NZ New PPL Medical Standard

[kiwiaviator]

Great news for NZ PPL/RPL holders. These changes were made after considerable consultation with stakeholders and the regulator (CAA) is to be applauded for taking on the feedback provided. There were some significant concessions made after the draft release. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/about-us/media-releases/show/New-medical-standard-to-make-flying-more-accessible

[kiwiaviator]

The PPL privileges table from 5 April 2021 https://www.aviation.govt.nz/licensing-and-certification/pilots/pilot-licensing/ppl-privileges-by-type-of-medical-certificate 

[tillmanr]

Anyone at CASA alive and looking.

[Jim McDowall]

Friday afternoon, what do you think?

[Thruster88]

12 hours ago, tillmanr said:

Anyone at CASA alive and looking.

We already have it, called basic med in Australia.  

[walrus]

it is absolutely NOT the same. The oz one requires the commercial diving standard which is quite strict and also requires the GP to sign that you unconditionally meet the standard. How many people over the age  of say 50, don't have any medical conditions? If you actually read  the CASA paperwork, and your GP also does the same, you will realise its a fake "relaxation" of standards.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

We already have it, called basic med in Australia.  

Where can you find CASA's list of things that you are permitted to do as the holder of a Basic Medical? A similar list is provided in the above New Zealand CAA link. The results of a comparative study would be worth seeing.

 

This describes how to get one of these certificates https://www.casa.gov.au/files/new-basic-class-2-medical-certificate-fact-sheet-pilots

 

Basic Class 2 medical certificate

Since July 2018, a Basic Class 2 medical certificate is available as an alternative to a full Class 2 certificate for private operations. It has the following operational restrictions:

only private day operations under the visual flight rules (VFR) and below 10,000 feet

a maximum of five passengers

only piston engine aircraft

maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of less than 8618kg

no use of operational ratings (e.g. instructor rating, instrument rating)

no use of flight activity endorsements (e.g. aerobatics, low level).

[Thruster88]

1 hour ago, walrus said:

it is absolutely NOT the same. The oz one requires the commercial diving standard which is quite strict and also requires the GP to sign that you unconditionally meet the standard. How many people over the age  of say 50, don't have any medical conditions? If you actually read  the CASA paperwork, and your GP also does the same, you will realise its a fake "relaxation" of standards.

I have read the paperwork and did consider getting basic med instead of class 2 at my last renewal. The New Zealand basic med requirements are DL9 with passenger endorsement (bus). I doubt there is much difference between NZ DL9 and Australian commercial vehicles medical.  

[Jaba-who]

After going through both Aust and NZ standards my opinion  FWIW, is the New NZ standard is somewhere between  the Australian Basic Class 2 and the US Basic Medical. Not  that far ahead of the Australian Basic Class 2 but enough to make a difference to some  pilots. 
I have gleaned the following comparisons & differences. 
 

Medical : 

NZ (DL9 medical): Basic drivers licence medical with NO use of conditions to further limit gaining a medical. 

Aust: Commercial licence standard with overriding conditions that can fail the medical even if pass it for an actual vehicle licence ( I know at least one pilot who has and uses a commercial vehicle licence but has been denied a class 2 basic due to the conditions) 

NZ: The doctor decides if the pilot is fit to fly. There is actually a section on the medical form  where the doctor gives his/her opinion. 

Aust: AvMed decides if the pilot is fit to fly. The doctor carries no weight, and  is merely a box ticker who looks to see if the pilot reaches predetermined levels and in practical terms passes that information to AvMed. The doctor has no capacity to give an opinion or adjust the conditions which generate a “pass”. ( Even specialists are overridden by the AvMed doctors in every level of licence) 

 

For both the time intervals are the same. 
The costs are similar. 

My opinion:

Clearly the medical component is the thing that effects more pilots, particularly given our aging pilot population.

The US ( and our own RAAus medical system) has proved that medicals (beyond those for people with really severe conditions such as uncontrolled epilepsy,  some cardiac and psychiatric conditions), are actually, in practical terms, unnecessary for pilots. The NZ new system is clearly a step toward the US and is to be applauded from that position.
 

It is clearly more lenient than the Australian Class 2 basic which by virtue of the added  “conditional” limitations has blocked a lot of pilots. I  know of pilots who now fly without a medical ( and have done so for years) because the Class 2 Basic is closed off to them due to “conditions” and it is not time-practical or cost effective to get a class 2.  

 

 

Privileges of each:

For most pilots these are comparable but for some pilots it will make a difference and in most cases the Australian  medical is more restrictive than the NZ. 
 

