Medicals for Raaus

[facthunter]

Diving/flying.

 

The parallel between diving and flying medical assessments is not really a valid one. Would you want all private car drivers to do the same medical as you have just done. I would not be convinced of the relevance. The movement ACCEPTS a reduction in requirements over many areas as part of it's overall operation and accepts restrictions to it's freedoms as part of that philisophy.eg. we don't operate over cities and we carry "informed persons". (ONE at a time). Read carefully what previous contributors have written.

 

You are also making quite a few assumptions to present your case. You have a right to present your view, but would you really like to change the system along the lines you propose, because I (and many others,). accept it for what it is. I don't publicly bag the RAAus system, and this forum is an open one so anybody can read what is written here, so don't provide the ammunition for our detractors.

 

I was subject to regular class one medicals for over 30 years. During that time I had access to a lot of data on aircrew incapacitation/deaths. There were many instances of both within days of passing a FULL medical. Several were known to me personally, So even under those stringent requirements the adverse outcomes were not avoided.. Also a lot of incapacitation is due to Medications, food poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, fatigue etc. It's all a question of a reasonable balance ...Nev

 

 

[BigPete]

It's now being said (because of our lazy lifestyle and high fat diet) that there are two types of people - those who have had heart problems and those that are about to. :ah_oh:

 

I know that many of our RAA flyers have had heart problems, are diabetic, and may suffer a whole gammit of different health problems where as the GA side of things may appear to be a whole lot healthier.

 

(did you know it's estimated that there are more people with undiagnosed diabeties than those that have been diagnosed? (they would be GA pilots) :yuk:

 

BUT

 

Most (if not all) of the pilots that have joined the ranks of the RAA due to health problems are most likely under ongoing treatment and monitering of the health issues that forced them out of GA.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is there may well be a higher risk of a "healthy" pilot having problems in the air, than one who has already "been there". I guess this will attract a bit of flack, but I just had to throw it out there. :big_grin:

 

Flame suit on.

 

regards

 

:big_grin:

 

 

[facthunter]

Not at all.

 

the condition is better to be known about and responded to , rather than be automatically excluded by the diagnosis.. A mate of mine (non flying) had a problem with weight control. He was going down the tube rapidly. Had already become diabetic and was becoming one of those cup of pills types that are about. He decided to get that band put around his stomache.

 

Immediately he did not require insulin and now (a few months later) he does not take any significant medication, (still has one blood thinner.) This has been a life-changing event (and perhaps life saving). I'm not trying to advertise the operation with the belt approach. but the result is absolutely impressive and convincing. Never give up. Nev..

 

 

[Guest Ginger]

Diving / Flying

 

facthunter,

 

Thanks, perhaps I could have been more subtle.

 

I think we are looking at this from two completely different perspective me as a newcomer and you as an old hand.

 

I really should have emphasised that in effect the medical examiner was giving me some training on the basic medical of diving and reassuring me on aspects of my own medical conditions which were worrying me.

 

There is no doubt that a major factor in me deciding to try flying was that no medical was required. (Even though I knew for sure that I am in far better medical condition than many people currently driving vehicles. (I can swim a 1 km and regularly walk 10km up and down the local hills). there were still things worrying me).

 

At the time of signing up, effectively both the flying school(s) and myself both agreed by implication not to review medical issues. We were both kidding ourselves. How many old fellas have got completely clean bills of health? There must many people taking up flying training who have also signed up like me. I certainly wasn't an informed person and neither are they.

 

The statement that no medical is required provided you can be legally licenced to drive a car has got to be simple minded. The requirements of a pilot are much greater.

 

I agree that things like very rigid medical requiremnts and annual check ups for GA are probably tedious, ineffective and reduce freedom. All the same, basic health and glasses need to be covered very early in the training. The Diving Medical Examiner gave me this training and reassurance for Diving it has not been covered in either Flying school I have attended.

 

Going on, I suspect the issue I have raised is related to the way schools only charge for air time. This causes ground school issues such as basic medical to be minimised or forgotten. Following my logic the best time to cover basic medical would be just after the TIF.

 

 

[facthunter]

Instructing.

