctor. In addition, diagnosis and treatment for some conditions is postponed because of its likely effect on careers. Elsewhere the signs suggest that the industry is paying lip service to CASA requirements because they are becoming impossible to comply with in terms of cost and complexity. I have seen some flying behaviours that I would not care to do myself but nobody censures them any more.

 

The cause of real safety (which is a state of mind) has been drowned in a sea of regulatory cost and compliance requirements and matters will only get worse as participants are forced into unsafe behaviours in an effort to survive.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I gotta say Turbs that you have the govt on your side, but I personally will never accept some third party carrying any responsibility for my actions.

There is the exceptional case where you may be minding a retarded child, but in general we have to have liberty not safety. There is a quote from Benjamin Frankelin...  "Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary safety will finish up with neither"

[Bruce Tuncks]

I know that examples prove little, but here are 2 examples of what you just posted Walrus.

1. A glider pilot with type 1 diabetes sat in his glider for hours without getting it to the take-off point. This caused the take-off crew some concern, but the fact turned out to be that he felt crook and decided not to fly. The point is that us recreational pilots don't have to fly if we are not up to it. In fact this guy has many hours of warning of an upcoming attack.

Now CASA would  assume that this guy was a retard and say that he had to be grounded...  how nasty.

2. An old tug-pilot ( who had a current medical at the time ) had not flown for 2 weeks. He said he felt crook and in fact died a few days later. Again, he was the best judge of his condition. 

[Flightrite]

I’ve said it before, don’t think I’ll ever fly again or get out of bed for that matter, just to risky, according to some😂 Everything we do is a risk, calculate the risk/s for YOU and bloody get on with it.....long time dead!

Edited November 23, 2021 by Flightrite

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

And bowls is the most dangerous game in Australia, based on mortality figures. Pro rata, more people die playing bowls than any other sport, including parachuting.

If there was anyone from CASA or RAA reading your posts  and nodding that you have a point, it wouldn't be for the bowls example where the majority of players are past retirement age, plenty in the 80 to 95 group, so of course they would be expected to have the highest death rate in any sport, probably the highest death rate in clubs and pubs too, so that one's not a credible comparison factor.

[Garfly]

29 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

If there was anyone from CASA or RAA reading your posts  and nodding that you have a point, it wouldn't be for the bowls example where the majority of players are past retirement age, plenty in the 80 to 95 group, so of course they would be expected to have the highest death rate in any sport, probably the highest death rate in clubs and pubs too, so that one's not a credible comparison factor.

 

I reckon Bruce was trolling a bit there Turbs; pointing out how statistics can be perverted, and very often are by bureaucrats for the consumption of pollies with different fish to fry.  

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, walrus said:

Turbo, with respect, regarding medical risk, you fall into the common CASA laid trap.

1) You talk of medical risk without quantifying its application to flying an aircraft for recreation and enjoyment.

2) You believe others(doctors) can and must exactly quantify risk.

3) You then take an absolutist position on risk management which is unsustainable.

10) This discussion arises from a possible decision to allow a 26% increase in MTOW and any increased or new risks over and above the existing levels. Before CASA can even put out out a discussion paper you are telling them what to do or what they are doing wrong. I'm commenting on the fact that if they opt to drop the PPL standard for these aircraft, the risk onus will be on you. If the standard is the Commercial standard, a doctor has to sign you off. A doctor is free not to do this. If the standard is the car driver's licence, be aware that over a certain age you are obligated by law to disclose medical conditions.

 

2) Based on 1, we are talking about the Commercial licence which the doctors are very familiar with, and the truckies.

It's not up to any of us to tell them how to do their business.

 

3) In simple terms if CASA choose the Dame, you go to the dame, if CASA choose the Commercial you go to a doctor who does Commercial licences, if CASA choose Car Driver's Licence you declare what you legally are required to declare.

 

I don't think they're looking for anti-absolutist ideas.

 

Pilots have and do die by concealing their condition. As well as the example you gave there are the inconclusive causes, just a matter of going through the ATSB records.

 

2 hours ago, walrus said:

 

Firstly for a known medical condition to produce what I would call an "adverse aviation event",  the pilot would have to know about the condition, ignore whatever treatment regime they are required to undergo. Then they would have to ignore warning signs of incapacitating illness, embark on flight and succumb. As per the British experience this happened 4 times in 45 years!

Pilots have and do die by concealing their condition. As well as the example you gave there are the inconclusive causes, just a matter of going through the ATSB records.  However, analysing this is not something we have to do.

2 hours ago, walrus said:

To put that another way, why not make five point harnesses, annual drivers licence medicals and retests, crash helmets and fireproof suits mandatory for all passenger cars?

The auto industry isn't perfect either, but those racing items have probably been ruled out as not having a huge effect on fatalities, or availability of alternatives such as five or six airbags.

 

2 hours ago, walrus said:

Furthermore have an observation to make: The entire CASA regulatory edifice is now so bad that it   is only a matter of time before it becomes unusable.

Depends what you're trying to do. Most people in RA would rarely come in contact with CASA.

2 hours ago, walrus said:

......now have two doctors: their DAME and their "Real" doctor. That's the way it has always been, so not something new.

 

2 hours ago, walrus said:

I have seen some flying behaviours that I would not care to do myself but nobody censures them any more.

Self Administration works that way; it's not like on the road with cops watching our speeding, driving standard, seat belt etc., but when something goes wrong and it was a reasonably forseeable risk they are the people who lose their house.

 

[turboplanner]

46 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

I reckon Bruce was trolling a bit there Turbs; pointing out how statistics can be perverted, and very often are by bureaucrats for the consumption of pollies with different fish to fry.  

He may have been trolling but then again maybe he hasn't caught up.

[Flightrite]

Looks like someone here is a CAsA supporter😉

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I gotta say Turbs that you have the govt on your side, but I personally will never accept some third party carrying any responsibility for my actions.

There is the exceptional case where you may be minding a retarded child, but in general we have to have liberty not safety. There is a quote from Benjamin Frankelin...  "Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary safety will finish up with neither"

You ARE responsible for your actions.

However most people in private life, sport and industry ask for guidelines so someone has to set them, even in sports where there is no government intrusion at all.

For example, Water Slide operators, who at one stage held the lead in public liability injury cases, came up with the guideline that one employee would be stationed up at the top, and another at the bottom. When the bottom person was satisfied that the exit pool was clear, he'd signal the top one to let the next swimmer go. Broken backs, necks, arms and legs came to an end. Recently I was at a park which had a waterslide; it was all done electronically with a gate being close at the top until a beam in the pool showed it was clear. 

[walrus]

Be fair. We are all CASA supporters. We are trying to help them through their current difficulties with a minimum of pain and maximum benefit.

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, Flightrite said:

Looks like someone here is a CAsA supporter😉

No, got my experience from other industries and being directly involved in Cases, mostly losing until we found the solutions.

[walrus]

RAAus has produced a very comprehensive proposed 760 Kg. Explanatory page on the website together with an excellent FAQ. Well done!!!!

[Thruster88]

CASA working on self declared medicals.

 

https://updates.communication.casa.gov.au/link/id/zzzz61a00c830d473601Pzzzz5f2e768d8d88b259/page.html

[Kyle Communications]

About time

 

[kgwilson]

Only 5 years behind everyone else but they are just starting the process. How long will it be for any change to see implementation? Based on the RPL which came 10 years after NZ, UK US & Canada & was then a completely different abomination another 5 years would not be out of the question