The only “better” situation in Australia is aircraft weight. ( I forget the exact MTOW but these are close enough) Australian is about 8000kg and the NZ is about 2500 kg. 

For the rest the NZ situation is either better than the Australian or same.  
NZ exercising of endorsements

Acrobatics:

 NZ - yes but only when solo above 3000 ft

Aust - No. 

 

Night VFR:

NZ - Yes but only within 25 nm of a lit airport

Aust - No

 

Instruments - No in both

Passenger numbers - 5 in both

Engine types - piston both. 
 

For most people the differences are minimal or not going to change their flying. 

 

It’s also interesting that all NZ Recreational licences ( now equivalent to Aust RPL) will automatically be granted a PPL. My own opinion is that this removing of multiple licences that cover essentially similar privileges is also a good thing. Streamlining and simplifying makes a lot of sense when trying to set up things like medicals and limitations.  
 

 

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

The RPL was introduced in NZ in 2005 largely to allow ageing pilots to continue to fly without a Class 2 medical so is completely different to the RPL introduced in Australia 10 years later. There are actually only 195 RPL licence holders in NZ. With this DL9 drivers licence medical introduction the RPL is being revoked and all holders are being issued with a PPL with a few privileges removed as per the table link above. The DL9 medical is a simple medical to ensure (mostly older) drivers are OK to drive a car. It is used as an endorsement for forklifts, dangerous goods tracked vehicles etc as well. It is largely a self declaration of medical fitness but requires an eyesight test that you can do for free at any NZTA office. Basically it is the same as the RPC self declaration medical with an eyesight test. If you are older than 75 then you have to get it signed off by a doctor, same as for the RPC here.

 

So it means in effect if you have a car drivers licence, fill in the form on line, take it to NZTA, get your eyes tested, (if over 75 get your GP to sign it) pay the fee & you are good to go GA PPL flying.

[old man emu]

I hold the highest level commercial driver's licence available in Australia. I also hold a NSW Bus Driver's Authority. Because of my age I do a medical every year. Sixteen years ago I was diagnosed with work-related stress, which was sub-divided into depression and anxiety. I left that workplace, but have been taking one of the medicines listed in this

https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/aviation-medicine/depression-and-aviation-safety-fact-sheet  since then. 

 

Once you are diagnosed with depression and anxiety, you are doomed. You can't get the diagnosis change to "He' OK now." It is the same as asking a widower if he is still beating his wife. So, if I got my doctor to fill out the Basic Medical report at the same time as he did the driver's licence one, I'd be OK to drive a bendy-bus full of primary school kids along a freeway in peak hour, but CASA would probably require multiple reports from psychiatrists and then refuse the licence.

 

Someone should go through CASA with a shipping container of DCMs and clear the place out of staff who only ever go into the higher altitudes in office lifts.

[Jaba-who]

26 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

The RPL was introduced in NZ in 2005 largely to allow ageing pilots to continue to fly without a Class 2 medical so is completely different to the RPL introduced in Australia 10 years later. There are actually only 195 RPL licence holders in NZ. With this DL9 drivers licence medical introduction the RPL is being revoked and all holders are being issued with a PPL with a few privileges removed as per the table link above. The DL9 medical is a simple medical to ensure (mostly older) drivers are OK to drive a car. It is used as an endorsement for forklifts, dangerous goods tracked vehicles etc as well. It is largely a self declaration of medical fitness but requires an eyesight test that you can do for free at any NZTA office. Basically it is the same as the RPC self declaration medical with an eyesight test. If you are older than 75 then you have to get it signed off by a doctor, same as for the RPC here.

 

So it means in effect if you have a car drivers licence, fill in the form on line, take it to NZTA, get your eyes tested, (if over 75 get your GP to sign it) pay the fee & you are good to go GA PPL flying.

I am not in NZ and only going by the rules I found by googling so may be ( and will happily accept if I’m an) wrong. 
But the DL9 is not just a stand in line at the traffic office eye test. 
Nor  is it a self certification. 
I’ve read the relevant stuff from the NZ government DL9 guidelines for medical practitioners  ( downloadable file 133 pages)

 

A real drivers DL9 is a formal medical examination that can only  be conducted by a doctor, an (qualified) optometrist, a qualified nurse practitioner or a registered nurse working within a current scope of practice. (According to the Act ) 

The pilot DL9 sounds like it has to be done by a doctor. Seems like that is the only additional restriction compared to a drivers DL9 but that’s just how it’s written in the publication provided. Might not be absolute. 

