Class 5 medical commence from 9 February 2024

[BrendAn]

raaus had group g in its grasp and now casa has thrown it out the window with this new medical.

  

i guess the only advantage with raaus is the members insurance policy.

Edited February 12 by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

On 06/02/2024 at 9:02 PM, onetrack said:

I would place competency behind the controls as a far higher priority than any medical.

So would I. 

However, in a Self Administering Organisation there is a duty of care to address every form of risk, not just your favourites.

Recreational activities like lawn bowls and recreational flying attract a lot of retirees who can at last afford the time of money or both.

They have the highest proportion of lifestyle issues like heart attacks and age-related medical issues so there are elevated risks turning them loose in an environment where you have to control the risk.

 

On 06/02/2024 at 9:02 PM, onetrack said:

After all, how many aircraft have fallen out of the sky because the pilot died at the controls. Not exactly a statistically important figure.

But a far bigger number of aircraft have fallen out of the sky simply because the pilot lacked competency in controlling the aircraft or in flight planning.

I can think of about five in RA where the sudden loss of control was inexplicable.

Two of my relatives with long term heart issues died, one in a temper because his garage key wouldn't work and the other starting a lawnmower.

In genealogy families often cover up a death for cosmetic reasons which cause long term feuds with those who know the real truth, in one case a person who was working with stud rams in a yard and one broke his ribs and a few days later he was doing some hard work and a rib punctured his lung. He was 89 years old and on his last day had dipped 500 sheep by himself, and got chest pains when he lay down for a rest; the medical certificate said "Myocardial infarction,"  no broken ribs. One family myth down the tubes.

 

The story about a doctor not being able to predict a fatal heart attack just by testing is as old as the hills, dating back to the old DCA, and probably dates back to Dr Clyde Fenton the original flying doctor who wrote off more aircraft than he didn't which he was probably why he was overlooked when the RFDS was started.

 

That certainly may be true but as I mentioned a lot of people over 40 have died in sudden-stress situations, and you certainly get that sudden-stress situation with an unexpected weather event, engine failure etc.

 

Regardless of the arument for and against, in a self administering organisation is responsible for eliminating the risk, not just to some of the members, but all of them.

 

Not checking your people is not eliminating the risk, given that some people might tell porkies.

 

Relying of the members themselves to eliminate the risk is therefore problematical, but I notice that CASA have gone part of the way to covering that by getting a 1 to 2 hours statement on the record from Applicants. This will be sitting there on the licence record for comparison with any medical incident in the air.

 

 

 

[walrus]

The problem with this discussion is that the issue with medical certification that prompted CAA and FAA to act, is not about "hidden health problems" at all.

 

The facts of the matter are that the FAA and CAA proved to their own satisfaction that there is no statistical correlation capable of being detected by a medical between a GA  pilots health and the potential for that pilot to have an accident.

 

This is not to say that there is No correlation between health and propensity for accident but that, if there is, an official medical examination is a very, very expensive and ineffective way of trying to find it, to the point of being a total waste of time and money.

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

The World can never be made perfect, no matter what you do………

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, walrus said:

that the FAA and CAA proved to their own satisfaction that there is no statistical correlation capable of being detected by a medical between a GA  pilots health and the potential for that pilot to have an accident.

 

Different statistical age group.

 

[turboplanner]

39 minutes ago, jackc said:

The World can never be made perfect, no matter what you do………

That carries about as much weight as "We can't be everywhere."

 

When Adelaide was holding the Australian Grand Prix there was a promotional event at a suburban shopping centre where a "Pretend" "Grand Prix" was run. Instead of the concrete safety fence and steel catch fence, orange netting was put up. Of course no F1 cars showed up but a motley collection of cars did including some from pursuits other than circuit racing. The crowd of hundreds moved up to the orange netting. The mistake was there was a "Starter" with a green flag. At the very first turn the leader went straight on into the crowd. A child was injured. The Organiser's excuse was "We did tell all the drivers to "Be Careful"; he lost.

