Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSwr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/misc/form166.pdf

 

Following on from another thread that had drifted I thought I would start another specific thread.

 

Reading this form is not making a lot of sense and I am sure doctor's and pilots alike will be confused.

 

I am RA-Aus current and considering resurrecting my PPL down the RPL path. Problem is I had a stent inserted seven years ago. No heart attack but luckily found the blocked artery in advance of any issues. I have a stress test every 12-18 months only as a precaution and never had another issue. Reading this form I would answer yes to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (angioplasty) and be an instant fail and would then have the option to apply for a Class 2 medical.

 

However, according to page 3, point 3, if I had experienced a heart attack seven years ago and been under same constant care I would not meet the definition of heart failure and be eligible to pass. I am afraid I'm missing something so would appreciate if others could have a read of this form.

 

It also bangs on about basal cell skin cancer (non life threatening) on Page 2 and how it could rule you out unless you meet the ongoing care requirements but then on Page 13 - Have you had Cancer - Yes/No (excluding basal cell carcinoma). Go figure?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although related, heart failure and heart attack ( acute myocardial infarction or in the latest lingo "acute coronary syndrome")are very different conditions. The prognosis for heart failure is different to that of post infarction without failure.

 

I have read many comments that imply that stenting or bypassing has "fixed" the underlying problem but this is not true. If one of your arteries has been sufficiently occluded (narrowed or blocked) that it has required an intervention that says something about most if not all the arteries in your entire body. The stenting has only fixed the most critical one at that time. That person is significantly more at risk of arterial damage elsewhere including the brain. There are many anomalies within that document that don't make much sense. If you have any kind of medical history a class 2 will be much easier to get.

 

The " drivers/austroads " medical is actually a higher medical standard but is less paperwork (therefore easier ????) but only available to those lucky enough not to have any medical history. My interpretation is that it is an alternative process rather than an alternative standard.

 

I would be happy to field any questions privately,

 

Cheers Peter

 

Rural/remote GP

 

Expedition Medical Officer

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter,

 

as I see it there are 2 elements to the DL Medical

 

1. the Ausroads standard (to a private driver level)

 

&2. CASA extras.

 

Where do you see the major stumbling block to the average applicant - in the Ausroads standard or the CASA extra ones and would you hazard a guess of the numbers who would not make the grade as opposed to those who would?

 

cheers

 

Col

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Col,

 

The problem/difficulty is all in the CASA add ons. This raises the standard dramatically to make it essentially the same as a class 2.

 

The difference is in the application process not the standard. In some ways the class 2 is easier as you can bring along evidence to justify your claim which the DAME can review and make a recommendation on. In the drivers license medical the examining doctor has no leeway to exercise any judgement. Tick any of the wrong boxes and it is an automatic fail.

 

This all a change in process. It will be very difficult for anyone with any medical problem to get through.

 

For the standard to change there will have to be a huge shift in risk assessment and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

 

Peter

 

If you want an opinion on any specific condition, just ask. I can give you an opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. Bottom line is that AVMED says jump and we say "how high".

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

AVMED have been known to disagree with heart specialists - I have my own opinion about who would have the greater expertise.

 

I, and many others, have often wondered why the "medical/doctors association" (or whatever its correct name is) have not challenged AVMED about challenging their professionalism - maybe there is insufficient pilot numbers to make the problem worthwhile ??

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSwr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/misc/form166.pdfFollowing on from another thread that had drifted I thought I would start another specific thread.

 

Reading this form is not making a lot of sense and I am sure doctor's and pilots alike will be confused.

 

I am RA-Aus current and considering resurrecting my PPL down the RPL path. Problem is I had a stent inserted seven years ago. No heart attack but luckily found the blocked artery in advance of any issues. I have a stress test every 12-18 months only as a precaution and never had another issue. Reading this form I would answer yes to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (angioplasty) and be an instant fail and would then have the option to apply for a Class 2 medical.

