Jump to content
Bill

Senate hearing into Self-Administration and Dual Standards in Private Pilot Medicals

Recommended Posts

I believe this Senate (19 Nov 2018) hearing was brought about by AOPA's CEO Benjamin Morgan agitating, over the RAA vs PPL's medical standards.

 

I suggest viewing part 2 first.   Morgan is impressive! He knows his stuff, has researched it thoroughly & is articulate (unlike some of the other participants) They’d been invited there to talk about medicals, but Morgan managed to introduce the plethora of problems facing in GA in Australia.

 

Next suggest viewing  Part 3 – CASA has brought in the big guns, but didn't convince the Committee. They've been invited back for another try in 2 weeks.

 

Part 1 - RAA had done their homework & followed the party line. Parachuting Australia's rep  confused everyone!

 

Part 1  RAA, PFA & Warbirds submission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Eto_yeLhs&fbclid=IwAR0JGmDMC_dXu22fl-RQ9sZDf7zz5xzkSqS8mTqn4bZ2h1-TX3k_zEf6ets

 

Part 2 AOPA, GFA, AMROBA & SAAA submission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqOj_E_dLBo&fbclid=IwAR1OYYcYj7qtunvh5i7es8wGxfXfr6zbHx5MSShAOMjt7MfeJ_AzXJZhvjo

 

Part 3  CASA response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zXOBJegco4&fbclid=IwAR0t3Hotbe0ppGkoGm8Wq506Z69aqXrQCvM4ZGop_5aOYl8_B8NL8cJ7UXA

 

Declaring my affiliations - I'm an active participant in RAA, GFA & PPL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two identical aircraft overhead, one piloted by a CASA approved organisation's pilot (RAAus pilot) who self-declares fitness to fly, and the other has to jump through CASA medical hoops and in reality, also self-declares fitness to fly, or not, regardless of any certificate held, on each and every day they fly. Just like the RAAus pilot does successfully.

AOPA position is the RAAus self-declaring medical status system works, CASA has approved it all, so why are they denying PPL holders of same aircraft up to 600kg? Certainly had all the senators shaking their heads in disbelief. They all seem to be be regular guys, who can clearly smell BS at 60 paces.

RAAus legal advisor fella needs to, oh, I dunno, read the RAAus OPS Manual before his next appearance. My goodness. RAAus aircraft are all simple aircraft with fixed pitch and fixed gear??? What The.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spencer Ferrier and Tony King certainly appeared to be out of their depth - apart from a prepared statement came across wanting IMO.  Not really surprising given the dictorial style taken  by RAA admin in recent years, part 4 will of great interest.

The advantage given to a now “private” company by a Govt. Dept. is a big hurdle I believe.

The “great change” to RAA structure from an association to a private registered company has the potential to cause grief.

Certainly interesting times ahead I suspect depending on how much influence a senate inquiry can have and naturally what their actual findings are.

 

My interest is gererated on a few levels being a RAA member, LSA owner,  RPC holder, ex RAA board member and a CPL.

Edited by frank marriott
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What frightened me was the clear fact that the Senators had no knowledge or experience of anything to do with flying - private, recreational or commercial. This enquiry would be greatly assisted by taking the Senators out to an airport used by  2 or 4-seater small aircraft and taking them for a few circuits.

 

Training for operations within CTAs was mentioned. I did my ab initio at Bankstown and became used to flying in CTA from my the time I did  TIF.  I can't for the life of me see why it is not possible for an RAAus student pilot to be trained in CTA procedures. Maybe by applying CTA behaviour at uncontrolled airports, fun flying and commercial operations could function seamlessly.

 

I was impressed by the AOPA representative. Clearly he knows his subject. I'd love to see his further submission of material that the Senators requested. (And what they do with it.)

 

What will become of the very serious allegations he made of misconduct by CASA?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 440032 said:

Two identical aircraft overhead, one piloted by a CASA approved organisation's pilot (RAAus pilot) who self-declares fitness to fly, and the other has to jump through CASA medical hoops and in reality, also self-declares fitness to fly, or not, regardless of any certificate held, on each and every day they fly. Just like the RAAus pilot does successfully.

AOPA position is the RAAus self-declaring medical status system works, CASA has approved it all, so why are they denying PPL holders of same aircraft up to 600kg? Certainly had all the senators shaking their heads in disbelief. They all seem to be be regular guys, who can clearly smell BS at 60 paces.

RAAus legal advisor fella needs to, oh, I dunno, read the RAAus OPS Manual before his next appearance. My goodness. RAAus aircraft are all simple aircraft with fixed pitch and fixed gear??? What The.

That legal advisor is one of the ones who advised RAAus when moving over to a Ltd. Company. That is all I need to say.

I do wonder why the need for a legal advisor? Were they expecting something more complex and incriminating?

The other point he would not have been free, who paid?

KP

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old man emu.

They may be a bit wanting in flight procedures .However they picked up on the lies.

I would love to be a fly on the wall for the next round Glen Sterle is not going to back off, does like the lies.

