Pilot Medicals Revisited Again

[BLA82]

This topic has been widely discussed before I know but I woud like to see all of peoples reasons for and against.

 

I went through a pilot medical this morning and quite honestly feel alot better for it. People in other threads have made reference to the over the top costs and so on but I can't see where that is justified.

 

As I am aware RAA does not require medicals but I made the decision as I am learning and the old solo is hopefully not to far in the future I wanted to know I was fit to fly. I think the old standard of if you are fit to drive a car you are fit to fly just doesn't cut it as the two are nothing alike.

 

Obiviously I passed and I can say it is a relief knowing that everything is ok but I have heard others make comments like I could no longer pass a CASA medical so I have converted to RAA.

 

Please tell me if I'm wrong but how is that a justification to others or oneself. Yes we fly only for recreation and yes we have less regulations but we still FLY. If we have a turn whilst driving for instance dizziness we can pull over but when flying, not that simple.

 

I can understand that yearly medicals might be over the top but maybe a two yearly check up or a designated RAA medical, similiar to CASA but not as indepth could be an option.

 

Whats everyones thoughts.

 

 

 

[Guest bigblockford545]

I've not long completed a level 1 Casa Medical and can only comment what a crock of crap it was.

 

ECG, audio, lung capacity, ophthalmology (eyes) blood and drug urinalysis. The ophthalmologist took 2 goes, first time he measured the inter ocular pressure (check for glaucoma ) after he dilated the pupals and wondered why it was raised. Though he did get to charge a second consultation fee. Maybe he is running short of funding his second Ferrari or something...

 

A class 1 medical is good for 1 year (commercial pilots) or class 2 (PPL) is good for 4 years for under 40's and 2 years for over 40's.

 

I say keep medicals out of it until it has been statistically proven that an appreciable amount of RAA accidents could have been avoided by implementation of higher medical standards.

 

Keep recreational flying, recreational.

 

my 2 cents

 

Simon

 

 

[BLA82]

I say keep medicals out of it until it has been statistically proven that an appreciable amount of RAA accidents could have been avoided by implementation of higher medical standards.

I would like to ask a few questions, why should we either wait for accidents to happen and then look at wether medicals could have prevented it. What a backwards way of thinking. If a pilot has a medical condition that effects his or her flying they should NOT fly even for recreation. Also with all the extra options we are voting for we should all take a look at ourselves and promote our safety.

 

Besides If we are medically fit we have nothing to worry about and if we know we are not and fly say no more

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Bla82, do you want a can opener for that can of worms??

 

First of all, there's issues with useing the term " fit enough to drive a car".. Its been discussed her before so i won't go into it..

 

These people you speak of that can't get a grade 2 medical may just miss out on some technicality.. for instance, if youve had cancer in the last 3 years you can forget about a medical.. now, does this rule them out of flying all together??..no, and why should it.. so the RAA has a relaxed view on the medical side of things..relaxed, but not non existant..

 

Big block, this qoute from your post made my skin crawl.."I say keep medicals out of it until it has been statistically proven that an appreciable amount of RAA accidents could have been avoided by implementation of higher medical standards."

 

By that logic, we shouldn't install zebra crossings outside schools untill an appreciable number of kids get run over...then we might think about it...???

 

Don't read this wrong.. im all for the RAA's stance on medical fitness, but by reading some post's im sure a lot of members don't understand what this stance is exactly..

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Medicals, not a chance, one more opportunity for CASA to close you down. Believe me, if your not physically up to flying, you'll know it. The FAA in the states did studies on what factor heart attacks were, in the aircraft crash scene, over a period of fifteen years. They found they accounted for way less than one percent of the total picture, and dropped it right there.

 

Once again it's the mutation by some, towards the GA- ization of our freedoms, and we would do well to repel it. Some people just don't know when they're well off. If you enjoy a doctor placing his/her didgit in you'r empennage, please stay with GA . Hey, if you want to go and drop some hard earned bucks on a medical for yourself, by all means do it, but don't force me to do it also. I'd much rather spend my bucks on something that may save me one day, like an unusual attitudes course or some spin training, etc.

 

 

[BLA82]

Not trying to open a can MM just wanted to express my opinions and I cant understand where you got the cancer within 3 years=no medical. I personally know a QANTAS captain who has had cancer and holds a medical. He has been cleared both by a Doctor and Qantas?

 

 

[lazerin]

Hey Bla82, I was wondering if you had a Class 1 or 2 medical? I'm looking to learn RAA at Parafield (which is normally a GA area), and one of their requirements is that pilot's all need a Class 2 medical. Could you explain what was involved in the medical and how much it all ended up costing?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Well it all depends on the case and the severity.. here is an extract from the DAME's handbook.. regarding renal cancer."

 

 

If granted, initial certification is likely to be ‘as-or-with

 

 

 

 

 



co-pilot’ or ‘as-or-with second controller only’. Certification will not be granted until at least

 

 

 

 

 



six months following completion of treatment. Unrestricted class 1 certification will not be

 

 

 

 

 



considered until at least three years post treatment. Class 2 applicants will be considered

 

 

 

 

 



for unrestricted certification after two years, and Class 3 applicants after one year. CASA

 

 

 

 

 



requires follow up investigations as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

� Six-monthly CT scans for Class 1 applicants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

� Annual CT scans for class 2 and 3 applicants.

