Excessive Medical requirements

[Geoff_H]

I always thought that when I lost my class 2 I would go recreational.   I thought that all I needed was a current driver's licence.  But I looked at the CASA sites and found a pdf that needed a doctor to complete.   It looked very much like a class 2 basic.   Was I wrong? Or has this degree of inquisition always been there.  It requires revalidation every year after 65 years of age.  My drivers licence requires a similar medical examination now I am over 75.  

My car has two "old age" safety devices,  automatic emergency braking (AEB) and infra red eye monitoring to assess my tiredness and life.  If it determines that I am impaired through tiredness it first offers to take me to nearest coffee, if ignored, turns air-conditioning down to lowest and vibrates seat belt.  If unresponsive it will stop the car.  Why could not something like this be installed in an aircraft ,(using Garmin emergency auto land system) and I could fly with minimal medical if the aircraft had to have such a system?

[spacesailor]

Now, that would.a damn good safety device. 

I have to manage with just the !

WIFE .  LOL

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

If you cannot get a Class 2 medical there is no other option. You are on a list of people who remain under scrutiny and have to satisfy Class 2. If you jump early, before questions arise, you can choose the simpler medical regime.

[facthunter]

Flight's of Fantasy might be a better option or cultivate a "Friend" who has a licence.  CASA's not going to innovate or go out on a limb for anyone. Nev

[Thruster88]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

 CASA's not going to innovate or go out on a limb for anyone. Nev

I wonder what that means for RAAus group G.

[Thruster88]

Latest email from casa implies RPL, PPL class 5 medicals just around the corner. Final approval of RAAus group G will probably occur at same time. 

 

DIrector of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

We'll open consultation later this month on an eagerly awaited proposal that will give most of Australia's private pilots unprecedented flexibility when it comes to renewing their medical certificates.

We reviewed your responses to last year's medical policy review and other feedback from the aviation community to design a streamlined medical certification process for general and recreational pilots.

As a result, we will shortly ask for your views on a proposed Class 5 medical self-declaration.

The new Class 5 medical self-declaration, which was flagged in our General Aviation Workplan, will allow private pilots who meet fitness requirements to self-assess and self-declare without the need to see a doctor.

Those who meet the eligibility criteria and satisfy the requirements will have a Class 5 self-declared medical automatically issued.

The self-assessment would see applicants answer a simple set of questions using CASA's current online systems.

Access to training modules and comprehensive guidance material will help you  make a well-informed and appropriate decision.

Adoption of the proposal will mean that most people who fly the majority of hours in private operations will be able to apply for a Class 5 medical self-declaration, noting the medical exclusions and operational limitations.

We estimate the new system will cover about 70% of the Australian aircraft fleet.

There will, of course, be exceptions and some people will still need to see a doctor.

The proposal also does not cover riskier activities such as aerobatics, formation flying and night Visual Flight Rules operations.

We believe the Class 5 medical is a world first in terms of trusting pilots to decide on their own fitness and we worked diligently with the aviation medicine technical working group to arrive at a proposal that ensures regulation is proportionate to risk and is managed appropriately.

We're already working on the systems that will support the new self-declaration process and we aim to go live as soon as practicable, following the outcomes of the public consultation.

I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of our technical working group on this important initiative and other ongoing considerations for aviation medicine reform.

Consultation on a second key initiative from our General Aviation Workplan, this time aimed at addressing the shortage of Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs), opened last month and runs until Thursday 12 October.
 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Thruster88

[rgmwa]

Around the corner is great, but how far is it to the corner?

[walrus]

Thruster, I fear you the GA and the RAA community are in for a huge disappointment regarding medical certificates very shortly.

 

Don't you realise that the simplest approach to medical certificate reform is to remove the RAA self declaration option?  That will silence GA regarding the equity issue.

 

AVMED will not do anything that threatens their careers.

Edited October 3, 2023 by walrus

[kgwilson]

A WORLD FIRST!! That's an indication that CASA has been asleep at the wheel. UK pilots have been able to self declare since April 2016 for any GA aircraft up to 5700kg. Once up to the age of 70 & then once every 3 years after that with no upper age limit. UK CAP 1397.