 

The standard ( private driver (Class 1 drivers licence) vs Commercial drivers licence ( Class 2-5) is surprisingly not that different.

 

Essentially all the same fairly severe medical conditions preclude both and the differences are in just how stable some conditions have to be to maintain the class 2,3,4 or 5 components. 

For example. The difference between private and commercial having had a mini-stroke is a few months of stability. 
(In Australia you will be lucky ever to get your pilot  medical back at all. )

 

The age limitations in NZ are:

Age less than 40 it is required every 5 years

Age 40 - 75 ( oops I forget this exactly -could be 70) required every 2 years 

Age over 70/5 every 1 year. 

 

 

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

Well here is the latest 2021 version of the form that can be completed on line.

 

https://www.pdffiller.com/en/forms.htm?projectId=659098342&blank=1&transactionId=7579773b7f0c8d39b3e47be6d6025a04&requestHash=907eb05a9ec17b016168c16bf2a6382a4350c457f35f2f4773d9d4d7b60f4025

 

On page 2 the only reasons for requiring a medical certificate is 1. over age 75, 2. applying for a truck licence, 3. have a medical condition that has affected your ability to drive safely in the past 5 years.

 

On page 4 it states "You must prove your eyesight is up to standard, You can

• pass an eyesight screening check at a driver licencing agent, or
• present a satisfactory eyesight certificate or medical certificate (no more than 60 days old)

The form is multi use and if you have done everything it can be saved and emailed to NZTA or you can print it off & take it there & do your eyesight test there at the same time.

 

The eyesight test in NZ is more specific than in NSW. At NZTA they have a binocular tester on the counter & each eye is tested to different levels. I did my last one there in 2004. I did one last week at Service NSW.  I stood at the counter & the girl at reception put a 3 line chart on the TV screen behind her & asked me if I could read the middle line. I read it & she said no worries you don't need glasses to drive. Actually as far as I am concerned I do need glasses to drive and also to fly as I like to be able to read signs and number plates from a long way off not when I am almost on top of them. Flying without my glasses & I can't read the instruments clearly or see clear detail at long distance like other aircraft or eagles.

[Jaba-who]

44 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Well here is the latest 2021 version of the form that can be completed on line.

 

https://www.pdffiller.com/en/forms.htm?projectId=659098342&blank=1&transactionId=7579773b7f0c8d39b3e47be6d6025a04&requestHash=907eb05a9ec17b016168c16bf2a6382a4350c457f35f2f4773d9d4d7b60f4025

 

On page 2 the only reasons for requiring a medical certificate is 1. over age 75, 2. applying for a truck licence, 3. have a medical condition that has affected your ability to drive safely in the past 5 years.

 

On page 4 it states "You must prove your eyesight is up to standard, You can

• pass an eyesight screening check at a driver licencing agent, or
• present a satisfactory eyesight certificate or medical certificate (no more than 60 days old)

The form is multi use and if you have done everything it can be saved and emailed to NZTA or you can print it off & take it there & do your eyesight test there at the same time.

 

The eyesight test in NZ is more specific than in NSW. At NZTA they have a binocular tester on the counter & each eye is tested to different levels. I did my last one there in 2004. I did one last week at Service NSW.  I stood at the counter & the girl at reception put a 3 line chart on the TV screen behind her & asked me if I could read the middle line. I read it & she said no worries you don't need glasses to drive. Actually as far as I am concerned I do need glasses to drive and also to fly as I like to be able to read signs and number plates from a long way off not when I am almost on top of them. Flying without my glasses & I can't read the instruments clearly or see clear detail at long distance like other aircraft or eagles.

Ok The answer here is in the details. 
( That link doesn’t work - actually just web service that allows you to fill in PDFs online without having the expensive Adobe or similar version - but no matter it’s not relevant ) 

I was looking at the legislation from 2018. I assumed it was the latest but maybe the 2021 version has changed. 
 

but 

The kicker is your line that says “2. a truck licence. “. So the legislation  says a medical suitable for a class 2,3, or 5 ( with passenger carrying privileges) Vehicle licence. So that immediately means truck ( the classes are outlined in another of the linked publications) licence of one sort another.  So by inference a DL9 for a pilot licence will have to be one where you see a doctor and that is also stated  in the article attached to the original post. 
 

still better than the Australian Class 2 basic but not as easy or self determined as an Aust RAAUS or a US Basic medical. 

