Jaba-who

On 10/05/2021 at 10:38 AM, F10 said:

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

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. 
 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

IF they don't do anything when you present , they get issues on duty of care.   IF you don't like what you get in Australia compare it with what you get in other places,( Like the USA in Particular) Nev

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. 

40 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

I,m due to ge a referral from my  GP, this week, for a stress test !.

The first one was to check if l could survive my hip operation.

That tirst test was without any stress, as l couldent walk, let alone run on a treadmill, just a halter cardiac checker.

NOW SHOULD l indulge in helping to give casa & cohorts a reason to stop me dreaming of flying.

Never had a test !, should  be a srandard reply to their medical requirements.

spacesailor

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. 

On 27/03/2021 at 7:57 AM, pmccarthy said:

And then CASA can reverse the decision of the examining DAME with no explanation.

 

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”. 

33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Jaba I know plenty of cardiac specialists who agree that the stress test can be quite dangerous in older patients.. I also know of a pilot having completed one a few weeks before, die walking to the carpark after a flight. Also of some dying during taxi after  a difficult let down in crook weather due too high a heart rate..  I was in a position to try to ascertain how effective these test were at predicting outcomes. The general view was not very. It's not just MY view.. Nev

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. 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

The rates they pay would not attract someone with the enough  Medical qualifications or suitability. regarding objectivity.. One they had, put you down as Psychologically Unstable if you disputed anything with him. On finding out some questionable comments on my medical file I asked for searches to find more. Suddenly My files went missing. Corrupt and not answerable for poor performance. They are untouchable and a Law unto them selves.

 Regarding the effectiveness of their requirement at predicting medical issues  there are many times a fatality has happened quite close to a recent renewal being passed.   Sometimes a Stress ECG (Bruces Protocol) may bring on a heart problem that may surface a few weeks later.

  We did get some progress in the late 80's with heart bypass patients regaining their ATPL's . Nothing (of significance) since then as far as I can see. Nev

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. 

18 hours ago, Ironpot said:

CASA make decisions based on Liability - they do not intend to incur any Liability directly or on behalf of the Australian Government on any issue. 

 

I had a well qualified instructor once who insisted that you should tell CASA nothing under any circumstances! Unfortunately that attitude plays into their hands because by withholding information the individual will incur the Liability in the event of any mishap.

 

Every decision that CASA/AvMed make will err on the side of caution in order that they dodge or cannot be held liable should anything happen no matter how unlikely. I now look at their actions through the lens of an Insurance underwriter and sometimes its easier to understand just why they make some of their judgements and proposals.  

 

Notwithstanding the AvMed stories, I still have problems trying to understand that taking photographs from an aircraft requires a a CPL/AOC etc etc. I'm afraid that unless there is a massive culture shift in CASA's attitude very soon the future of private aviation is not too bright.

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. 

12 hours ago, Arron25 said:

Can I ask the 'dumb question'.. Why haven't AvMed been pulled into the real world by the Mainstream medical fraternity?

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. 

28 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Talking about ECGs. I did one once to appease my doctor for another matter. The test showed that I had an anomaly - T2 inversion they called it. If it is found associated with other symptoms, it can be cause for alarm, but there is a small percentage of the whole population who have this inversion due to genetics, and it is no more life threatening that eye colour. Still, CASA would ground me for it. 

 

What sort of cancers make you drop dead suddenly? If cancer brings you to Death's door, you are not likely to be engaging in piloting as you approach it.

 

I wonder what the medical qualifications the CASA people who make these irreversible decisions are. From the types of decisions they make, they must be the most highly qualified and knowledgeable person in the whole wide world. It seems that to CASA's way of thinking, since everyone dies eventually, then it is unsafe to pilot an aircraft due to the certainty of eventual death.

 

In the thread discussing the Bristell aircraft, the manufacturers commented on the poor response to CASA's questionnaire to owners by saying that it is a commonly held belief in the aviation industry that once CASA makes up its mind about something, all the rebutting facts produced to counter that decision mean nothing. 

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. 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

As Mr Morgan says, CASA has refused to state the safety basis for requiring such stringent medical standards. 

 

If a pilot was to be accused of flying inverted at 300 feet above a football crowd, then the onus is on the Crown to prove all elements of the alleged offence. With these medicals, CASA is acting as judge and jury without providing even a definition of the elements of the offence of being medically unfit to pilot an aircraft.

