Mike Borgelt

and you may be reduced to e-LSA status. That, I would think, would cut the beejesus out of the aircraft's re-sale value. I, for one, would not like to be in the position of a 162 owner. If I had a 162 I'd be delighted if it went into e-LSA status. You'd be able to keep it flying much more easily. In the real world the owner would probably get new parts made and quietly fit them. Nothing in the log book so it didn't happen. Another example of how excessive regulation causes more problems than it solves.

Make it as a twin pack driving through a gearbox. Should make RV's etc go like rockets with a good part of twin reliability and no assymetric thrust problem. As for RAAus I can only say how pathetic it is that the human race keeps erecting totally artificial barriers against progress. About 10 years ago I pointed out to CASA that there would soon be small turbojets, turboprops and electric propulsion for small and ultralight aircraft and the rules should allow these.

Nice to see one of our B700 variometers in the panel.

OK I'm about to post mine. I've done my bit. It is up to you people to make a pile of paper on the Minister's desk and jam CASA Avmed's inbox with comments. How many will bother. If you don't you cease to have bitching rights about CASA Avmed screwing you over.

Yes, do what Supercub suggests also. Send in the form to the Minister. PRINT the form and put it in a envelope and post it. A pile of paper on the desk is more impressive than emails. Thanks for that Supercub. OK attached is my effort. It will help if you put at least one of your thoughts in as well as the form. I've attached as a Word document so you can all edit it a lot easier. Don't forget your name and details. Mine here: 27th May 2017 The Hon Darren Chester MP Minister for Infrastructure and Transport House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia. SUPPORT THE AOPA PROPOSED POLICY ON CLASS 2 PRIVATE PILOT MEDICAL CERTIFICATION Dear Minister Chester, I write to you as a concerned general aviation industry user and participant, in support of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) who have recently called on you to direct the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to adopt their proposed policy on Class 2 Private Pilot Medical Certification. The AOPA policy is important to the future of Australia’s general aviation industry and if implemented serve to reconnect thousands of perfectly healthy private pilots whom have been unfairly discriminated against by the existing CASA AVMED system. This vital reform will dramatically reduce licensing costs to industry and will remove unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and red tape that have contributed to the serious decline in general aviation pilots in Australia, which based on CASA’s own data amounts to some 8,000+ pilots exiting our industry! AOPA’s policy will help kick start private flying activity within the general aviation industry, which will result in increasing demand for the varying support services whilst creating valuable jobs and opportunities across the country. Nobody minds RATIONAL regulation based of valid data but in the case of aviation medicals for PRIVATE pilots there is no data supporting the current system. The experiments have been run in various classes of aviation both in Australia and overseas with no detriment to the safety of the public and the regulators in the USA and UK have recently changed the aviation medical system for private pilots to ones similar to the AOPA proposal. I ask that you show your support for our industry, small businesses that depend on it and the cause of rational regulation by directing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to adopt the AOPA policy without delay. Yours sincerely, Signed Michael Alfred Borgelt proprietor/ chief design engineer, Borgelt Instruments President Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 Inc. Ministermedical1.doc Ministermedical1.doc Ministermedical1.doc