 

Ginger, RAAus instructors have to have the class 2 CASA medical, by a DAME, annually. My doctor certifies my medical suitability to fly annually, for other reasons.

 

Doesn't your diving situation relate to instruction? There are much more demanding physical requirements under water, than flying or driving. How many people are you allowed to be in charge of (Maximum)?

 

I don't really believe that you fully understand the ethic of being responsible for your own actions, that is a fundamental part of this movement . The RAAus TRUSTS owners to do their own servicing. It Trusts people to DESIGN & BUILD and MAINTAIN their aircraft. Surely then it can have a bit of trust that pilots will not lie in their renewals. They have no insurance of any kind if they do. The concept that "if you have got a car licence, you can fly one of these", is not really true. It misrepresents the reality, "that you have to meet the same standards that the private car licence requires" and that can be a slightly different animal when you go into it, depending on the individuals circumstances.. Nev.

 

 

[Guest Roger]

Aside from the cost issue which btw could be an untimely death!.....

 

I cannot believe that blokes are so hung up about going to the doctor to get a checkup irrelevant of the reason. There is going to come a time when things start to fail no matter what - do we wait for that failure to happen whilst flying with someone we care for. Do we just do the Aussie male thing ala ostrich head in sand approach and bash on regardless?

 

No doubt the majority of people here are aware of their state of health - as much as they can be. But we are not doctors. We all know that the body compensates for small changes as we get older and unless something dramatic happens we go with the flow...

 

I would also suggest that most people here are well and truly into heart attack territory as regards their age. Perhaps a little poll getting an indication of ages would be interesting?

 

I would have thought that this is something that we would all want....I certainly would like to think that if one of my kids goes for a fly with a pilot mate that he isn't going to have a hissy fit or drop dead whilst in the air...

 

If there is a sound medical reason why I shouldn't fly either temporarily or ever again - I want to know about it before I hurt someone...I have a very comprehensive medical every couple of years now - I just turned 46.

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

.... The statement that no medical is required provided you can be legally licenced to drive a car has got to be simple minded....

Ginger,

 

I would suggest that the authorities responsible for driver licencing in Australia take the matter of 'fitness to drive' very seriously and I urge you to read the 144 page AustRoads document referenced in post #4 of this thread. Put simply, the report details the numerous medical and other conditions that would prevent the issue/reissue of a driving licence. These include diseases, drug and substance dependence and psychological issues.

 

The following is an extracted from page 35...

 

Licensing responsibility

 

 

 

 

 



The responsibility for issuing, renewing, suspending or

 

 

 

 

 



cancelling a person’s driver licence (including a conditional

 

 

 

 

 



licence) lies ultimately with the Driver Licensing Authority.

 

 

 

 

 



Licensing decisions are based on a full consideration of

 

 

 

 

 



relevant factors relating to health and driving performance.

 

 

 

 

 



Conditional licences

 

 

 

 

 



Where a conditional licence is recommended practitioners

 

 

 

 

 



must provide to the Driver Licensing Authority details of the

 

 

 

 

 



criteria not met as well as the proposed conditions and

 

 

 

 

 



monitoring requirements.

 

 

 

 

 



The nature of the driving task

 

 

 

 

 



The Driver Licensing Authority will take into consideration

 

 

 

 

 



the nature of the driving task as well as the medical

 

 

 

 

 



condition, particularly when granting a conditional licence.

 

 

 

 

 



For example, the licence status of a farmer requiring

 

 

 

 

 



a commercial licence for the occasional use of a heavy

 

 

 

 

 



vehicle may be quite different from that of an interstate

 

 

 

 

 



multiple combination vehicle driver. The examining health

 

 

 

 

 



professional should bear this in mind when examining

 

 

 

 

 



a patient and when providing advice to the Driver

 

 

 

 

 



Licensing Authority.

 

 

 

 

 



The presence of other medical conditions

 

 

 

 

 



While a patient may meet individual disease criteria,

 

 

 

 

 



concurrent medical conditions may combine to affect fitness

 

 

 

 

 



to drive, e.g. hearing and visual impairment (refer to Multiple

 

 

 

 

 



Disabilities page 22, Older Drivers, page 76).

