Jaba-who

Do Avmed actually use advice from specialists in the appropriate field? All I’ve ever seen is they ignore it. They even ignored world authority medical opinion ( like WHO) on some things. A few years ago the real medical world said a fasting blood sugar of anything up to 6 was normal. Avmed in their infinite wisdom said no, we will continue to use an old standard of 5.6 If your fasting sugar was eg 5.7 you would have to undergo additional tests ( glucose tolerance testing ) at your own cost and time despite the rest of the medical world saying it was not appropriate. Same with blood thinners. You could get a medical while on some thinners provided you had stable & frequent tests. And it was reasonable as the old thinners were prone to over and undershooting. Now there’s a bunch of new ones that are heaps safer heaps better but no test exists ( or was needed). But Avmed just said nope! No test no medical. Despite it not being even in existence and certainly not needed even it existed for safe clinical management. I don’t know if they’ve emerged into the real world on those fronts yet.

That’s all good to hear. GA training ( and GA activity) had been near dead in Townsville for so long. Haven’t been there for a year or so now but I used to go down there quite a lot. Some times it was like a ghost town. Sadly from a private operations point point of view Cairns has become a no go zone. Everyone has moved up to Mareeba or atherton or down to Innisfail. So it’s a bit the same there now for very light stuff.

There you go. Did not know that. I was of the understanding that there was no training RAAus or GA happening at Townsville any more. Is that happening at Townsville Airport in Class C or is that at Woodstock or Bluewater?

I didn't realize that. The RAAus statement says Class D. Which Class C airport is it happening in?

This is a very convoluted topic as well. For a number of reasons but - essentially the presence of significant "End organ damage" is in the eye of the beholder. We are blessed with an over-abundance of kidney function and blood tests looking for kidney function don't even begin to change until there is some degree of damage and don't hit the outer limits of "Normal" until significant damage is done. Even just looking at the sensitive markers of damage like protein in the urine we know there has to be some damage going on for it to be detectable. Then after that to decide will it affect driving flying is like asking asking will the high tide tomorrow cause any damage to the beach. Who knows? It might but but it might not. Avmed have been infamous for their overly-conservative (almost ridiculously) use of anything to take peoples medicals away Like the infamous 1% rule. If something has a 1% chance or more of causing an inflight catastrophe then they take your medical away. But they have historically used very dodgy statistics. Like prostate cancer - fail! Why? Because there's a 1% chance it will spread without you being aware it has spread.. But to where? bones 99% Brain 1% But what happens if it goes to the brain - A 1% chance of having a sudden fit with no prior warning. So a 1% X 1% x1% chance is cause for all people with prostate cancer to lose their medical The new problem with Type 2 diabetes is that insulin is being used way more commonly for Type 2 (whereas it was once was only used for Type 1) and there are multiple different types of insulin and multiple ways of using it. In many people with Type two it forms a small part of their therapy and is in doses too small to cause hypoglycaemia. But everyone is tarred with the same brush. The new bogey man on the horizon are the SGLT 2 Inhibitors especially when the patient is taking insulin. These are a new group of drugs which have statistically improved the risk of end organ damage (dramatically for coronary heart disease) BUT ... they significantly increase the risk of a brand new type of coma where the blood sugar stays normal and the coma is caused by ketones rising in the blood. And the prime trigger event appears to be stress. Avmed undoubtedly will say flying is a stressor if you are on one of these drugs even if you have never had a bad glucose level.

Yep. It’s all very complex and convoluted. Not helped by the covert way CASA goes about the lead up to the Basic Class 2. The first few releases they made they openly stated there would be restrictions on top of the Austroads standard ( but not saying what they would be - leaving us to assume they would be similar to those applied to the RAMPC) then since then the very few public announcements they have made have not said anything about the restrictions. This is by the way as best I recall what they did with the RAMPC and which essentially made the RAMPC unusable for most pilots who wanted it.

Yeah. I stuffed that one up didn’t I? That’s what happens when I try to quickly do things between cases. I have conflated the two different situations. What I was trying to say was: The numbers I quoted are the DAME figures who have taken up the authority to give on the spot medicals for Class 2 medicals. Of the total DAMEs who could do the on line process only 10% had done so. ( these were the figures a couple of weeks ago. ) The discussion we had was why such a low figure? Especially when the whole CASA premise of the change was that for the system to work basically all DAMEs would need to take up the authority. It was stated by those who had not, and from people’s information from others who had not, that fear of the risks of litigation if a candidate subsequently had a medical event after being given a clearance was the main cause. At no time is there any decrease in liability because a doctor is acting as a representative of CASA. This is not a defence because the practitioner is only covered by vicarious liability if he is an employee of CASA. The same applies for drivers licences. A doctor can’t claim any immunity from Ausroads if they wrongly give out a medical and the driver then goes and causes some disaster. But even if they tried it CASA would very likely fire it back on the doctor. Their obvious defence would be the doctor is a private practitioner whose decisions are his/her own. If a mistake was made they will say it’s the doctors poor examination or judgement over which they have no control. And that if the doctor had acted correctly the candidate would not have been given a pass. Ipso facto - doctor’s problem.