 

However, according to page 3, point 3, if I had experienced a heart attack seven years ago and been under same constant care I would not meet the definition of heart failure and be eligible to pass. I am afraid I'm missing something so would appreciate if others could have a read of this form.

 

It also bangs on about basal cell skin cancer (non life threatening) on Page 2 and how it could rule you out unless you meet the ongoing care requirements but then on Page 13 - Have you had Cancer - Yes/No (excluding basal cell carcinoma). Go figure?

Hi Louie,

 

Ever dozed off in front of the TV? (Section 3.4)

 

Ever dozed off "Lying down to rest in the afternoon when circumstances permit" (Section 3.7)

 

...oh, and by the way "Do you use illicit drugs?" (Section 4.11) - coz people who do are REALLY going to tick that box, aren't they?

 

I just scratch my head....

 

Neil

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

H

 

Hi Louie,Ever dozed off in front of the TV? (Section 3.4)

 

Ever dozed off "Lying down to rest in the afternoon when circumstances permit" (Section 3.7)

 

...oh, and by the way "Do you use illicit drugs?" (Section 4.11) - coz people who do are REALLY going to tick that box, aren't they?

 

I just scratch my head....

 

Neil

Hi Neil,

 

Sorry for the delay getting back to you as I just woke up. Must have been the big night on the drugs!

 

Seriously, I too scratch my head regarding this form. Can't believe the ambiguity and lack of clarity.

 

Saw my cardiologist last night for a stress test which was all good. He said passing a Class 2 will be no problem so will go down that path.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Although related, heart failure and heart attack ( acute myocardial infarction or in the latest lingo "acute coronary syndrome")are very different conditions. The prognosis for heart failure is different to that of post infarction without failure.I have read many comments that imply that stenting or bypassing has "fixed" the underlying problem but this is not true. If one of your arteries has been sufficiently occluded (narrowed or blocked) that it has required an intervention that says something about most if not all the arteries in your entire body. The stenting has only fixed the most critical one at that time. That person is significantly more at risk of arterial damage elsewhere including the brain. There are many anomalies within that document that don't make much sense. If you have any kind of medical history a class 2 will be much easier to get.

The " drivers/austroads " medical is actually a higher medical standard but is less paperwork (therefore easier ????) but only available to those lucky enough not to have any medical history. My interpretation is that it is an alternative process rather than an alternative standard.

 

I would be happy to field any questions privately,

 

Cheers Peter

 

Rural/remote GP

 

Expedition Medical Officer

Thanks Peter for the reply. Glad you agree re the anomalies. Looks like I will go down the Class 2 path.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Louie,Ever dozed off in front of the TV? (Section 3.4)

 

Ever dozed off "Lying down to rest in the afternoon when circumstances permit" (Section 3.7)

 

...oh, and by the way "Do you use illicit drugs?" (Section 4.11) - coz people who do are REALLY going to tick that box, aren't they?

 

I just scratch my head....

 

Neil

I think those same questions are on the form that has to be filled out when doing a class 1/2 medical IF my memory serves me right.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think those same questions are on the form that has to be filled out when doing a class 1/2 medical IF my memory serves me right.

.....Does your memory ever NOT serve you right (87.2).

 

...OK, OK I made that up.....004_oh_yeah.gif.82b3078adb230b2d9519fd79c5873d7f.gif

 

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Louie,Ever dozed off in front of the TV? (Section 3.4)

 

Ever dozed off "Lying down to rest in the afternoon when circumstances permit" (Section 3.7)

 

...oh, and by the way "Do you use illicit drugs?" (Section 4.11) - coz people who do are REALLY going to tick that box, aren't they?

 

I just scratch my head....

 

Neil

I haven't won Lotto, so I'm not likely to need to pass the medical, but I fall asleep in front of the TV, the computer (zzzzz), sitting on the sofa, you name it. I also get dizzy when I bend over (emptying the catcher on the mower) or stand up quickly. I also have a pacemaker, had atrial fibrillation since, and have suffered bladder cancer. Lucky I don't need it.

