NZ New PPL Medical Standard

[Jim McDowall]

The NZ DL9 drivers licence is issued by the NZ Traffic Authority on the back of certificate issued by a medical practitioner. The NZ Civil Aviation Rules Part 61, Amendment 17 only requires a person to HOLD an appropriate DL9 drivers licence. In other words it is truly a drivers licence medical similar to the RAAus drivers licence medical declaration.

The CASA "drivers licence" medical cerificate is issued by CASA following a report prepared by a GP. Th doctor does not issue a "certificate" within the meaning of the regs. In fact, the issuance of a recreational aviation medical practitioner's certificate (RAMPC) by CASA is really a mis-description as it is really just a medical certificate issued by CASA on the back of a report by a doctor who is not a DAME. 

[Thruster88]

14 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

The NZ DL9 drivers licence is issued by the NZ Traffic Authority on the back of certificate issued by a medical practitioner. The NZ Civil Aviation Rules Part 61, Amendment 17 only requires a person to HOLD an appropriate DL9 drivers licence. In other words it is truly a drivers licence medical similar to the RAAus drivers licence medical declaration.

The CASA "drivers licence" medical cerificate is issued by CASA following a report prepared by a GP. Th doctor does not issue a "certificate" within the meaning of the regs. In fact, the issuance of a recreational aviation medical practitioner's certificate (RAMPC) by CASA is really a mis-description as it is really just a medical certificate issued by CASA on the back of a report by a doctor who is not a DAME. 

The NZ basic med requires a DL9 WITH A PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE ENDORSEMENT so it is not the same as RAAus.  

[Kyle Communications]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

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? 

I was told this by the dude at CASA who rang me after I sent a letter to CASA that I was going to take them to court. I have a Austroads Commercial vehicle licence issued by my local GP every year at about $185 each year but I do have conditions on it but those conditions dont stop me from driving a 60 tonne B double on Brisbane roads. I also have a yearly cardiologist appointment and every 2 to 3 years I get a echo and sometimes a stress test to make sure all the plumbing is still cool. I also have 3 monthly blood tests.

 

CASA dude told me exactly what I said before and that was a GP cant sign me off on a Basic Class 2 because of the conditions and a GP does not have the experience to be able to take into account my conditions when in a aviation environment. But if a DAME does all the usual physical tests and looks at all your reports about your conditions and he deems that you are fine by those results to fly under the Basic Class 2  provisions then your good to go

 

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

SO

They just want double payment, for the same medical result !.

Typical Bureaucracy !, no humanity in them.

spacesailor

[Kyle Communications]

Well the Austroads drivers licence is a yearly check and test..thats a double appointment with the GP hence the charge also this allows me RAA flying with a medical drivers licence because of course the HV licence covers std vehicles and its not a medicare charge its a fully paid doctor visit...if I want to fly RPL then I have to go to a DAME...really no difference to a Class 2 and pay that charge which is last time I think $285. Then of course I dont get my cardiologist free I have to pay and he is expensive like most specialists also I have to pay for Echo and stress tests...so its bloody expensive but when you look at it I am far less likely to drop off the planet while flying because I am monitored all the time and get regular tests to make sure....how many others flying with a Class2 or a Basic Class 2 can actually attest to their health...I can...can you?

 

[Jim McDowall]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

The NZ basic med requires a DL9 WITH A PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE ENDORSEMENT so it is not the same as RAAus.  

Firstly, it is not a "basic med". It is a provision that permits the holder of a specified drivers licence to legally fly. Basic med is a term for FAA licences which is a totally different approach unrelated to drivers licences.

I did not mean that there was an equivalence in the NZ driver licence required compared to RAAus, merely that the regulatory approach was similar. 

[Jaba-who]

2 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

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

 

 

That’s not what history has shown. 
There are now a number of people whose medicals have been rescinded by CASA after approval by both the GP ( for the Class 2 Basic) and the DAME (for Class 2). 

Most people who get these do get through them directly and legitimately as you state but CASA must retain some oversight ( I don’t know exactly how much ) based on the fact that they are now, here and now rescinding some peoples medicals  after they have been issued. 