here you go Super Cub, from the Australian EAA Chapter 1308 last meeting report: Members should also be aware of the following: Review of medical certification standards | Civil Aviation Safety Authority [/url] 23 Feb 17 : CASA Briefing Newsletter - More comments needed on the future of medicals Time is running down on the chance to have a say on the future of pilot medical certification. CASA needs comments from people across the aviation community on a comprehensive medical discussion paper. While some people have already sent submissions, many more are needed. The paper sets out a range of medical certification issues and puts forward a number of options. These options range from continuing existing medical requirements to developing a new medical certificate for the sport and recreational sectors. They also include re-assessing risk tolerances, streamlining certification practices, aligning sport and recreational standards and mitigating the risks of any changes through operational restrictions. The discussion paper looks at a range of other relevant issues such as CASA’s approach to aviation medicine, the approach to medical certification in four other nations, pilot incapacitation in Australia, accidents and risks, psychiatric conditions and the protection of third parties. The discussion paper makes it clear CASA’s operational objective is to strive to let as many people continue to fly as safely as possible. However, CASA is aware there is a perception from some elements of the pilot community that CASA can take an overly rigorous approach in terms of testing and contesting opinions from other doctors. Comment on the medical discussion paper by 30 March 2017. Regarding Class 2 Medical reform, AOPA put forward a proposal on 23 August 2016 which you may wish to support (2 page summary CASA discussion paper and AOPO recommendation attached). Possibilities include addressing each of the 6 options put forward by CASA, or simply stating that "the AOPA proposal dated 23 August 2016 regarding Class 2 Medical reform is supported by me". Submissions to [email protected] by 30 March 17 and should include in the subject line: 'AvMed discussion paper'. Attached AOPA pdf My recommendation is to support the AOPA proposal which is closely aligned with the UK CAA medical rule brought in last August. Basically you make a declaration ONCE before age 70 that you are not restricted from driving ordinary private motor vehicle and every three years thereafter. The onus on you is to report if and when you would be unable to make this declaration at any time. The UK does not have altitude or aerobatic restrictions. The CASA discussion paper is a result of an approach by AOPA and SAAA to the Minister of Transport, Darren Chester. Unfortunately CASA is trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing the whole medical certification standards issue open. That is not what AOPA/SAAA are talking about. Only the medicals for PRIVATE pilot and something close to the AOPA proposal would be a great relief and save a lot of expense. Below my proposed response to the CASA medical discussion paper. Please at least write in, in support of the AOPA proposal. You may like to emphasis some points below. Submissions to [email protected] by 30 March 17 and should include in the subject line: 'AvMed discussion paper'. Consider sending a copy to your local member & Senator Pauline Hanson as well as Minister of Transport Darren Chester. Contact email addresses for your local member & Hon Darren Chester: Senators & Members Search Results – Page 2 – Parliament of Australia [/url] [email protected][/url] Australian EAA Chapter 1308 response to CASA discussion paper on medical certification Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 strongly supports the AOPA/SAAA proposal on medical certification. It is closely aligned with recent changes in the UK and USA whose regulatory authorities have concluded after examination there is no value in continuing the old medical certification system for PRIVATE pilots. The experiment of efficacy and safety has been run in the USA for many years where PRIVATE glider, motor glider and hot air balloon pilots self certify their medical status. Studies have shown that there is no significant difference in the accident rate due to medical causes (very low in any case) between them and GA pilots who have a Class 3 medical (Class 2 in Australia). The experiment has also been done in Australia for many years where glider pilots self certify and ultralight pilots must be able to show they can drive an ordinary private motor vehicle without restriction. Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 is unaware of any problems with these medical standards as pilots with a Class 2 must in any case self certify on the other 729 days between medical examinations. Accordingly Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 rejects completely the 6 options raised by CASA in this discussion paper. CASA has no evidence to show that a self certification as has been done for glider pilots in Australia and the USA and now in the UK for private pilots or the ordinary private drivers’ medical standard is in anyway detrimental to aviation safety. Hence there is no case for extending the RAMPC (same medical standard as a Class 2) to recreational aviation or developing any other standard than the AOPA proposal for recreational aviators and PRIVATE pilots. It should be noted that there are only two reasons for any standards in aviation: 1. Protection of innocent third parties on the ground from having aircraft crash on them. 2. Protection of other legitimate airspace users (includes fare paying passengers) The overwhelming majority of aircraft crashes are from causes other than medical incapacitation and it is rare for there to be even significant property damage on the ground, let alone injuries and deaths to innocent third parties or other airspace users. Therefore it is untenable to claim that current medical certification in any significant manner prevents risk to the 2 categories of people. It should be noted that private motor vehicle drivers are FAR more likely to do property damage and injure or kill innocent third parties on the ground in their motor vehicles due to sudden medical incapacitation than if they are flying a private aircraft. Society accepts this. Mike Borgelt, President Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308, Inc. 15/3/2017

Icarus and everyone. For once don't say F___ You, I'm OK. Put in a submission. I suggest you just dismiss the CASA talking points as irrelevant as the CASA discussion Paper is only there because AOPA rattled the cage and the CASA DP doesn't even acknowledge the AOPA proposal or the UK and USA changes. Then fully support the AOPA proposal. If you want to have a medical to Class 2 standards at any time just do so. Don't perpetuate the current ridiculous system because you are too lazy to get check ups. Yes, do what Supercub suggests also. Send in the form to the Minister. PRINT the form and put it in a envelope and post it. A pile of paper on the desk is more impressive than emails. Thanks for that Supercub.

Greybeard, take another look at the second chart. No CVD risk score has to be done (it is one of the extra tests) at any age for Class 2 "unless clinically indicated".

Thanks Yenn, but take another careful look at the charts. Particularly the second one. The tests are for Class 1 and Class 3, not Class 2 as far as I can see.

So people, stop complaining here and send in your response to CASA in support of the AOPA proposal.

And if you can't tick the boxes Your RAMPC must be done by a DAME and considered by CASA Avmed. If they pass you you've got a Class 2 anyway. I did say the RAMPC was a bad joke on Australian aviators.

kgwilson, The RAMPC is a HEAVY vehicle driver's licence medical (same as for commercial truck drivers) with additional CASA requirements. I think you'll find those questions are the same as for a Class 2 as is the medical standard. The only thing a RAMPC gets you is that your GP can do it (if you find he or she is willing and will still charge) and you save the cost of registering the exam with CASA. For that you you get a bunch of restrictions. I looked at it but decided for the extra cost the Class 2 was desirable without the restrictions. My DAME is also my GP so I've got nothing to hide. visy, you must be some kind of medical genius. A lot of those conditions are bad luck or genetics.

