Jaba-who

Actually the most common complaint is that CASA completely disregards things from the FAA even things that work well and has to reinvent the wheel in an Australian image. The frequently presented fact is that the YSA has many orders of magnitude more aircraft and pilots, has far worse extremes of weather, has more lax rules and regulations and ( I forget the exact amount so happy to be corrected on the exact ratios) but something like half the rate of accidents. When CASA is presented with arguments like “why are we not following the FAA lead? “ CASAs response is always to the effect that everything is different here and we have to develop our own rules. But they are quick to state we have to adhere to ICAO rules when it suits them.

This is a difficult question to address. It depends very much on where you are and what’s available, what the rules are and what’s possible. Having quite a bit of experience on the issue, both personally, legally and with mates and colleagues, I can vouch the answer is very different from one jurisdiction to another. It varies from state to state, one city, shire or regional council to another. I have had hangar experience at a major airport where the airport owners screwed everyone as their lease renewals came due. Then they marched in and took the leases AND also the hangars off people despite most being of the opinion that they owned the actual metalwork of the hangars, if not the land they stood on. Turned out they payed for it but didn’t own it once the first lease had lapsed. Then I have had experience of a mate who took on the local council ( and won) over the right to enter and leave his property by whatever means he owned and was safe to neighbours. ( His helicopter). Then the neighbouring shire council who then immediately installed by-laws to counter the same thing happening -a general shire-wide law against ANY private airstrips in the shire - and who have effectively blocked another mate from using his farm strip except for one movement a week ( upheld in court at great cost against the mate). Then the same shire who wanted me to pay about $18k in “fees” before I even got the ground surveyed ( at my cost) or got a slab laid. And then stated the lease would include a clause that the hangar itself would revert to their ownership at the lease end. To my current hangar in a third regional council area, where they will give commercial leases ( at higher cost) for 30 years vs private leases at 10 years for basic fee, or 20 years as long as I pay an extra $4000 for a “survey of the same 20 x 20 m piece of lease land. Despite me finding out the surveys are already done and on council files and I am paying $4000 for a guy in the department to click on a “ Print” button. Then also bear in mind that if you own your own land that all it takes is a single badly disposed neighbour to complain ( even prospectively before you create any noise that upsets them) and you could be blocked. The guy mentioned above finally got restrictive approval for limited movements and then the complainant asked the court to impose that he had to provide them with a log of movements. When asked why, the response was that they couldn’t always hear the noise so wouldn’t know if he was adhering to the rules!!!! That bit was eventually tossed out but despite them admitting his noise was so minimal they couldn’t hear it, his restrictions remained. Basically you need to approach your local airport, local council etc and get as much info as you can before you make any decisions and especially before you spend any money. Oh and despite the contradictory position I’m adopting in giving you advice, don’t ask forums! 🤣 What one person knows from absolute knowledge, another thinks he knows from rumour and heresay and another thinks he knows because it “sounds right to him. “ None of the above holds up when the local authorities come knocking on your hangar door.

I just read a courier mail article and it says he was pinged by a ranger who saw him flying low and then landing on the edge of the beach landing area at Eli Creek ( not The Orchid Beach grass strip) . Ranger told pilot he couldn’t land unless it was an emergency. The pilot told the ranger he would move once the passengers were loaded in. Ranger then raised the fine. Authorised fixed wing operator not involved at all. The radio item I listened to didn’t really make it clear ( or at least I didn’t hear it..)

From the radio item I listened to it was stated ( don’t know how accurately) that the landing was on the beach somewhere, not at the airstrip.

I heard the news item on the radio too. (ABC). The gist of the report was that not only did the helicopter pilot land where he didn’t have permission but he interfered/delayed with the fixed wings landing or departure. Apparently had some sort of comms with the fixed wing pilot and told him to wait and he wouldn’t be long. I guess that would really p!$$ off the fixed wing pilot who had to wait till the helo pilot was good and ready. I have no idea if the fixed wing operators were involved in reporting the helo pilot but could understand that if that was the real background they might.