 

Peter

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maj Millard

Bit off topic but on the subject of strange questions. When filling in the application form for Permenant Residency in the US two questions stood out to me....

 

1. Are you a sexual deviat ?

 

2. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party ?..

 

Seems they still had a thing about those damn pinkies infiltrating the country... Bit late for the sexual deviates.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit off topic but on the subject of strange questions. When filling in the application form for Permenant Residency in the US two questions stood out to me....1. Are you a sexual deviat ?

 

2. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party ?..

 

Seems they still had a thing about those damn pinkies infiltrating the country... Bit late for the sexual deviates.

....and I always liked these 2 from the US Visa Waiver form :-

 

1. Have you ever been involved in genocide?

 

2. Have you been involved in moral turpitude?

 

...especially as there was no explanation as to what the hell "moral turpitude" actually was. Turns out it includes crimes such as having committed "Mayhem" or "Pandering", which I was also unaware had specific legal definitions (I thought mayhem described my house on a Saturday when the kids were over - guilty, Milud).

 

Cheers,

 

Neilt

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Although related, heart failure and heart attack ( acute myocardial infarction or in the latest lingo "acute coronary syndrome")are very different conditions. The prognosis for heart failure is different to that of post infarction without failure.I have read many comments that imply that stenting or bypassing has "fixed" the underlying problem but this is not true. If one of your arteries has been sufficiently occluded (narrowed or blocked) that it has required an intervention that says something about most if not all the arteries in your entire body. The stenting has only fixed the most critical one at that time. That person is significantly more at risk of arterial damage elsewhere including the brain. There are many anomalies within that document that don't make much sense. If you have any kind of medical history a class 2 will be much easier to get.

The " drivers/austroads " medical is actually a higher medical standard but is less paperwork (therefore easier ????) but only available to those lucky enough not to have any medical history. My interpretation is that it is an alternative process rather than an alternative standard.

 

I would be happy to field any questions privately,

 

Cheers Peter

 

Rural/remote GP

 

Expedition Medical Officer

Hi Peter

 

Thanks for popping up on this thread. To have someone with your knowledge and experience on here is invaluable. Looks like I might have to go down the Class 2 medical as well on what you have said. I have a appointment with my cardiologist in the next couple of weeks I will ask him the question. He is well known and no doubt would have been involved with class 2 in some form. Dr Mac is my cardio specialist well that's how he is known around the place you probably know who I am talking about well if you are in Qld. So I will see what he says

 

Mark

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit off topic but on the subject of strange questions. When filling in the application form for Permenant Residency in the US two questions stood out to me....1. Are you a sexual deviat ?

 

2. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party ?..

 

Seems they still had a thing about those damn pinkies infiltrating the country... Bit late for the sexual deviates.

Sooooooo.......... What did you answer?003_cheezy_grin.gif.c5a94fc2937f61b556d8146a1bc97ef8.gif

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sooooooo.......... What did you answer?003_cheezy_grin.gif.c5a94fc2937f61b556d8146a1bc97ef8.gif

Sexual deviant with a penchant for Pandering? 029_crazy.gif.9816c6ae32645165a9f09f734746de5f.giftaz.gif.c750d78125a77f219b0619b1f23e3e90.gif (sorry must be too much turpentine. Anyways Pandas are definitely communist).

 

We can't laugh at the Yanks for the 'are you a terrorist' question when Australia issues red 'not a terrorist' cards (for a fee).

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I want to make sure i have this correct as i am booked in for a class 2 medical on 15th sept

 

Im going RPL for two main reasons

 

1. To regularly fly thru controlled airspace and to land at controlled aerodromes

 

2. To very occasionally fly a four seater with more then one passenger

 

So i need a class 2 medical right ??

 

Not this : Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate

 

Also once ive done the medical i then need a check flight with a casa examiner...

 

But who does the CTA training??