OK so what's the age required and what are the tests?

Why not mention that, Bruce? The aim of the exercise is TOTAL risk management, not risk management in one small area. Don't spend always limited time and money fixing things that are a very small part of the overall picture. Also know as "affordable safety" for which Dick Smith was unjustly lambasted. It simply means spend the money and effort where it will do the most good. Medical causes of aviation accidents are a very small part of the total, something under 1% when I last looked. More like 0.5% actually and then you have to find if that medical cause would have been picked up in the Aviation Medical. In most cases, no.

Recreational Pilot Licence. Requires RAMPC medical the same medical standard as for a Class 2 PPL medical. A bad joke played on Australian pilots by former CASA boss John McCormick.

Only until end of next week to comment, people. I suggest if nothing else a simple statement that you support the AOPA proposal 100% will do. Put "AvMed discussion paper" in the subject line and send to [email protected] If you fly RAAus this could effect you as one of the CASA proposals is to require the RAMPC medical for you. This is exactly the same medical standard as for a Class 2 PPL medical so if you can't get a Class 2 and are flying RAAus as a result it will stop you from flying. You might also like to mention that the risk to those on the ground is so low that CASA requires carriage of ELB's in order to locate the crash. If the risk was high someone would see it.

If anyone doesn't mind a Class 2 medical every two years because it makes them see a doctor, maybe they should stop being so lazy and do so. Just don't force the requirement on all of us. Some of us have a checkup every year anyway including complete bloods. Helps to have your own personal former RN who is keen on that stuff. What I've seen waddle out of the cockpit of commuter airliners doesn't fill me with any confidence in the medical system for aviation. The public is at greater risk if you drive your car and have a sudden incapacitation event as you can easily cause a head on, run over a pedestrian, cause that oncoming schoolbus with 40 kids to run off the road and rollover or crash into a tree. Aircraft crash all the time for all sorts of reasons and very rarely is even any significant property on the ground damaged let alone deaths and injuries to people. When damage does occur it is likely to be from a larger, usually commercial aircraft flown by a commercial pilot with a Class 1 and there the problem is usually non medical anway. Remember "The State is not your friend". It has its own goals and they don't include, you, your welfare, happiness or freedom.

You can treat twins in two ways: consider it a single and shut down the remaining engine if one fails or design the thing properly so that an engine failure is manageable. Two engines in a properly designed aircraft with performance margins turns a life threatening emergency (engine failure) into an in flight procedure. No brainer. Airliners all have at least two engines. RAAus should be abolished anyway along with any silly restrictions.

Last trip over a year ago in the BD-4 was Ceduna _Esperance non stop. 5:20 with about 20 knots 45 deg off the nose all the way. On the way back 4:33, no wind. Heaps of fuel we arrived at Esperance with 75 litres, enough for 2.5 more hours. Avoid Nullarbor stops if possible. Strip at Caiguna is good, don't know about Border Village or Cocklebiddy, Nullarbor strip I call rough. Caiguna folks are friendly though and have Avgas (expensive) if you need to stop. Overnight at Myelup at Esperance (half as far from town as main airport). need to go to main airport for avgas though(or did a year ago). All great fun.

---------------------------- Not really. The same rules are for everyone and you don't need to be a member of a private body to drive your car. As for the 45 knots - where is the data to justify this? The 61 knot limit is evidence based.

A little thread drift? Just go back and read what has been written. What a shambles the low end of Australian aviation is. A conflicting mish mash of silly rules none of which have much justification (45 knot stall? Really? where did that come from? The FAR 23 61 knot limit came from historical forced landing survival rate data collected in the field - WW2 mainly. Higher weights will allow stronger aircraft with more crashworthy cockpits), overseen by a bunch of mini CASA's all of which owe allegiance to big brother CASA. RAAus/GFA etc could be replaced by a few simple amendments to the regs. regarding PRIVATE aviation. 1. Medical will be RAAus Driver's Licence standard. See also AOPA medical proposal and don't forget to support that in comments to current CASA medical discussion paper. You have until end of March. 2. Owner maintenance permitted on aircraft under certain weight limit/complexity. See Canada for how this works. 3. Formal certification for aircraft under certain weight limit replaced by manufacturer's statement as to what standard the aircraft was designed and tested to. Essentially this is what happens with Experimental amateur built. Having a professional, who has done it before, build your aircraft is arguably safer than nailing one together in your garage (which is permitted). See South Africa which has an enlightened attitude to this. Then we wouldn't have the unedifying spectacle of a government department requiring membership of private bodies in order to carry out certain activities. There would simply be one law for all citizens/residents. Same as when you drive your car. You don't need to be a member of NRMA, RACQ etc to hold a licence and own and use your car.