KP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Benjamin certainly sticks it into CASA...and its well deserved...but it is very disappointing as others have said here that most of the senators on the committee have such a poor knowledge of the aviation industry..only the dude on the far left of screen seemed to have some knowledge.... I havent watched the other 2 videos yet. My only other comment though is the weight issue. It was inferred the aircraft were exactly the same at times and that is not strictly correct. Yes you can have a 600kg aircraft in VH rego no problem but mostly of course they are somewhat heavier but in the overall reality it doesnt make a difference in flying them except for the training to do so. Also I dont believe the CTA situation was properly explained either

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, old man emu said:

What frightened me was the clear fact that the Senators had no knowledge or experience of anything to do with flying - private, recreational or commercial. This enquiry would be greatly assisted by taking the Senators out to an airport used by  2 or 4-seater small aircraft and taking them for a few circuits.

 

Training for operations within CTAs was mentioned. I did my ab initio at Bankstown and became used to flying in CTA from my the time I did  TIF.  I can't for the life of me see why it is not possible for an RAAus student pilot to be trained in CTA procedures. Maybe by applying CTA behaviour at uncontrolled airports, fun flying and commercial operations could function seamlessly.

 

I was impressed by the AOPA representative. Clearly he knows his subject. I'd love to see his further submission of material that the Senators requested. (And what they do with it.)

 

What will become of the very serious allegations he made of misconduct by CASA?

Senators are now lumped in with journalists as not knowing anything about flying? 

Like journalists they are not industry-specific people like you and I where we know the legislation and habits of our industries.

I just ran a check on current Federal Government Ministerial responsibilities, and it came to 55 different industries.

And those are the parent industries.

I was in a Vicroads forward planning (40 years) group some years ago, and we were looking at the type of road designs we will need. All of us were experienced in the transport industry.

We'd been going down a path we thought was all-inclusive for an hour of so, when a guy from South Australia got up, and walked to the white board in the auditorium.

The auditorium was very large, with a capacity of 500 - 600 and the whiteboard ran the full width of the room.

He started at the left wall and wrote headings from one side of the room to the other, and then he walked back and filled in the columns, and we were gobsmacked at how much transport activity was taking place that we have never even thought about.

These Senators were probably pulled together at short notice to hear the evidence given, and decide where to go next with that information.

Depending on how long the session lasted, they could have another couple of Committee meetings that day which could be on Water Resources, Tourism, Population, Senior Australians, or Indigenous Health.

You and I would know instantly the number of hours a person can drive a truck before a break is required, but the Senators wouldn't be expected to know that.

It's a big complicated world.

 

I agree with you about taking them out and putting them in the equipment, when you can.

 

I guess everyone realises that the Jabiru registered VH and allowed into CTA is NOT the same aircraft that is registered in RAA, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Senators found out that what Ben Morgan was implying was not correct. It makes me wonder if he knows.

 

If what comes out of this is a directive to CASA to investigate all safety records and establish the risk factors in areas where RA aircraft operate (outside CTA, not over dense populations etc), compared to Private GA operations, add in any ICAO standards, and then look at a safe (non-liable) standard either for each or both, results in less onerous medical standards in GA, that would be a good thing, but pandora's box is being opened, and it could be that a common, non-discriminatory standard is established which would require medical testing of RA pilots, or it could result in a less onerous process for GA pilots and a higher level, with testing for RA pilots. In the meantime there could be changes in the road transport industry which is responsible to the same Minister for a higher standard.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just following on from the last post I just noticed that The Australian Trucking Association was presenting on road safety at a Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and transport Reference Committee hearing, also last Monday, so the good Senators' eyes could have been spinning at the shortcomings of the PBS system, the high risk of allowing the new road train configurations into our city roads, the spike in truck and dog pedestrian fatalities, the use of B Doubles to deliver to urban factories without de-coupling, and mandatory noise-production devices for electric trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to be carefull that they don’t get sidetracked with the aircraft V CTA argument -  RAA registered aircraft are already allowed CTA access and have been for over 10 years subject to CAO 95.55 restrictions, including training in both class C & D (with a CASA medical).

Instrument requirements for day VFR are ASI,ALT, compass & Watch (with transponder for class C).

 

The issue is the medical standard for RPC RPL & PPL holders and nothing to do with CPL & ATPL.

 

Listening to the reply’s from CASA one could easily form the opinion that increased MTOW and CTA (for RPC holders) are nowhere as close to fulfilment as we are led to believe by some?

Edited by frank marriott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be fooled into thinking the senators know nothing about aviation. I get the impression they already know the answer to most questions they ask. And that's why most of them, particularly the Chair, are so "JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES or NO" with some things. They can spot diversion and confusion tactics a mile away. They don't have time or tolerance for that. They have many people and organisations appearing before them, they can smell BS a mile away and want to get to the bottom of a matter without all the song and dance thrown at them.

 

Self-declaring medical arrangements work for the mission in question - private flights with one passenger.

PPL 30+ years, I have an under 600kg VH plane though, so I'm an interested party to all this.

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that the Chair at one point implied that he had been a policeman. Having that experience with the legal fraternity, he would most likely know that you don't ask a question during a witness examination to which you do not know the answer.