I know personally that CASA do still have some oversight, even when a DAME says he would pass a medical but there are components in it that that  CASA will want to look at. 
I personally just went for my Class 2 and in the questions I advised I had a sun damage type skin lesion cut off my lip. He asked what the pathology was and I told him the medical pathological diagnosis which was a benign sun damage type. He then stated he would pass me because it was benign, but that it would be likely CASA would block it unless I supplied a copy of the pathology result. He also gave away a bit of info that I find annoying - the CASA/DAME software automatically removes any pilot-provided diagnosis for any skin lesion and replaces it with “Melanoma” ( which automatically is malignant and fails your medical.) It is the up the pilot and/or DAME to chase up the real pathology result and supply it to CASAto  have the initial Melanoma expunged and replace it with the real diagnosis - which AvMed then review. 
That is what happened with mine. 
 

I honestly feel that there is still a lot more CASA scrutiny and oversight on the process than CASA is telling us. 

 

[Jim McDowall]

14 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

how many others flying with a Class2 or a Basic Class 2 can actually attest to their health...I can...can you?

How many ATPL pilots collapse (and maybe die) within the time span of their medical currency?  And their test is more often and stringent to class 2. Whilst there are 70+ years old pilots flying 737/747/ various  Airbuses in our airspace I have serious doubts about the reality that Avmed are inhabiting.

Without impugning the capacity of those who are in their 8th decade, those of us who are approaching that space know that our friends are dying around us, or do not have the capacities that they once had.  

I have a friend who passed his Class 2 medical, drove home and had a massive coronary - hasn't flown as PIC since. Similar stories abound.

There have been a number of studies which have shown that the whole aviation medical certification system (around the world) is poorly rooted in science. 

The whole medical issue goes back to the armed forces where medicals were used to pigeon hole people to plug the manpower needs of the day i.e. not eveyone got to be a pilot.

[Jim McDowall]

19 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

Basic med is a term for FAA licences

Sorry forgot about CASA's version https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/changes-medical-certification

[Jaba-who]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

The NZ basic med requires a DL9 WITH A PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE ENDORSEMENT so it is not the same as RAAus.  

Yes indeed but Even more than that - it’s a DL9 suitable for a Class 2,3,4 or 5 vehicle with passenger privileges. 
So it’s equivalent to a commercial truck licence with passenger carrying privileges -

 

serious question. Does  that make it  basically a bus  licence?

 

Wouldn’t  have thought truck drivers (of just standard trucks) would need passenger privileges. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Jaba-who

[Jaba-who]

12 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

How many ATPL pilots collapse (and maybe die) within the time span of their medical currency?  And their test is more often and stringent to class 2. Whilst there are 70+ years old pilots flying 737/747/ various  Airbuses in our airspace I have serious doubts about the reality that Avmed are inhabiting.

Without impugning the capacity of those who are in their 8th decade, those of us who are approaching that space know that our friends are dying around us, or do not have the capacities that they once had.  

I have a friend who passed his Class 2 medical, drove home and had a massive coronary - hasn't flown as PIC since. Similar stories abound.

There have been a number of studies which have shown that the whole aviation medical certification system (around the world) is poorly rooted in science. 

The whole medical issue goes back to the armed forces where medicals were used to pigeon hole people to plug the manpower needs of the day i.e. not eveyone got to be a pilot.

I don’t think your  correct on that age. I read just a few weeks ago that Compulsory retirement is 65 for airline pilots. 
 

But you are right about the fact that medicals have been shown to contribute near zero to aviation safety. There have been a number of studies that show firstly that medical incapacitation is so rare that it’s impossible to use the statistics in any meaningful mathematical manner. 
Secondly it’s shown that the most common reasons for medical incapacitation are not of the type of condition that is picked up in a medical. Things like food poisoning, acute respiratory tract infections and acute gastrointestinal disorders which were not present at the last medical are the major cause of the rare events. 
 

The next thing that’s well proven is that catastrophic medical events are just as likely to occur after a recent pass in a medical as any other time. 