[walrus]

The devil is in the detail - this is where AVMED and Spence will short change us; look at all those qualifiers:

 

"most of Australias private pilots".   .....AND RECREATIONAL pilots.

 

"private pilots who meet fitness requirements"

 

"those who meet eligibility criteria and satisfy requirements"

 

Then of course this massive disclaimer...

 

'"The self-assessment would see applicants answer a simple set of questions using CASA's current online systems.   ....simple??

Access to training modules and comprehensive guidance material will help you  make a well-informed and appropriate decision........appropriate? says who?

Adoption of the proposal will mean that most people who fly the majority of hours in private operations will be able to apply for a Class 5 medical self-declaration, noting the medical exclusions and operational limitations........most can apply, but most won't get it.

We estimate the new system will cover about 70% of the Australian aircraft fleet.".......about 70% of the fleet? Aeroplanes don't need medicals, - pilots do.

 

...and we conclude:

 

 

There will, of course, be exceptions and some people will still need to see a doctor."........ in other words anyone with a "condition" - which means everyone, is still fair game for the medical inquisition.

 

The only thing absolutely sure is that AVMED will require a bigger budget and more staff to give us this new "freedom".

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by walrus

[BurnieM]

Possibly VFR up to 10,000 only with Class 5 PPL (guessing from no night VFR) and controlled endorsement with RPC at about the same time to reduce arguments. Anybody have any more info.

 

If CASA don’t stuff it up and make it too restrictive would this make RAA less attractive ?

Edited October 4, 2023 by BurnieM

[old man emu]

On 04/10/2023 at 10:29 PM, BurnieM said:

f CASA don’t stuff it up and make it too restrictive would this make RAA less attractive ?

It might draw pilots away from RAA, but aircraft owners might baulk at having to place their aircraft of the CASA register, with the associated restrictions on maintenance. CASA won't let one of their licence holders fly RAA aircraft as the rules stand now.

[BurnieM]

With Group G looking to have similar maint requirements to GA perhaps group G owners will stay with Casa if they can self assess (and some VLAs ie Sling 2 may go back). Interesting timing on these 3 (PPL self assess, RAA group 4 and RPC controlled endorsement).

 

I guess as long as more people can fly more places with more fuel its all good (if/when it actually happens).

Edited October 6, 2023 by BurnieM

[Blueadventures]

13 hours ago, BurnieM said:

With Group G looking to have similar maint requirements to GA perhaps group G owners will stay with Casa if they can self assess (and some VLAs ie Sling 2 may go back). Interesting timing on these 3 (PPL self assess, RAA group 4 and RPC controlled endorsement).

 

I guess as long as more people can fly more places with more fuel its all good (if/when it actually happens).

Also have to consider owner built and access to controlled airspace as SAAA owner built can be flown into controlled airspace so why shouldn't RAA 19 reg be allowed  Therefore when medical standard altered some will assess gaining SAAA membership and maintenance quals for their aircraft then be able to fly controlled air space.  

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was told by the  RAAus head office phone answerer that I needed a doctor's signature YEARLY now on account of being over 75. If this is not correct please tell me. I did what was asked and took a copy of the last-year's driving license stuff and got the required signature, but it was expensive and required a well over 100 km round trip.

[BrendAn]

Fitness to Fly - RAAus.html

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 04/10/2023 at 6:25 AM, kgwilson said:

A WORLD FIRST!! That's an indication that CASA has been asleep at the wheel. UK pilots have been able to self declare since April 2016 for any GA aircraft up to 5700kg. Once up to the age of 70 & then once every 3 years after that with no upper age limit. UK CAP 1397.

It's a little more complicateed than that. If you're a UK PPL and you only want to fly your aircraft in the UK and its protectorates (channel islands, Isle of Mann, etc), yes, it is fine.  But trust me, you feel caged flying only in the UK with Europe a hop, skip , and jump away, and because the LAPS and PMD medicals are not ICAO standard, your not valid even glying a G reg aircraft in the territory of another country.