[pmccarthy]

Jaba, you refer To Avmed doctors, but the people who over rule the DAME are not doctors, they are clerks reading a checklist and nor necessarily understanding it. I am sure I am not the only one to have a specialist perplexed at their questions and requirements, or have the DAME's decision to issue my medical overruled. 

[Jim McDowall]

As I understand it NZ PPL's are accepted in Oz. Also as I understand the CASA RPL is not acceptable elsewhere in the world. So the challenge for CASA will be whether to subdivide NZ PPL's on the basis of the medical used or simply admit NZ PPL in total, which means that NZ pilots with basically the same licencing basis as a CASA RPL can jump into a Beechcraft Baron with 5 passengers and tour around Australia at upto 25,000 feet, in and out of controlled aerodromes.

Given the various treaties with NZ, CASA will have to move carefully.

[Jaba-who]

43 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

As I understand it NZ PPL's are accepted in Oz. Also as I understand the CASA RPL is not acceptable elsewhere in the world. So the challenge for CASA will be whether to subdivide NZ PPL's on the basis of the medical used or simply admit NZ PPL in total, which means that NZ pilots with basically the same licencing basis as a CASA RPL can jump into a Beechcraft Baron with 5 passengers and tour around Australia at upto 25,000 feet, in and out of controlled aerodromes.

Given the various treaties with NZ, CASA will have to move carefully.

I don’t think there’s a problem as you perceive. As far as CASA is concerned a pilot has two qualifications - one an aeronautical licence the other a medical certificate. They are seperate things and a person can have either alone  but you must have both to exercise the privileges  in the aeronautic licence. The issue of an NZ or any other country pilot coming to Aus is already covered. You must have an aeronautic licence that is acceptable to CASA and you must have a medical equivalent to the Australian medical required for what you want to do here. It will almost certainly require a trip to a local doctor to get a local medical. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Jaba-who

[Jaba-who]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Jaba, you refer To Avmed doctors, but the people who over rule the DAME are not doctors, they are clerks reading a checklist and nor necessarily understanding it. I am sure I am not the only one to have a specialist perplexed at their questions and requirements, or have the DAME's decision to issue my medical overruled. 

Ummm no. As much as I dislike the system and feel I am as highly qualified in some aspects of my specialty that pertain to aviation medicine I have to disagree there. 

The doctors in AvMed who set the standards by which the clerks copy and tick the boxes  are real doctors. However their qualifications are in a branch of medicine that is somewhat esoteric, whose basis is heavily slanted toward the rigours of military aviation and whose parameters of “normal” often  err on the side of an over abundance of caution.  The  principle being “Safety!   to the point that we throw out anyone who might possibly have even a minimal risk because there’s plenty more where they came from. “
 

Their concern over the desires  and aspirations of the individual who wants to undertake the far less risky recreational jolly in a weekend are a big fat “zero” 

As such the doctors set up a set of check lists, whose box ticking can be done by an underling, but they are still the ones who make the final decisions when a pilot appeals because the boxes contain crosses instead of ticks. 
The  problem is they are out of touch with reality and the levels of fitness actually required and have decreed crosses where many in the real world of managing these patients every day would say that a tick is more appropriate. 
 

 

[kiwiaviator]

3 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

I don’t think there’s a problem as you perceive. As far as CASA is concerned a pilot has two qualifications - one an aeronautical licence the other a medical certificate. They are seperate things and a person can have either alone  but you must have both to exercise the privileges  in the aeronautic licence. The issue of an NZ or any other country pilot coming to Aus is already covered. You must have an aeronautic licence that is acceptable to CASA and you must have a medical equivalent to the Australian medical required for what you want to do here. It will almost certainly require a trip to a local doctor to get a local medical. 

It will be interesting to see if CASA issues any guidance with respect to NZ PPL holders wanting to fly in Australia after the changes.

[Kyle Communications]

Jaba

Your local doctor can do the Austroads heavy vehicle licence and provided there are no conditions its fine for a Basic Class 2 medical.

 

If you do have conditions on your Austroads heavy vehicle licence you then need to go and see a DAME with all the necessary records you have regarding those conditions and he does his full blown in surgury tests and if he deems you are ok to fly then he can grant you the Basic Class 2 medical. He does it on his computer and it does not go to Avmed for a sign off. He signs you off directly and according to CASA...the guy in Canberra who spoke to me said if the DAME says your fine then you are fine. Avmed have no further interest in you

 

 

[Jaba-who]

9 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

Jaba

Your local doctor can do the Austroads heavy vehicle licence and provided there are no conditions its fine for a Basic Class 2 medical.