 

[Jim McDowall]

11 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

Wouldn’t  have thought truck drivers (of just standard trucks) would need passenger privileges. 

You need that privilege to pick up hitchhikers.

The good part about the NZ initiative is that if you already have the required licence you do not need to do a special medical to fly.

[Jim McDowall]

2 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

I read just a few weeks ago that Compulsory retirement is 65 for airline pilots.

In Australia you cant compulsorily retire someone on the basis of age. I know of a guy who was flying 737 freighters until recently at the age of 73 and it was only COVID that stopped him (or his employers) flying.

[Kyle Communications]

My point about being probably less prone to any event...that has to do with my conditions that are on my Austroads HV licence would be very low due to the medical imagery and physical testing that I go through every single year. Anyone can have a stroke or even a cardiac event at anytime. Just because I am regularly tested doesnt preclude me of course but I would think the chances are far less for me due to the amount of tests I get done...its not a knock on the knee with a rubber mallet of a eyechart or hearing test...I of course do all that normal testing as well as all the others that hit my hip pocket each year

 

Remember mine is a Basic Class 2 medical for a RPL...2 pob max not a normal Class 2 or higher

 

 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

1 hour ago, Jim McDowall said:

In Australia you cant compulsorily retire someone on the basis of age. I know of a guy who was flying 737 freighters until recently at the age of 73 and it was only COVID that stopped him (or his employers) flying.

Not according to the  high court ruling Christian vs Qantas (I think it was but could have misremembered the name). Three judges ruled in Qantas favour and  only Justice Michael Kirby  in the pilots favour. Part of the ruling was that,  in order to uphold the international agreements which are intrinsic to the functioning of ICAO and to which Australia  is a signatory, the use of the pilots age was, by some legal mumbo-jumbo, redefined as not the reason. although everyone ( including one of the three judges who sided with Qantas,  recognised that it was. 
The only thing that came out if it was the age which at that time was 55 with a potential rolling year by year addition till age 60, was raised from 60 to 65. In legal terms is “other reasons” but in real practical terms it’s a compulsory retirement based on age. 
However in recollection it may have only applied to international pilots. Can’t recall and I’m too lazy to go chasing it up again 😂🤣😂

[Jim McDowall]

From Flight Safety, August 2017:

Unlike the US and some other countries, there is no legislated upper age limit in Australia or New Zealand for airline pilots, providing they continue to meet the relevant medical standards and other requirements. But because they must comply with the age restrictions of the countries to which they are flying, older airline pilots are effectively restricted to domestic or Trans-Tasman operations.

[Kyle Communications]

Start watching from about 30 min mark...Ben Morgan really gives it to CASA over this

 

 

[old man emu]

As Mr Morgan says, CASA has refused to state the safety basis for requiring such stringent medical standards. 

 

If a pilot was to be accused of flying inverted at 300 feet above a football crowd, then the onus is on the Crown to prove all elements of the alleged offence. With these medicals, CASA is acting as judge and jury without providing even a definition of the elements of the offence of being medically unfit to pilot an aircraft.

 

Sun damaged skin - A vast majority of Australian pilots are ethnically Anglo-Celtic. This ethnicity expresses itself in pale skin, which is lacing in the protective chemical, melanin. Therefore, after having been exposed to stronger solar radiation in a country where their genetics are not suited to dealing with the radiation, they develop sun damaged skin. It is usually called basal cell carcinoma and that can be treated with freezing or certain topical creams. It is not a malignant condition. 

 

Mental Health - Some people during their working lives are subject to workplace stress and develop depression. How long after leaving that type of employment does it take a person to overcome workplace related depression? It's been 15 years for me, but I have to keep putting down on medicals that I was diagnosed once with depression. It is like asking a widower if he is still beating his wife.

 

Sleep Apnoea - As you get older, the muscles in your throat lose their tension, so that when you sleep you snore, or stop breathing. It is a normal part of aging. The condition is readily controlled by the use of an air pressure pump (CPAP machine). Still having been diagnosed with sleep apnoea is another black mark on your health card, despite  it's being controlled by the machine.

