Jump to content

Jaba-who

Members
  • Content Count

    1,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

About Jaba-who

  • Rank
    Well-known member

Information

  • Aircraft
    Jabiru 430
  • Location
    Cairns, Atherton
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry mate but I don’t follow what this has to do with the topic. Can you explain? FAR Part 103 is about Ultralights (but not ultralights as found in Australia) real ultralights of less than a few hundred pounds empty weight. Includes powered parachutes and some powered hang gliders. But can also include really true tiny fixed wings made of “rag and sticks.” No training requirements or licensing. Very restrictive capabilities and flying activities. Nothing like it exists in Australia. Not sure what this has to do with Class E, with EAA or FAA-CASA comparisons.
  2. 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
  3. 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 hang
  4. 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..)
  5. 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.
  6. 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 mig
  7. 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 )
  8. 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 resu
  9. 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) acco
  10. 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 stre
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...