 

If you're a LAA pilot, however, your LAPL medica, which is a European standard, allows you to fly your recreational aircraft throughout Europe (the LAA and the BMAA managed to get their regulations accreddited by EASA to allow them to keep flying in Europe). The PMD, which is a self-declaration, does not allow one to fly rec aircraft in Europe - a LAPL medical is required - and this is less burdensome than the class 2, but pilots still think it is too onerous.

 

FWIW, in later November, I will be doing both the UK and Aus Class 2 late November  over here at an RAF base. TYhe paperwork for the Aus class 2 is mind boggling!

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Geoff_H]

7 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Fitness to Fly - RAAus.html 42.43 kB · 7 downloads

What if we flew aircraft fitted with the system I proposed in the opening of this thread.  Would that be enough to allow us to fly at age 75+ if it were fitted and we had a health issue?

[RFguy]

just filled out my two casa surveys- class C/D for sport and the class 5 medical

 

OMG what a smouldering turd the class 5  proposal is ? OMFG.  And std medical- a heavy vehicle driving medical should be sufficient to fly anything anywhere except ATPL. 

[facthunter]

The only safe pilots are those we have grounded.  Nev

[turboplanner]

Here we go again; give up flying then.

A we pointed out last time around, it's not just ANY heavy vehicle driving medicial, but one which is just as complex as the one people are complaining about.

 

[facthunter]

Pull your head in.  The  real issue is how effective these procedures are and what works in other  comparable countries.  Nev

[Ian]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Pull your head in.  The  real issue is how effective these procedures are and what works in other  comparable countries.  Nev

This is it in a nutshell.

How effective are medical checks and what risk do they mitigate.

Reviews of pilot incapacitation during flight show that the most likely reasons are food poisoning, illness and diabetes.

You see the occasional stroke, heart attacks etc but they're rare.

Even if you argue that these occur after medicals have culled the weak. The rates in Australia UK and US appear to be about the same so medicals don't actually appear to do much and they're inconvenient as buggery. 

 

[turboplanner]

59 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Pull your head in.  The  real issue is how effective these procedures are and what works in other  comparable countries.  Nev

We had a very comprehensive discussion and some of us didn't just slag into the air, but obtained correct data.

 

The data showed that medical requirements to operate trucks was also complicated and was tightening faster than some realised.

 

The data showed that for people with no medical issues (which includes most young people), there was a fast DAME - free service.

 

We found that a lot of people had misunderstood the intent of this path and thought it was a lower level of licence, hence comparisons with truck drivers. Not only that, but people who decide to take it to avoid a DAME quickly find out that they go through the DAME process with the additional stigma on their heads of trying to bypass it 

 

We found that if you have a medical issue you go see the DAME up front and the DAME will take it as far as the system accepts.

 

I can understand that it can be traumatic when someone is given conditions, or refused a licence, but inventing reasons why the DAME should pass them is not going to alter the medical facts. The process doesn't allow favours unfortunately.

 

As each change of Medical standard or process is considered, there is a period set aside for natural justice where anyone can make a submission, perhaps citing overseas statistics, perhaps suggesting a better way, perhaps showing shortcomings in what is proposed. Everyone has a chance to put his her case or opinion during this period.

 

However, when the Public Consultation phase closes, that's the end of it and there's no point in coming up with personal opinions or abusing other people because they didn't do what you wanted. The time for public discussion is over. The process just rolls on until any new regulation or process comes into force after taking account of all submissions.

[onetrack]

I had a recent delivery of palletised freight to the West from Toowoomba, via a company based in North Brisbane. The companys trucks and equipment are superb, but the driver who stepped out of the cab of the Kenworth wouldn't even get a job with me - let alone get to drive a truck for me.

He was only in his mid-20's, but to say he was grossly obese would be an understatement. He was so fat I don't know how he fitted between the seat and the steering wheel.

He was at least 150kgs and would have to have had a waist measurement of around 2 metres. He wouldn't fit in most aircraft, let alone an ultralight, and I fail to understand how he was classed as medically fit to drive a road train.

The medical examinations and medical classifications can obviously be "worked around".