Statistically of all the doctors who could use the capability of having the approval and are now instantly in a position to go and get the approval you're right, it is "not very few". , it as actually almost zero! But thats of all doctors who could go get the qualification for anything from frequent to minimal need. According to the discussions on the Facebook page of doctors who fly and do medicals etc. and a reasonable need or use for it ( those of us in the know) it's only about 10% of doctors who could use it. That is actually have a sufficient clientele base who do need aviation medicals ( DAMES, GPs with a sizeable pilot patient load etc (who have not got DAME qualifications and want to do medicals etc) who have taken up the qualification. Whether that amount will increase remains to be seen. I suspect As soon as the first law suite happens for a wrongful clearance being given there will be a mass exodus.

Not quite. If you have it now you can still keep your licence as long as you are stable and well controlled but all the assessment must go through AvMed. With the new system as best we know ( because remember CASA Have not released whatbthe rules will be , they have suggested what might be involved ) CASA have stated that if you have a number of conditions that previously excluded you from having a simple straightforward medical ( and type 2 diabetes was one of these) you will still have to go through AvMed. You still won't be able to get a simple "pass" from a GP. But once again I have to add. That's just as it appears from the various press releases that have been made. It could all change ( for better or worse) when they actually publish what these rules will actually be.

That’s the old rule. From 8 November ( if you read the wording of the announcements - I haven’t been able to find an actual copy of the rule itself - just the CASA statements ) you call mayday when you calculate you’ll run into your reserve before you can land. ( not even when you hit your reserve - when you calculate it. So it could be theoretically hours before you reach your reserve) there is is no requirement to be in need of assistance or immediate danger.

There are currently schools flying in Class D CTA and the official letter from RAAus says they are currently flying on an instrument of exemption. So one has to assume an “old” instrument exists. The wording of the letter suggests a new one has been released. But it I never believe anything like this with aviation until I see the actual law or instrument because so many people get things mixed up and promulgate furphies.

Well the discussion that is going on on the Australian flying doctors Facebook page is that very few doctors have taken up the option. Theres a lot of concern about liability if a licence is granted and a pilot then has a problem. I’m certainly not applying for it until there had been plenty of people do it and not have any problems for a fair amount of time. The basic medical is not really a reduced standard. For all practical considerations The Austroads commercial is pretty much the same standard.

Does anyone have a link or copy of the actual instrument ( not RAAus’s plain English announcement) its always important not to trust the “version” put out by the guy whose trying to tell you what a great job he’s doing. He’s highly likely to tell an optimistic glossy story. The sales pitch story has a slight ring of “to get the right to fly there you have to have been a student there”. Now I might be wrong in that but it might be that the CASA version may be more restrictive on who came come along and go flying there.

Don’t hold your breath. CASA doesn’t play risk management in a normal common sense way. they simply decide something is s risk with or without evidence and do something/anything without evidence it will have a positive effect. They do this without any plan to measure the response to that change. They then announce they have attended to the risk. There is no real world correlation between either of their actions though.

Don’t hold your breath. CASA doesn’t play risk management in a normal common sense way. they simply decide something is s risk with or without evidence and do something/anything without evidence it will have a positive effect. They do this without any plan to measure the response to that change. They then announce they have attended to the risk. There is no real world correlation between either of their actions though.

As much as I reckon the fixed winger was in the wrong etc I wouldn't hold that against him. You would be surprised how difficult it is to see another aircraft and a Robbie especially from 6 o'clock is even harder to see. When I was flying my R22 we used to do frequent trips in company with others and at some angles they can be impossible to see even when you know exactly where they are. Well it possibly could be but there are similar limitations as fixed Wings about clearance from buildings, heights over obstructions in climb out and descent etc. Approach and departure pad has to give room for emergency manoeuvring, over and undershoots etc. Usually approach and departure points are out in the middle of the paddock and then supposed to taxi to landing pads nearer buildings etc.

Here's the google earth pic airport and the site of the collision. As you can clearly see there is a f.....n great marked helipad there.