 

 

 

 

 



Reporting responsibilities

 

 

 

 

 



Patients should be made aware of the effects of their

 

 

 

 

 



condition on driving and should be advised of their legal

 

 

 

 

 



obligation to notify the Driver Licensing Authority where

 

 

 

 

 



driving is likely to be affected. The practitioner may

 

 

 

 

 



themselves advise the Driver Licensing Authority as the

 

 

 

 

 



situation requires (refer to pages 10, 17).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[poteroo]

In this age of litigation, it's wise to have your bum covered. Failure to be honest about your medical condition might cost you, or your estate, the insurance payout on the aircraft,and the collateral damage you've caused. Proceding when you have a 'known' health condition could be construed as both wilful and negligent.

 

For the record - I'm 68, have been flying since 1963, and have had 46 consecutive Class 1 medicals. I wouldn't wish this cost on anyone else. But, is self-diagnosis better than what your family GP can do?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Yenn]

Poteroo.

 

I have been flying since 1967 and had a medical for several years until I discovered Ultralights were cheaper and keep me more current.

 

A good friend of mine dropped dead with a heart attack several years ago, just after passing his medical.

 

I have had about ten years without a medical and defy any doctor to be able to predict if I will have a medical emergency or not and I am 72 years old.

 

Some things will obviously show as dangerous to a doctor but others are impossible to predict. I think self diagnosis if honestly done can be comparable to a doctors diagnosis.

 

 

[Flyingphot]

Ginger

 

While you certainly make some good points I must disagree.

 

"The statement that no medical is required provided you can be legally licenced to drive a car has got to be simple minded. The requirements of a pilot are much greater."

 

Why are the requirements of a pilot so much greater?? Everyday we hurtle down the road at 100 kph, often only 2 - 3 metres from another vehicle doing 100kph in the opposite direction, quite possibly driven by someone who has minimal training and experience, or in keeping with this thread, any kind of medical or other conditions, and we think nothing of it. Then we get out of our car, if we have survived, and into our plane. Now most of us are in an enviornment where we have been very well trained and tested, where we can control our seperation from other planes, the ground and other hard things, and where we would not be if we thought we had a condition that was likely to cause us compromise. I believe I am a lot safer in my plane than I am in my car.

 

(I would also question how many single vehicle fatal accidents and head on collisions occur because a driver has been medically compromised - I think it would be a lot more than known)

 

If a medical was ever to be introduced to RAA I would hope it would have to be by the pilot's regular family GP who has a working history of the patient's health.

 

To be required to go to an "aviation doctor" who can really only make many of the required calls based on the info given by the pilot, (who wants to retain his licence), is to me patently rediculous. They can tell me how I am now and how I was yesterday, but they don't have a clue how I will be tomorrow.

 

The pilot who flies when he knows he has a medical condition is not the pilot who is going to tell a doctor seeing him for the first time that he has the problem, knowing that he won't be allowed to fly.

 

Ginger, you are the responsible person who wants to know that you are safe to dive, drive, or fly, and so you choose to give the doctor all the relevant info a then listen to the results. The person who flies knowing he is crook is a very different person.

 

It all comes back to personal responsibility. It cannot be mandated. (it may also include a little responsibility by the said pilot's mates, if they know he has a problem - but that's a dilema for another thread).

 

Thanks for your interesting comments which get me thinking.

 

Cheers

 

Bill

 

 

[nong]

Ginger, possibly you have not yet developed an understanding of our mode. We SIMPLE folk have established that medicals don't protect us from sudden incapacitation. We like to keep things SIMPLE but have just enough brains to go to the doctor if need be and really don't feel like flying if we're crook.

 

It was a wonderful decision to adopt a widely recognized medical standard and further, to adopt a SIMPLE method of compliance, in fact, essentially the same method of compliance as used by the government departments charged with administering said standard. SIMPLE minded? You bet!

 

Why do grumpy old bastards who see doctors a fair bit, want to force others to undergo the same inconvenience? Medical examinations constitute a strong disincentive to learning to, or continuing to fly and I would prefer that keen young flying students spent their limited time and resources on the task at hand.