 

So, yes, you could get your medical pulled for quite some time with certain types of cancer..

 

 

 

[BLA82]

I did all the tests needed for a Class 1 which is severly overkill for what I wanted but a good idea all the same. As BigBlock stated it involves an ECG, Audio,Opthamology and Urine tests. I was also tested for Body Mass and Lung Capacity aswell as medications. All up it was a grand total of approx $300. Cheap investment in my books but a class 2 would be cheaper from what I have heard.

 

As far as Mal's comment stating another way for CASA to close you down I have to opinions. One if you are medically unfit you shouldn't be operating and two why can't RAA administer their own medical system.

 

 

[ahlocks]

...As I am aware RAA does not require medicals but I made the decision as I am learning and the old solo is hopefully not to far in the future I wanted to know I was fit to fly. I think the old standard of if you are fit to drive a car you are fit to fly just doesn't cut it as the two are nothing alike.

 

In'it great! You wanted a medical and you had the choice to go and get one. :thumb_up:

 

I couldn't be bothered going and getting a medical and I don't have too. Onya RAA :thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

Snippet of trivia passed on by a paramedic during a 'packer wacker' course...

 

Cutting off the morning loaf is involved in a good portion of heart attacks.

 

Drive car, fly plane, take a dump....If your number is up....:confused:

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

..onya ahlocks..:thumb_up:

[BLA82]

Drive car, fly plane, take a dump....If your number is up....:confused:

Cheers!

 

Steven B.

Couldn't agree more but what about the innocent people that get hurt by others actions. There will be a day when medicals are compulsary and to be honest I am looking forward to that day.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Thanks Ahlocks....I think that's what I was trying to say. Also I might leave that morning loaf-cut until after brekky, maybe get another hour or so............

 

 

[Guest bigblockford545]

Well seems I've upset the apple-cart.

 

Good policy changes come about with insightful retrospective analysis. How do you think the first zebra crossing came about? My guess would be to many dead/injured pedestrians...

 

Accidents in RAA have already happened. The data is already there just waiting to be mined.

 

I would oppose Casa like draconian medical for RAA, but if a quick check up by a GP (with not a DAME in sight) every couple of years could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt would save lives, I wouldn't object.

 

Have fun

 

Simon

 

 

[BLA82]

I would oppose Casa like draconian medical for RAA, but if a quick check up by a GP (with not a DAME in sight) every couple of years could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt would save lives, I wouldn't object.

Have fun

 

Simon

My point exactly, not a full medical as per CASA's regs but a decent check up that gets sent to RAA.

 

That would be great.

 

 

[ahlocks]

I was probably a bit too cavalier with my previous post.

 

Part of my pre pre-flight check, i.e. before I even drive to the airfield is;

 

Am I up to flying today?

 

Had enough sleep

 

Adequately hydrated

 

Eaten something recently

 

Not feeling 'a bit off colour'

 

Fresh batteries in the pacemaker (sorry, couldn't help myself :clown:)

 

I don’t need a doctor to tell me, probably months ago, that I’m fit to drive or operate an aircraft. It’s my responsibility to make sure I am up to the task before and while I’m operating the equipment. I’ve vetoed quite a few sorties because I’m not feeling up to it.

 

Personal responsibility....I think it used to be called airmanship. :black_eye:

 

Awfully sad that such things are ignored and need to become legislated.

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B.

 

 

[lazerin]

Although I haven't even started training yet, I feel obliged to contribute my thoughts. I'm of the opinion that a simple medical should be compulsory for all who intend to fly. There are too many "silent" conditions that, as the name implies, go unnoticed and could have detrimental effects. A simple example would be uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure). This is a classic silent disease which predisposes you to strokes, TIA's, myocardial infarctions (heart attacks), angina, acute bouts of shortness of breath, peripheral vascular disease (cramping of your legs as you're trying to coordinate a turn on final...). These potential complications all occur suddenly and would immediately hamper your ability to pilot the aircraft.

 

A simple medical would pick this up and the recommended management would be to achieve adequate control for say, 3months, and you would be allowed to fly.

 

Granted, these risks apply to road users as well, but it would simply be too much to implement. Piloting an aircraft carries significantly more risk, in my opinion, than driving a car, though I accept that this is arguable.

 

Again, a simple medical would not encompass as much as the Class 1, but it's a good screening tool.

 

 

[Mick]

One if you are medically unfit you shouldn't be operating and two why can't RAA administer their own medical system.

Bla82,

 

One - This comment regarding being medically unfit - shouldn't be operating, depends alot on how you define medically unfit. By Casa's definition I am medically unfit. 17 years ago at the age of 20 I developed a genetic medical condition which by Casa's blanket definition deem's me unfit to fly. During this 17 years of managing my condition I have suffered no issues at any time that would have had any affect on my ability to pilot an aircraft.

 

Some 4 years ago I discovered that under the RAAus system I could fulfil my life long dream to learn to fly. Since then I have become an aircraft owner and completed over 400 hours of incident free flying including a significant amount of long cross country flying.