 

Like Kyle, I hold the highest level of heavy vehicle licence, plus a public passenger driver's authority. I do a medical every year and the GP simply says that my "depression" is treated. I also get a report from a sleep specialist. That lets me use the full privileges of my driver's licence, but I'd bet my left one that CASA would want specialists' reports every year.

 

 

As an aside:

If you do snore a lot, go get a sleep apnoea test and get a CPAP machine. Life is much improved by using one.

[pmccarthy]

I find it both stressful and depressing dealing with CASAs medical demands. I consider myself quite healthy but fall into several of their risk categories that demand several expensive tests. My renewal is currently on hold pending another round of tests, but of course I could sell my aircraft and fly RAAus, which I am considering. But the whole situation could cause mental depression and certainly does not help my quality of life, all for no safety benefit to me or the world at large. A good friend of mine suffered serious ill health and ultimately died because he was a keen pilot who failed to get medical attention because he wanted to continue flying. Others I know have suffered depression in similar circumstances. I believe there are many pilots who fail to seek medical help because of their fear of CASA, this is anecdotal but I hear enough stories to give it foundation. And then there are the many pilots who have told me it is just foolish to be honest on the CASA medical renewal questionnaire.

 

it is a deeply flawed and counter-productive system.

[Jaba-who]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

As Mr Morgan says, CASA has refused to state the safety basis for requiring such stringent medical standards. 

 

If a pilot was to be accused of flying inverted at 300 feet above a football crowd, then the onus is on the Crown to prove all elements of the alleged offence. With these medicals, CASA is acting as judge and jury without providing even a definition of the elements of the offence of being medically unfit to pilot an aircraft.

 

Sun damaged skin - A vast majority of Australian pilots are ethnically Anglo-Celtic. This ethnicity expresses itself in pale skin, which is lacing in the protective chemical, melanin. Therefore, after having been exposed to stronger solar radiation in a country where their genetics are not suited to dealing with the radiation, they develop sun damaged skin. It is usually called basal cell carcinoma and that can be treated with freezing or certain topical creams. It is not a malignant condition. 

 

Mental Health - Some people during their working lives are subject to workplace stress and develop depression. How long after leaving that type of employment does it take a person to overcome workplace related depression? It's been 15 years for me, but I have to keep putting down on medicals that I was diagnosed once with depression. It is like asking a widower if he is still beating his wife.

 

Sleep Apnoea - As you get older, the muscles in your throat lose their tension, so that when you sleep you snore, or stop breathing. It is a normal part of aging. The condition is readily controlled by the use of an air pressure pump (CPAP machine). Still having been diagnosed with sleep apnoea is another black mark on your health card, despite  it's being controlled by the machine.

 

Like Kyle, I hold the highest level of heavy vehicle licence, plus a public passenger driver's authority. I do a medical every year and the GP simply says that my "depression" is treated. I also get a report from a sleep specialist. That lets me use the full privileges of my driver's licence, but I'd bet my left one that CASA would want specialists' reports every year.

 

 

As an aside:

If you do snore a lot, go get a sleep apnoea test and get a CPAP machine. Life is much improved by using one.

OME. it’s actually worse than this. CASA is not only judge and jury it’s perniciousness is all pervasive. 
CASA rewrites medical science in its own image and then becomes the politician who writes the laws as well. 
 

There have been plenty of examples where CASA or AvMed determines signs or symptoms are something the rest of the medical does not.  From their own set of blood levels of glucose constituting diabetes ( not the same level the rest of the medical world uses) to a different degree of significance put on a change on an ECG. 
 

Just  to correct you though - Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) IS a malignancy. It may be slow growing and although it’s metastatic ( ie: spread to other organs) rate is low - approx 0.2% it dies need to be treated because it can cause significant local problems. 
But I agree with you, from a flying point of view it’s irrelevant.
What I find despicable is that if you state you have a BCC on your medical the CASA system automatically changes the diagnosis to Melanoma which being truly life threateningly malignant  and you must then prove to CASA that it is not a melanoma. 