Edited February 12 by turboplanner

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, walrus said:

The problem with this discussion is that the issue with medical certification that prompted CAA and FAA to act, is not about "hidden health problems" at all.

 

The facts of the matter are that the FAA and CAA proved to their own satisfaction that there is no statistical correlation capable of being detected by a medical between a GA  pilots health and the potential for that pilot to have an accident.

 

This is not to say that there is No correlation between health and propensity for accident but that, if there is, an official medical examination is a very, very expensive and ineffective way of trying to find it, to the point of being a total waste of time and money.

 

 

 

 

That was fully documented in the UK CAP 1397 when they determined self declaration for PPL

 

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7359.

[Kiwi]

10 hours ago, BrendAn said:

raaus had group g in its grasp and now casa has thrown it out the window with this new medical.

  

i guess the only advantage with raaus is the members insurance policy.

Class 5 medical gives you....

No membership fees, no aircraft registration fees, can currently fly in controlled airspace and up to 2000 kg certified MTOW.

But no good for me as I need to be able to take more than one passenger.

 

Kiwi

[jackc]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

That carries about as much weight as "We can't be everywhere."

 

When Adelaide was holding the Australian Grand Prix there was a promotional event at a suburban shopping centre where a "Pretend" "Grand Prix" was run. Instead of the concrete safety fence and steel catch fence, orange netting was put up. Of course no F1 cars showed up but a motley collection of cars did including some from pursuits other than circuit racing. The crowd of hundreds moved up to the orange netting. The mistake was there was a "Starter" with a green flag. At the very first turn the leader went straight on into the crowd. A child was injured. The Organiser's excuse was "We did tell all the drivers to "Be Careful"; he lost.

But Turbs,  It’s true and no matter what you do…….its not possible, it comes back to the acceptable deficiencies that regulators will allow or disallow that sets their policies.  No air crashes?  It’s easy just ground all aircraft or, make it so over regulated the people won’t bother to fly anymore. OR, people will say shove it, take a chance and fly illegally in some way, or another with the attitude the buck stop with them if it goes pear shaped and on statistics they could probably die, anyway?

 

[turboplanner]

30 minutes ago, jackc said:

But Turbs,  It’s true and no matter what you do…….its not possible, it comes back to the acceptable deficiencies that regulators will allow or disallow that sets their policies.  No air crashes?  It’s easy just ground all aircraft or, make it so over regulated the people won’t bother to fly anymore. OR, people will say shove it, take a chance and fly illegally in some way, or another with the attitude the buck stop with them if it goes pear shaped and on statistics they could probably die, anyway?

 

That was recognised decades ago, which why the "Participent Pays" system was introduced. The rest of the taxpayers are just people reading a newspaper about another ski race fatality etc.

[BurnieM]

50 minutes ago, Kiwi said:

Class 5 medical gives you....

No membership fees, no aircraft registration fees, can currently fly in controlled airspace and up to 2000 kg certified MTOW.

But no good for me as I need to be able to take more than one passenger.

 

Kiwi

While RAA will be getting CTR access 'soon' I do not see us getting more than 1 passenger any time soon so to me they seem pretty comparible (for class G) except on a RPL/PPL you can fly a 4 seater will lots of luggage and full tanks.

 

Anybody have the numbers on full RAA license/rego vs CASA ?

Edited February 12 by BurnieM

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

While RAA will be getting CTR access 'soon'

As mentioned a few times, it's a separate issue but you can get it now if you comply with (a) the aircraft equipment required and (b) the training and proficiency required.  In your case, if you're hiring you just have to hire a qualifying aircraft, which just leaves your training.  Flying in and around Sydney I'd recommend you do the training if you'd like access, and if you do it at a school with a certified aircraft or two, you're building their confidence to hire to you for cross-country trips. 

[Kyle Communications]

Well I jumped through the hoops and have now got the class. 5 medical....was all pretty easy with the online course and quizz and it literally came in 30 sec after paying. I had to email my medical certificate to Avmed so will see what comes of that.

 

Mark