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I want to make sure i have this correct as i am booked in for a class 2 medical on 15th septIm going RPL for two main reasons

 

1. To regularly fly thru controlled airspace and to land at controlled aerodromes

 

2. To very occasionally fly a four seater with more then one passenger

 

So i need a class 2 medical right ??

 

Not this : Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate

 

Also once ive done the medical i then need a check flight with a casa examiner...

 

But who does the CTA training??

In relation to the medical requirements for a RPL the standard is a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate (RAMPC). The link to the form is in my first post on this thread. This was originally supposed to be a simple drivers licence standard but has morphed into a higher requirement. If you have any issues that would preclude you from passing the RAMPC you will need to go down the class 2 path. A class 2 would also allow you to obtain a PPL.

 

I'll let someone else address the training requirements.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate limits you to one passenger. The Class 2 allows you to carry more than one passenger.

 

I understand the flight review just has to be an instructor. Likewise the endorsements for controlled airspace and controlled aerodromes can be issued by an instructor after undergoing aeronautical knowledge examination for the endorsement and completing the flight training. Who is doing the instruction for those? Don't know yet but am hoping that a suitable GA school sees the opportunity and does it without screwing the RA Aus crowd or a RA Aus instructor adds GA instructor qualifications to allow them to do it.

 

The RPL is just a paperwork exercise but the endorsements and flight review are the problem if the GA instructors are not going to play ball.

 

Forms below to transition from RA Aus to RPL with endorsements and flight review

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-1ra.pdf

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-1re.pdf

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-9fr.pdf

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-9pic.pdf

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the new Part 61 flight flight crew training and licensing regulation

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_101937

 

Who can conduct a flight review?

 

A flight instructor with a grade 1 or 2 training endorsement can conduct an aircraft class or type rating flight review for an aircraft they are authorised to fly.

 

A flight instructor with a training endorsement for a rating can conduct a flight review for that rating.

 

Simulator instructors can also conduct flight reviews in flight simulation training devices approved for that purpose.

 

CASA can authorise a person to conduct a flight review. For example, there might be a special situation where there is no flight instructor with the right authorisations available and there is a specific operational need for the review to be undertaken.

 

A pilot conducting a flight review must be authorised to fly the type of aircraft being used for the flight review. If the review is for an operational rating, the pilot must also be authorised to conduct training for that rating.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it needs to be a CASA approved Examiner, not just someone with an instructor rating. Most schools CFI generally has that endorsement

Correct. What was called an ATO,(Approved Testing Officer), was a delegation from CASA to most GA CFI's, and they could test for initial issue of PPL,CPL or IF, IR. Under Part 61 they will become a Flight Examiner. To gain your RPL, (assuming you hold a PC under RAAus), you must do a review with a FE - not just any GA instructor.

 

Your endorsements under your RPL can then be done by any GA instructor who holds those endorsements or ratings. All GA instructors hold all CTA, navigation approvals so this broadens out your options for training once you have your initial RPL issued.

 

Probably the most RAAus 'friendly' GA flying schools are those where the two are combined, or are back-to-back operations. But, many more GA schools will have to face the reality that, a far larger proportion of ab initio training will probably be conducted by RAAus schools.

 

On the subject of medicals - I strongly advise you to do your Class 2 medical because there are many possible tripwires in the Drivers Licence Aviation medical. This then covers your onwards movement to full PPL.

 

happy days,

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the form 61-1RE For the CTAirspace and CTAerodrome endorsements it says

 

The following requirments where met for applicable endorsement at the time of assessment:

 

CTAirspace Endorsement

 

Tick box - Holds a flight radio endorsemnt - im fin i got that in my RAAus Certificate

 

Tick Box - Pass in Aeronautical Knowledge Examination for the endorsement

 

So does that mean to get the CTA i will need to do the CASA BAK, even though i have already done the RAAus tests...

 

PS I have RAAus Pilot cert with XCountry and PAX plus obviously radio as part of that 130 hours

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...