 

Sun damaged skin - A vast majority of Australian pilots are ethnically Anglo-Celtic. This ethnicity expresses itself in pale skin, which is lacing in the protective chemical, melanin. Therefore, after having been exposed to stronger solar radiation in a country where their genetics are not suited to dealing with the radiation, they develop sun damaged skin. It is usually called basal cell carcinoma and that can be treated with freezing or certain topical creams. It is not a malignant condition. 

 

Mental Health - Some people during their working lives are subject to workplace stress and develop depression. How long after leaving that type of employment does it take a person to overcome workplace related depression? It's been 15 years for me, but I have to keep putting down on medicals that I was diagnosed once with depression. It is like asking a widower if he is still beating his wife.

 

Sleep Apnoea - As you get older, the muscles in your throat lose their tension, so that when you sleep you snore, or stop breathing. It is a normal part of aging. The condition is readily controlled by the use of an air pressure pump (CPAP machine). Still having been diagnosed with sleep apnoea is another black mark on your health card, despite  it's being controlled by the machine.

 

Like Kyle, I hold the highest level of heavy vehicle licence, plus a public passenger driver's authority. I do a medical every year and the GP simply says that my "depression" is treated. I also get a report from a sleep specialist. That lets me use the full privileges of my driver's licence, but I'd bet my left one that CASA would want specialists' reports every year.

 

 

As an aside:

If you do snore a lot, go get a sleep apnoea test and get a CPAP machine. Life is much improved by using one.

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. 

16 hours ago, Ironpot said:

You will incur enroute charges only if you fly IFR. 

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. 

46 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

AsA is only trying to increase its revenue base ....... follow the money!

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? 

1 hour ago, Jim McDowall said:

In Australia you cant compulsorily retire someone on the basis of age. I know of a guy who was flying 737 freighters until recently at the age of 73 and it was only COVID that stopped him (or his employers) flying.

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 😂🤣😂

12 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

How many ATPL pilots collapse (and maybe die) within the time span of their medical currency?  And their test is more often and stringent to class 2. Whilst there are 70+ years old pilots flying 737/747/ various  Airbuses in our airspace I have serious doubts about the reality that Avmed are inhabiting.

Without impugning the capacity of those who are in their 8th decade, those of us who are approaching that space know that our friends are dying around us, or do not have the capacities that they once had.  

I have a friend who passed his Class 2 medical, drove home and had a massive coronary - hasn't flown as PIC since. Similar stories abound.

There have been a number of studies which have shown that the whole aviation medical certification system (around the world) is poorly rooted in science. 

The whole medical issue goes back to the armed forces where medicals were used to pigeon hole people to plug the manpower needs of the day i.e. not eveyone got to be a pilot.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

The NZ basic med requires a DL9 WITH A PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE ENDORSEMENT so it is not the same as RAAus.  

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. 

2 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

This is what the guy at CASA in Canberra told me over the telephone just over 2 years ago. Except of course he was reffering to CASA not the NZCAA

If the DAME signs you off directly on the Basic Class 2 medical then you are good to go and CASA do not question it

 

 

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. 

 

5 minutes ago, walrus said:

The idea of using AGL as the floor of Class E is utter rubbish for one reason:

 

Because that Class E Floor is by definition, not a smooth continuous surface. It mirrors that landscape.

 

Think about that not from an RAA perspective but from an IFR, RPT or charter perspective - can you actually use the lower levels of such airspace? The answer is of course not because you need consistent altitudes or your navigation task is impossible.

 

Can you imagine a controller saying: "Maintain 2000 AGL till Doncaster"?

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

14 minutes ago, Cosmick said:

We already have, called VTC etc. Just update with Jet lanes on regional RPT airports. 

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”.  

9 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

Jaba

Your local doctor can do the Austroads heavy vehicle licence and provided there are no conditions its fine for a Basic Class 2 medical.

 

If you do have conditions on your Austroads heavy vehicle licence you then need to go and see a DAME with all the necessary records you have regarding those conditions and he does his full blown in surgury tests and if he deems you are ok to fly then he can grant you the Basic Class 2 medical. He does it on his computer and it does not go to Avmed for a sign off. He signs you off directly and according to CASA...the guy in Canberra who spoke to me said if the DAME says your fine then you are fine. Avmed have no further interest in you

 

 

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. 

59 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Those AGL tiles are very large and based on the tops of hills, so there would be no space under Class E in many areas.

edit... so I had been told, but in thinking about it, the ground profile in the display looks pretty detailed and may be sufficient.

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. 
 

5 hours ago, Bennyboy320 said:

GPS altitude measures your absolute altitude off several satellites not the same as a rad alt that measures height above the ground below the a/c ie used during low visual approaches eg CAT2/CAT3.

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.