[old man emu]

Talking about ECGs. I did one once to appease my doctor for another matter. The test showed that I had an anomaly - T2 inversion they called it. If it is found associated with other symptoms, it can be cause for alarm, but there is a small percentage of the whole population who have this inversion due to genetics, and it is no more life threatening that eye colour. Still, CASA would ground me for it. 

 

What sort of cancers make you drop dead suddenly? If cancer brings you to Death's door, you are not likely to be engaging in piloting as you approach it.

 

I wonder what the medical qualifications the CASA people who make these irreversible decisions are. From the types of decisions they make, they must be the most highly qualified and knowledgeable person in the whole wide world. It seems that to CASA's way of thinking, since everyone dies eventually, then it is unsafe to pilot an aircraft due to the certainty of eventual death.

 

In the thread discussing the Bristell aircraft, the manufacturers commented on the poor response to CASA's questionnaire to owners by saying that it is a commonly held belief in the aviation industry that once CASA makes up its mind about something, all the rebutting facts produced to counter that decision mean nothing. 

[Jaba-who]

28 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Talking about ECGs. I did one once to appease my doctor for another matter. The test showed that I had an anomaly - T2 inversion they called it. If it is found associated with other symptoms, it can be cause for alarm, but there is a small percentage of the whole population who have this inversion due to genetics, and it is no more life threatening that eye colour. Still, CASA would ground me for it. 

 

What sort of cancers make you drop dead suddenly? If cancer brings you to Death's door, you are not likely to be engaging in piloting as you approach it.

 

I wonder what the medical qualifications the CASA people who make these irreversible decisions are. From the types of decisions they make, they must be the most highly qualified and knowledgeable person in the whole wide world. It seems that to CASA's way of thinking, since everyone dies eventually, then it is unsafe to pilot an aircraft due to the certainty of eventual death.

 

In the thread discussing the Bristell aircraft, the manufacturers commented on the poor response to CASA's questionnaire to owners by saying that it is a commonly held belief in the aviation industry that once CASA makes up its mind about something, all the rebutting facts produced to counter that decision mean nothing. 

AvMed appear to take the position that all medical abnormalities “might” be a sign of something more serious and therefore they pull your medical. 
They have clearly stated in the past they use a rule of thumb (to paraphrase) called the “ risk of 1%”. That being - if they perceive the risk of a condition causing a 1:100 or higher chance of medical incapacitation in flight then you lose your medical. 
While we can debate the acceptable-ness of that amount I can accept it. 

What I can’t accept is when they compound  the risks. 
They appear to take the mindset that eg. A disease has a 1 % chance a second level problem may occur. That second level issue is NOT a problem for a pilot. But “of those 1% that get the second line problem”   1% of them  get another problem. This third line problem is a problem for pilots. So AvMed says they consider you fall in the 1% if you have the primary diagnosis. Even though statistically the risk of a problem is 1:100:100 or 1:10000. 
This is the rationale in their immediate removal of your medical if you have a malignancy. 
No one with a skin melanoma is going to suddenly become incapacitated by the skin melanoma. The problem is a small number will get brain metastasis ( spread). Most people with a brain spread will know it, will get symptoms and wouldn’t want to be piloting a plane anyway. But a small percentage might have a tumour in the brain which fairly suddenly causes a seizure or a stroke. 
The real medical statistician would say if you have a skin melanoma your risks of a sudden mid flight incapacitation are extremely small. Way less than 1%.  But to CASA,  they don’t care about that statistic they just say the emotive response that “you COULD have an event so therefore you aren’t fit to fly”. The fact it’s way less that 1% is now overlooked. 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Arron25 said:

Why haven't AvMed been pulled into the real world by the Mainstream medical fraternity?

It is a commonly held belief in the aviation industry that once CASA makes up its mind about something, all the rebutting facts produced to counter that decision mean nothing. That's why.

[Jim McDowall]

20 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

But a small percentage might have a tumour in the brain which fairly suddenly causes a seizure or a stroke. 

And there is a group in the population who are wandering around with a brain anurism that they are unaware of. They can go "pop" at any point in time with immediate incapacitation and probably death. I've seen it happen.

[old man emu]

And there is a group in the population who are wandering around Canberra without a brain that they are aware of.