 

Two - why can't RAA administer their own medical system.

 

If you take a look at the paperwork that is supplied with the renewal papers for your RAAus pilot certificate you will see that RAAus request that even if you are "medically fit to drive a car", if you suffer from certain medical conditions which they list, you are required to obtain a statement from your GP to say that this condition is sufficiently well managed to enable you to hold said car licence.

 

In my own case this is what I do, and I make it perfectly clear to my GP that this document will enable me to fly a recreational aircraft. The GP is also aware of what a "RAAus Aircraft" consists of and under what restrictions we operate.

 

Unfortunately the Casa system for many conditions is simply a blanket ruling with no provision for assesment on an individual basis. In many cases Casa's rulings regarding medical conditions are far behind the medical worlds ability to manage these conditions and also far behind other world aviation authority's standards.

 

I have to say that I find it quite offensive for someone such as yourself, who may be fortunate enough to not suffer any condition which prohibits meeting Casa's standards, to stand up and say that we should all be governed by your standards.

 

I know that I am far from alone amongst RAAus pilots in not meeting Casa standards. Maybe you should consider for a moment how many pilots would be grounded if a higher medical standard were to be introduced? Also consider that in many cases the people affected would by no means only be those with age related conditions.

 

Would you like to be the one to tell my 15 year old nephew ( also a member of this forum ) who shares my medical condition ( I did say it is genetic ) and solo'ed little over one month ago that he would no longer be allowed to continue to fly?

 

Unless there is convincing evidence of RAAus's medical standards contributing to accident rates, I feel there is no need to remove the rights of the numerous pilots that either choose or are forced to operate under the RAAus system to achieve the privilege of flight.

 

Mick

 

 

[ahlocks]

G'day Laz,

 

It was the simplicity of RAA that drew me to it. Very little 'red tape'. :thumb_up:

 

People who feel a need to have a medical can go and get one. Otherwise, meet the criterior as exists - freedom of choice.

 

'tis rumoured that the CTA endo may require a medical, so there you go. Almost mandatory medicals. But, still freedom of choice. No CTA endo. Don't need a medical.

 

Darwin's system is never going to work effectively if we keep legislating to wrap everything in cotton wool...

 

Cheers mate!

 

Not on your case, just mystified why people want to complicate a good system.

 

Just read Mick's post:

 

A compelling point of view and probably the best answer I've read!

 

That, closely followed by RAA's 'lot less red tape' flying is reason enough IMHO.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Congratulations on your responsible attitude to flying Mick and the professional way you minimise risk. We don't have to wait for accidents to happen, the historic statistics are already there and fatalities caused by medical conditions have a minute representation. Behavioural issues dominate and that's where we should be focused.

 

 

[Guest terry]

Quote[i went through a pilot medical this morning and quite honestly feel a lot better for it.]

 

I'm pleased that having a medical has given you a warm fuzzy feeling of well being, that's good, and I suppose that if we forced another 9000 raa pilots to do the same that would give you an even bigger fuzzy feeling, and that's good too. However, It's only a piece of paper, it in no way relieves you of the responiblity of being fit and capable in charge of an aircraft. The obligation is on YOU! to be certain of this and not put your passenger or others at risk. This is not something that only pertains to raa it's part and parcel of the modern day work force. you have an obligation to know that your work place is safe for you and everybody else and if you fail then it's off to court you go. My first task today is a site induction for access to a project I'm about to start,only very small but I can't get through the door until the main contractor is satisfied that I'm aware and farmilar with his processes and proceedures. This he is abliged to do and if he fails, off to court he go's. This is the world we live in like it or not. My advice to my fellow aviators is to accept the present position of raa in regards to medicals and also accept the responiblity that go's with it

 

 

[Guest Pop-top]

I was considering doing a Medical, does anyone know where you can get Medical's done in Adelaide?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

A few people have mentioned cost but this is a crock. Comparing like with like you have to look at a PPL medical, class 2. My last one from memory cost around $140 I think and is valid for four years. Yep, that's right about $35 a year. That's all it costs me to keep my PPL valid. RAA on the other hand slugs me $160 a year so how are costs a factor here? Sure there are other costs involved in flying VH (mainly due to more stringent maintenance requirements) but $35 a year is not much so cost should not be a deciding factor.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I was considering doing a Medical, does anyone know where you can get Medical's done in Adelaide?

Check out CASAs site. If you are after a DAME they are all listed there.

 

Aviation medicals - Search for a DAME, DAO or DAEE

 

DAMEs for Adelaide:

 

Aviation medicals - search results

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'm partially of the opinion that medicals should be required to:

 

a. Take passengers

 

b. Fly over built up areas and controlled airspace (cta is often over built up areas)

 

- Keeping in mind that under the present regulations you need a medical to fly in CTA because you need a PPL to do this.

 

It's all about risk and this would remove many of them. With this system or a system close enough to it, people would still be able to fly as much as they like in the same places that they do now and not risk the life of a passenger or the masses on the ground. Agreed it would still be possible to crash into a house, the the risk is far less.