 

I totally agree with FACTHUNTER in that our method is to TRUST the judgements and actions of each individual member and to provide quiet peer support and guidance where necessary.

 

 

[Guest Ginger]

Medically fit enough to hold a driver's licence

 

Thanks to all who have replied to my recent messages.

 

I apologise because I had not made enough investigation to support my original assertions.

 

What was worrying me was the way the medical requirements for RAA flying are described, on page 2 of the RAA magazine for example and by the flying schools.

 

The way it is put seems somewhat misleading and deceptive. In my case I was lead to believe that the medical requirements for RAA flying were easy. If you look into it however you realise they are not.

 

That is why I still think that flying schools must explain in more detail what medically fit enough means.

 

Yesterday I obtained application forms for

 

* Application for Learners permit

 

* Licence renewal

 

* Application for certificate of fitness for heavy vehicle drivers

 

* Certificate of fitness for light vehicle drivers

 

They are really quite detailed. They require you to declare

 

* Sight issues

 

* Illness & disabilities - Hypertension, Cardiac disease, diabtese, sleep apnoea etc.

 

* They can ask you to have annual medicals if you are over 70.

 

* And they can also ask you to have specific or annual medicals if any of your decalared illnesses require it.

 

In summary the process of dealing with medical issues for driving seems quite good and if applied properly should be OK for RAA flying.

 

I cannot explain how I was not aware of this but I am sure I was sold RAA flying training on the idea that RAA medical requirements were easy. I think that it was probably because, I was un aware of the requirtements, the School & RAA were just trying to do business and I was deluding myself or dishonest when I last renewed my licence (2005).

 

I can also remember when I was 40 something, I had not been to a medical check up for decades. (We all know that Diabetes, Hypertension, Sleep Apnoea, Glaucoma can be symptomless and go undiagnosed for years)

 

So to stick to my point, I think that a good flying school would, just after the TIF, at the recruiting stage, remind a potential student what medically fit to drive means. They should show them driving licence renewal form.They should ask if the person has had a normal medical in the last few years. They should also suggest they have their eyes checked for glasses (this will pick up glaucoma etc and will give them glasses if they need them).

 

This will not stop many people from flying but will pick up and any undiagnosed problems and lead to their treatment or management.

 

It should be benign particularly if it were done in the manner of my recent diving medical.

 

In regard to those already licenced pilots, I will not go into that except to say we can assume that they are trained in Human Performance and will manage any problems appropriately. (I point out that new recruits are unlikely to have training in Human performance)

 

I urge others to have a look at driving licence renwewal form

 

I really hope that this thread has been a positive contribution. I do not want to offend anyone.

 

Ginger

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

Good post Ginger

 

Perhaps most people are unaware of their responsibilities and liabilities regarding driver's licence renewal and medical fitness issues.

 

Added to a driver's responsibility to declare their medical condition if at any time they become unfit to drive (broken limb, degraded eyesight, meningitis etc), the medical profession (and including optometrists) are also required to report any condition that impacts the driver's ability.

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

Diving Medical

 

Hi Ginger

 

I wonder if you could elaborate on requirements when mixing diving and flying activities. I understand there is a 'no fly' time limit after a diving exercise. Is this the case?

 

 

[Guest Ginger]

Diving & Flying

 

Ken,

 

Even after a properly managed dive, you still have some residual Nitrogen in your blood even though it is not enough to cause decompression sickness.

 

The ammount of nitrogen disolved in your blood depends on air pressure. For high pressure more N2, for low pressure less N2.

 

If you move to a higher altitude, as we know, there is less atmospheric pressure so that the desolved residual nitrogen (no problem at sea level) becomes one.

 

The diver uses a computer or tables to estimate the residual nitrogen in their blood and hence a no fly time as well.

 

Basically, if you plan to to ascend to an altitude of not more than 8000 ft, after a dive and have made a single no-decompression dive with less than 1 hour of bottom time, it is recommended that you wait at least 4 hours before flying and so on.

 

I must confess that I am not a qualified diver either.

 

Ginger

 

 

[Guest brentc]

That is why you can't fly commercially after diving for a specific period as the cabin is pressurised to approximately 8,500ft depending on aircraft model.