I read the numerous comments on one of the forums where this was displayed and could not believe the idiotic and down-right anti-helicopter vitriol that some armchair experts were expounding. The common completely wrong opinion was a belief that helicopters are not allowed to use runways or they should stay away from runways. But it's exactly the opposite. Helicopters are aircraft and the basic ( American where this happened and also Australian) law is they can follow the patterns and use the runways just as any other aircraft in the pattern. It's a common standard to use counterdirection circuits and If an airport chooses they can dictate alternate pathways but the termination point is Usually still the runway. They can choose to divert prior to the runway but at many airports the rules include approach and hover on the runway and they taxi off the runway. Some airports there is requirement to hover onto and depart off the runway. At this particular airport there is a fixed marked helicopter approach pad ( a big dotted circle ) IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RUNWAY. that was the approach point and that was the announced termination point and that was the legitimate place at THAT airport the helipcopter was supposed to be. In some of the images the helipad circle is visible. When you read the report it is clear the total fault was the fixed wing pilot. Several aircraft in the vicinity reported they heard the helicopter give all required calls. They also reported a single call which was distorted from the fixed wing who then departed the area and then returned without making any calls and who then when he landed, unannounced, bounced and applied power and flew and climbed into the helicopter. The fixed wing pilot claimed he made calls, but neither the helicopter crew nor another fixed wing in the circuit heard him. He further stated that he heard radio sounds that sounded like rotor sounds with no detail. Personally I suspect he was on the wrong frequency - perhaps one click off the correct frequency. This will, on some radios, allow enough bleed over signal to be heard from adjacent frequencies but usually unintellible and the same result with transmitting his signal to other stations.

Mmm. “Nothing to see here! Go back to your homes” it doesn’t have a date on it but I’ll assume it’s recent. This is the situation that has existed for only some specific flying training Organizations for a long time that are located in Class D ( often historic - in that the FTO existed before the Class D did. For example Parafield was GAAP airspace once not Class D. but is not a fixed statute ( just an instrument) and could be taken away at any time. If a FTO closed down there is no certainty that another coming along could take its place nor could that FTO go to a different Class D and with certainty start up again. but there’s a lot of important details that essentially remove it from the sphere of discussion here that the topic has drifted to. Its not opening CTA to RAAus pilots. Its Class D only not Class C its ONLY for aircraft completely owned by a FTS not for a pilot who owns their own. Its only for LSA or certificated aircraft wholly owned by the FTO. You could not cross hire your aircraft to the FTO and then go and hire it back to go flying. The medical required is a normal GA medical. Even if you fulfill all theses requirements there is no capacity for the pilot to fly to another CTA and enter that. So while your topic is true in a very narrow and specifically defined situation the major discussion is actually about free entry and usage of any CTA by RAAus pilots. And readers should not be influenced to think there is anything happened around the info you’ve posted.

Have you a link or reference. Was this an announcement they would like it on a wish list, pursue it, have got it or CASA have just said they’ll look at it ?

Yep we had a celebrated case here. Rescue helicopter under direction of ATC hovered close and then over a guys aircraft on ground at airport. Lot of damage to aircraft. Reasonably civil discussion about compensation - negotiations fell apart. Only option was to sue. As soon as he did CASA descended on him. Demanded his log books, fuel accounts, maintenance logs etc. They eventually found a date error in something going back several years and hit him with a fine for that. Then hit him for knock on errors because then the original error meant that at a later date his maintenance was delayed and for some time he was flying over the 100 hours. Each flight then was a contravention. Ended up the fines matched the payment he received for the compensation.

Yep. I agree Yenn. She appears to have missed the point.

Yep. Exactly. Thats my perception. There’s no way they can check what I’ve got nor how much is the reserve. since I can quote any figure I like as fuel burn rate depending where I set the throttle it’s a moot point. So so there’s no way it would be sensible to call mayday and draw attention and potential litigation against you.

I’ve seen a number of coroners reports and they generally have no idea of the real world that people live in and that life is a risk. And that people should have the right to take risk if they wanted to. I read about one where a GA experimental helicopter was maintained by the owner and the tail rotor system had a failure. The coroner in that also expressed amazement and concern that people were able to maintain their own aircraft and actually recommended that maintenance be only allowed by LAMEs and failing that, that tail rotor maintenance should only be by LAMEs. These guys are lawyers who tend to live in ivory towers, and see the world through eyes restricted by the world of the law.

Had an aero club meeting on the weekend and we discussed it. Final agreement from the assembled masses that not one person said they will follow these rules. The fear from everyone was the trouble they will get into from CASA when they make a mayday call. Everyone basically said they’ll just carry on as they currently do and make appropriate practical calls as to the real situation. If they ever got ramp checked on landing they’ll fudge the calculations they made in flight and state the inaccuracy of the gauges etc. just goes to show CASA have made a world where pilots are so afraid of the them people will break the rules rather than risk exposure.