Not sure I follow. If you present for a medical they only need to do what the medical requires. But the catch is YOU have to be part of this deal and ONLY give informed consent for what is required in the medical. If YOU allow the doctor to extend the examination or tests then it’s “your fault.” when you present for an aviation medical you obviously have to tell the GP or DAME it’s for an aviation medical. two reasons: Firstly your own benefits so they don’t do too much. Secondly he/she is not allowed to charge Medicare for that visit. (If they does it’s Medicare Fraud ) In terms of your own benefit you MUST tell the doctor you are having a medical and you only want examinations and tests that are required for your medical. Doctors are neither stupid nor cold hearted. If you say you are required to have just the examination and tests asked for in the medical and CASA are known for overextending and taking peoples medicals off them unnecessarily and they will be on your side. It is false economy to go to your GP for a basic class 2 and say “can you give me a “normal” check up while I’m here as well. If you do, he assumes a duty of care to you in an overall manner. And when/if he finds something it will have to go on the medical report. If your GP is also a DAME you should go to another GP or another DAME for your normal medical health care or for your medical. If you go to your GP for a class 2 basic it’s far better to come back later for a “real” visit for your real medical care. In fact it is better that you never go near your own doctor for any aviation medical. This might sound antithetical but it’s sadly the fact. Passing a medical is not needed for your aviation medical safety except if you have one of a couple of very defined and severe medical conditions. For the vast majority of pilots including those who have lost their medical That’s proven and absolute. The medical is purely so CASA will let you keep your medical certificate. so only play the game in the manner CASA says you must. Don’t give them any ammunition.

I’m a bit confused. Do you have to have a stress test or not for your aviation medical? Unless you absolutely have to have one for real medical management, or if the rules have said you must then don’t have one. Absolutely do not, ever, never never have a test for your medical that you are not required absolutely to have. You should do only that which AvMed says you must. Trouble is that once CASA knows about it then you have to get on the hamster wheel if you want to go forward. unless you want to fly without a medical, which paradoxically as a result of CASA there are many doing just that.

Yep. And currently I have a mate who is in that exact predicament. In fact it’s a bit worse. He initially for decades had a class 2. Then he got a Basic class 2 and on the strength of continuing medical he bought a glassair. AVMED then sent him a letter saying “your medical was approved in error and we are removing your medical”. He has numerous cardiology reports with DAME and specialists saying he is fit to fly. AvMed have said no. Reason is his ECG has a change in one small segment that has been present since at least he was in his 40s ( since his first ECG ever) according to him. He is now late 60’s. This single ( probably genetic) change has probably been lifelong and as such is irrelevant. But it doesn’t fit AVmeds inflexible rule of no ECG changes. He originally got his medicals because the old wording was something like “no new changes since last medical” or something but now is just “no changes”.

Hey Nev. I agree with your last wholeheartedly. A negative stress test doesn’t carry a lot of certainty that an event won’t happen. A positive stress test does carry more ( but not absolute) risk of an event happening. What I was referring to was the statement and only the statement that a stress test can cause a cardiac event weeks later. This is NOT the case. Say a person has a negative stress test and then weeks later has a cardiac event. That does NOT mean the two events are related. In all likelihood the bad event was going to happen anyway irrespective of the stress test that was done weeks before. What you would have to do to show a link say that is show that in two populations - one who had a stress test and one who did not that more people in the stress test group had an event weeks later than the group who did not do the stress test. Both groups could have coincidental cardiac events. The studies have to show a link. These studies have been done and the results are in. Having a negative stress test does not increase the chances that weeks later you will have a cardiac event. what it does show is that there is a small increase risk in having a cardiac event AT THE TIME of the stress test if the patient is having the test for known symptoms suggestive of cardiac disease. However the risks are small, and the benefits of gaining specific information to direct treatment are significant enough to justify the risk:benefit ratio. If the patient is having a screening test eg pilot medical, insurance medical ( and is thought to be well with no symptoms in the lead up AND has a negative stress test) the risks of events at the time of the medical are the same for both groups. This logically has eliminated the test itself as cause of late (weeks later) events in everyone and for acute events ( at the time) in the otherwise fit and well well.

Just wanting to clear something there. Doing a stress test/ecg carries small risk of a cardiac event but the statistics show if it’s going to happen it’s happens at the time of the test. Not weeks later. There’s no, even theoretical, reason why a workload event now with no negative events would produce an adverse event in weeks time.