Guys, there is a post on the front page about the new FAA medical rule, also here: FAA Issues New GA Medical Rule - AVweb flash Article I also have a copy of an ATSB report on medical incapacitation covering the period 1975 to 2006 in Australia. About 160,000 incidents/accidents in that period. 98 were said to have a medical incapacitation component but you should read the report as getting hit by a prop on the ground was one and getting hit by a rotor blade on the ground was another. I guess getting squashed flat as bug hitting a windscreen when the aircraft hits the ground at high speed counts as "medical incapacitation", then? Another was an emergency evacuation of a 747 resulting in a broken collarbone of the F/O. I don't count hypoxia and carbon monoxide poisoning either as these are maintenance/operational issues. I got the report as a pdf, I'll see if I can get the URL.

dutchroll, as Jim McDowall points out the risk analysis has been done. I'm not up on the exact details of the driver's licence medical in the UK but the proposed FAA one involves an initial examination and an online refresher course in medical factors very two years. The CASA or other government mandated medical isn't about YOU or your health. It is about attempted risk mitigation to innocent people on the ground and other airspace users. Aircraft crash all the time for reasons due to bad maintenance or much more usually, utterly stupid pilot decision making or because pilots never were taught to fly properly in the first place. It is EXTREMELY rare that even property on the ground is damaged. Hence any rational risk assessment says that the risk mitigation of having a formal aviation medical is not worth the expense. There is nothing preventing YOU having any standard of medical exam of your choice at any time. The RAMPC is EXACTLY the same medical as for a PPL. It is a HEAVY VEHICLE driver's licence medical with a few extra CASA restrictions, which can be done by a GP. The hazards to innocents are far higher in a private car than in a small aircraft. Consider collapsing at the wheel and running a school bus coming the other way off the road resulting in a rollover or collision with a tree by the bus. This driver's licence medical experiment has been run with no adverse results. Around 40% of Australian private pilots already fly on the RAAus driver's licence medical standard .i.e. not precluded from so doing by a disqualifying medical condition or the GFA self declaration medical (no known medical reason why you shouldn't fly a glider). It has also been run in the USA where private glider, motorglider and balloon pilots fly on a self declaration medical. I don't have the URL's handy but you can search and find that there are at least 3 major studies done over the last 45 years or so on the effectiveness of formal aviation medicals. There was none. In fact, the people without the formal medical had a slightly lower rate of medical incapacitation caused accidents than the one with the formal medical in one study. Probably not statistically significant as the rates were so low anyway. Dick Smith was berated for his stance on "affordable safety" by idiots without a clue. As he said, the alternative is unaffordable safety (pretty much what we have in Australia as light aviation is slowly suffocated to death). What it really means is spending the always limited money and resources for the most effective outcome. As the PPL medical costs AT LEAST around $3.5 million a year in Australia and has been shown to be ineffective the money would better be spent by the pilots on getting some more practice in the aircraft. It is a lot more fun too. I can fly an extra 6 hours in my aircraft for the cost of the medical. As for your truck driver example with the diabetic coma, a few years ago a woman collapsed at the wheel of her car on the Sunshine Coast Motorway, ran across the median and collided head on with a car coming the other way resulting in the death of a child in that car. She didn't go to jail but you might like to consider that she was an insulin dependent diabetic and a GP. I don't believe insulin dependent diabetics need more than a GP clearance to drive and yes, I have had to talk one out of driving when his blood sugar got too low and he got all weird and paranoid. Took me 20 minutes sitting in the front passenger seat to convince him to have a sip of a soft drink whereupon he came good in about a minute and had a sandwich. (Don't get me started on the current medical treatment of diabetes which seems designed to sell drugs and kill and disable people. My wife (former RN) has done a lot of research over the last few years. Search for high fat, moderate protein, low carbohydrate diets.) Anecdotes like yours about the truck driver or mine about the GP don't actually add to any rational analysis of the safety debate. Proper statistical analysis and a hard headed cost/benefit study is required, not some "feelz" that a formal aviation medical is a good idea which might make you or others more comfortable. After all, you are asking that the government put a gun to my head in order to lighten my wallet for no no good purpose.

col, that's nice for you but I have to ask if you inspect and maintain your car and your aircraft, why you weren't having your body regularly inspected too? Eyes are important and I can't believe you didn't notice that one eye was a fair bit better than the other. Anyone over 40 should be being checked by a competent optometrist every 12 months for various eye conditions which can be more easily treated if caught early (glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration, etc)