 

If you do have conditions on your Austroads heavy vehicle licence you then need to go and see a DAME with all the necessary records you have regarding those conditions and he does his full blown in surgury tests and if he deems you are ok to fly then he can grant you the Basic Class 2 medical. He does it on his computer and it does not go to Avmed for a sign off. He signs you off directly and according to CASA...the guy in Canberra who spoke to me said if the DAME says your fine then you are fine. Avmed have no further interest in you

 

 

Not how we moved to this but .....

If you have conditions on your Ausroads medical sure .
 

But there’s more - if you EVER have had an AvMed condition or  condition which is a “refer to AvMed” you are ineligible for both an Class  2 basic AND a direct DAME approval for a Class 2 . 
This has been the thing that has caught many failed attempts at the Class 2 Basic. 
 

I am aware of a number of pilots who had a Class 2 but had a  “refer to AvMed” condition on their medical. This is what can happen when your DAME finds an issue and initially refers it to AvMed.
Once the condition is reported to AvMed and they make a judgement that the pilot can have the Class 2  the pilot will get a “refer to AvMed” condition in their medical record. 
When the Class 2 basic came out a number of pilots with “refer to AvMed”  conditions  sought out a Class 2 Basic with their GP and were given them despite the rules actually stating they were ineligible.  When it came time for renewal AvMed caught up with them and their medicals were revoked.  
We have one in my area who even got through the second Class 2 basic and got an approval letter, several months later got a “sorry there’s been a mistake” letter. He was told he had to go for a DAME Class 2, who approved it, but because he had a “refer to AvMed” it had to go to AvMed for final approval, who blocked his Class 2 as well. 
The stupid part is he is one of the guys I previously mentioned has a valid Ausroads medical and heavy vehicle licence. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Jaba-who

[walrus]

I have a number of friends who are caught by this and similar catch 22"s.

 

Workcover, transport, etc. legislation all have this get out ; " If you don't meet the standards or have a medical episode, you will have to be reviewed" ....and the result of that review is always a big fat "No".

 

For example, the pass rate for drivers licence medical reviews after illness or injury is zero in Victoria.

[Jim McDowall]

People,

The devil is always in the detail. The NZ Civil Aviation Rules Part 61, Amendment 17 says:

61.35 Medical requirement
(a) A person who holds a pilot licence must not exercise the privileges
of the licence unless—
..............
(ia) in the case of a private pilot licence, holds a current
medical certificate issued in accordance with section 44(1) of
the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 that is
applicable for a class 2, 3, 4 or 5 driver licence with passenger
endorsement which –
(A) was issued within the previous 5 years; or
(B) if the person is 40 years of age or older, was issued
within the previous 2 years; 
Section 44(1) of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 is clear:
44 Medical certificates
(1) A person who is required by this rule to produce a medical certificate to any person must—
(a) obtain, from a person who is a member of 1 or more of the class or classes of health practitioner qualified to issue the certificate, a certificate that states whether the person is medically fit to drive under the applicable class of licence or type of endorsement, having regard to the document issued by the Agency entitled Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive: A Guide for Health Practitioners; and
(b)
pay the appropriate fee (if any) specified in or assessed in accordance with regulations made under the Act.

So it is clear that it is the examining doctor who issuesthe certificate IS NOT NZCAA Avmed. 

Implicit in the legislation, is the presumption that such a certificate will be available for inspection by NZCAA if required, in the same was as we in Australia must carry our valid medical certificates.

 

[Kyle Communications]

21 hours ago, Jim McDowall said:

 

So it is clear that it is the examining doctor who issuesthe certificate IS NOT NZCAA Avmed. 

Implicit in the legislation, is the presumption that such a certificate will be available for inspection by NZCAA if required, in the same was as we in Australia must carry our valid medical certificates.

 

This is what the guy at CASA in Canberra told me over the telephone just over 2 years ago. Except of course he was reffering to CASA not the NZCAA

If the DAME signs you off directly on the Basic Class 2 medical then you are good to go and CASA do not question it

 

 

[old man emu]

28 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

If the DAME signs you off directly on the Basic Class 2 medical

I thought that the idea of aligning the Basic Class 2 with the Austroads medical, which any GP can sign off on. If there are conditions on the Austroads approval (Sleep Apnoea and eyesight) you might have to see a sleep specialist of get an eye test and if they are OK you can continue to drive commercially. What planet do CASA staff live on if they think that there are any greater risks flying a plane that in a lot of cases would weigh less than a vehicle a Learner driver can drive, than there are in driving commercially?