I think history proves you partially incorrect on this. As I said the likelihood of some of the medical risks are statistically provable to be way way less than 1% but CASA claims it uses the 1% rule. in many cases DAMEs and specialists in the field write long,complex and multiple reports stating the risks of a specific pilot are so low that the risk is negligible. If CASA’s sole criteria was to cover their rear ends legally they would have an easy out in the case of a inflight medical mishap. “The risks were deemed to be low, multiple doctors who KNOW the patient attested to this. The real world statistics show the risk to be low. Therefore CASA/AvMed approved the medical. “ But we all know that’s not what happens. Going against all the evidence can only be construed that delusional or malicious intent were involved. One opinion could be that AvMed/CASA are the workplace bully. The stripping of a pilots medical and thus control over that pilot being the source of a feeling of power and the use of the unassailable excuse “safety” ( despite proof they contribute nothing to that safety) is used to make the perpetrator feel safe in doing it.

The mainstream medical fraternity carries no legal weight. We all operate under the guidance of published data, accepted guidelines and modifications of the above based on experience, knowledge and “the art of medicine”. We carry no capacity to dictate what the law should be and no capacity to dictate how a government arm wants to interpret or administer that law. There is ample evidence and experience of doctors of all levels disagreeing with CASA/AvMed, writing letters and reports etc and they simply ignore them. Since their decisions are outside the accepted medical knowledge of mainstream medicine and into the realms of the law, real world doctors are essentially powerless. Even when CASA says your doctor can approve your Basic Class 2 or your DAME approves your straightforward Class 2 they are being disingenuous. In both cases the doctor is not saying you are fit to fly, the doctor is saying you meet a set of predetermined criteria set and overseen by CASA/AvMed and as such they can rubber stamp your medical.

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.

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.

Do you mean only in Class E? I’ve never flown IFR but paid service fees for VFR ATC in Class C. I haven’t flown much in CTA lately so I haven’t been billed recently but haven’t heard that anything has changed. Though have done recently into Cairns so expecting something to arrive.

That’s a point I hadn’t considered. Do air services send you a bill for any flights you do in Class E? You get bills for enroute services you use in class C but I rarely if ever have used Class E so have no experience about bills for that. anyone know if it will suddenly include charges?

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 😂🤣😂

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.

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.

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.

Yep. I agree entirely. Who ever came up with the idea is nuts.

These proposed maps are way, way before we get to the changing of VTCs etc. and anyway the problem is that regardless of RPT lanes the whole area is to converted to Class E. So the presence of a lane is irrelevant. The other issue is that while the claim is for perhaps (in the reviewed round of considerations) only high density areas may be affected once that’s set in place it will creep outward. Also there’s lots of small regional companies that operate into areas with no VTCs. Eg Hinterland Aviation operate out of Cairns and service islands, small communities etc south of Cairns- south of the VTC. I have to assume there will be similar companies all along the coast. If the first stage comes along for near Class C airports along the coast it will get expanded because “passengers of eg. Of Hinterland will deserve the same level of safety as passengers of QantasLink”.

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.

Yeah. I agree with your last statement. I’ve flown around the Atherton tableland specifically for the exercise of looking at the AGL data. It’s a very rapidly chAnging terrain level and the displayed AGL changes fairly frequently so it’s not bad. Just how small the terrain areas are I don’t know but given the change rate they must be fairly small and probably usable. But even if not now, the detail can be ramped up without much effort.

Yes and no. GPS altitude above ground is available here and now. The ability to give a GPS AGL requires three things. 1. An absolute altitude of the GPS device itself, as you correctly state. 2.A lat/long GPS position derived by the native GPS unit in the device. 3. Thirdly it requires an app containing a elevation data base that can tell what the known ground level is at the Lat/Long coordinate below the GPS device. This is where the stated OzRunways or AvPlan ( if it has this) comes in. Speaking for OzRunways which I use, it has a whole of Australia ground elevation database which can be downloaded into the device. Calculating AGL is a simple matter of subtracting the database elevation from the GPS device altitude. The problem is acceptance of the error margin. I have to admit, Inactually don’t know how detailed the data base is. I have the info box showing on my iPad and I have done some simple comparing to known nearby heights of mountain tops etc and it’s “sort of” accurate. There will be places where the elevation data is less accurate and thus places where the calculated AGL is not as accurate. Not saying it’s ideal, I still reckon AMSL is what they should use if they get their way. But the degraded accuracy in some places would probably be Ok for the situation under discussion. I agree with you, it certainly would not be suitable for Cat 3 landing but that’s not the scenario under consideration. But just saying, in response to someone’s previous statement that getting AGL is not practically possible, just saying in fact not only is it possible, it’s actually available now.