 

As I have said before, I am licensed to drive a bendy-bus, fully loaded with Primary School children, across Sydney Harbour Bridge in peak hour traffic because I have passed my heavy vehicle driver's medical, but I am not permitted to fly a VH registered one-seater aircraft in the skies above west Tibooburra because I am dealing with sleep apnoea by the use of a CPAP machine. However, I am OK to fly an RAAus registered aircraft over most of the Sydney Metropolitan area.

 

Without starting a debate on her various political policies, I wonder how those hearing would have  gone if Pauline had been a member. After all,  at least she would have gained some experience of very light aviation when using the Jab during her  election campaigning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched part 2 so far. I agree that Ben Morgan is exceptionally well informed and very articulate. The committee chair Senator Barry O'Sullivan, is the person who chaired the inquiry into the Jabiru engine limitations fiasco a few years ago and he was very scathing of the CASA BS back then. Again he knows most of the answers but needs documented and verifiable evidence. The problem was and still is, that the government of the day does NOTHING. Even when they accepted 37 of the 38 recommendations of the Forsyth report they did NOTHING. CASA just lies and says they are implementing changes and then everyone goes away and all is eventually forgotten. There is no report card. There is a change of government and Ministers and so the merry-go-round begins again.

Edited by kgwilson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Without starting a debate on her various political policies, I wonder how those hearing would have  gone if Pauline had been a member. After all,  at least she would have gained some experience of very light aviation when using the Jab during her  election campaigning. 

she's on a bunch of senate committees and rarely turns up and those that I seen her in she rarely gets through a question without getting distracted.

 

I watched the first 30 minutes of the first video and am shocked that the representatives are so inarticulate, it took the 3 of them 30 minutes to explain medical requirements.

 

Edited by fly_tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear-O-Dear, talk about a cluster muck-up. 

 

The only people who knew what they were talking about was AOPA.   

 

RA-Aus were absolutely terrible. CASA were shown as bullies.  What an embarrassment for everyone except AOPA.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just finished watching all 3 parts. Tony did his best but was unable to articulate his thoughts into simple meaningful language that the senators could understand. Ferrier was hopeless & got it wrong anyway. Monke & Linke would have been way more professional. I don't think Mark really knew why he was there & Hill was fairly ineffective though had a couple of pointed comments at the end. CASA just lied again & had no response as to why the risk (likelihood) altered when entering CTA. They were just as hopeless (& lied about the number of engine failures etc)  during the Jabiru engine limitations enquiry. AOPA won the day hands down. Will this and the subsequent CASA grilling change anything? From previous history the answer is No though O'Sullivan had interesting comments about his dealings with CASA in relation to its (Toxic) culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA cops a bit of heat and then its back to business as usual, O'Sullivan is out after the next election so they are just playing the waiting game. 

Edited by fly_tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, turboplanner said:

snip ......

 

I guess everyone realises that the Jabiru registered VH and allowed into CTA is NOT the same aircraft that is registered in RAA, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Senators found out that what Ben Morgan was implying was not correct. It makes me wonder if he knows.

 

snip.

 

 

 

 

 

Ummm - you are  incorrect in that. And Ben Morgan is correct. In the context of what he was trying to imply he was also making a correct generalisation. 

 

The EXACT same aircraft ( Jabirus) can be registered in either RAA or VH with absolutely no change to the aircraft. 

 And as long as it has the transponder and radio it can be flown by a ppl/RAAus pilot into CTA. 

 

The only Jabiru that can’t is the four seat J430.

 

But aside from jabirus, every aircraft that can be registered in RAAus can be registered in VH albeit in experimental class.

 

If equipped with certain engine types it may not be able to fly over populated areas as such but can be VH and if equipped with transponder & radio can enter CTA. 

Edited by Jaba-who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaba-who said:

Ummm - you are  incorrect in that. And Ben Morgan is correct. In the context of what he was trying to imply he was also making a correct generalisation. 

 

The EXACT same aircraft ( Jabirus) can be registered in either RAA or VH with absolutely no change to the aircraft. 

 And as long as it has the transponder and radio it can be flown by a ppl/RAAus pilot into CTA. 

 

 

And when that happens with the intent of operating in CTA, very importantly THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT and along with the different pilot qualifications and the different area, the whole package goes together to currently require a more stringent medical.

 

Yes, they have the same airframe and yes they have the same engine, but it's where you are going that makes the difference, and if that con gets any traction it will soon be sorted out.

 

 

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

And when that happens with the intent of operating in CTA, very importantly THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT and along with the different pilot qualifications and the different area, the whole package goes together to currently require a more stringent medical.

 

Yes, they have the same airframe and yes they have the same engine, but it's where you are going that makes the difference, and if that con gets any traction it will soon be sorted out.

 

 

They either ARE the same aircraft or they ARE NOT the same aircraft.

You can’t have it both ways. 

 

They ARE the same aircraft and that’s the basis of the argument that two different standards of medical should not apply based on the numbers or letters painted on the aircraft. 

 

If CASA has detirmined that one type of medical is suitable for what ever type of air space is involved CTA or Class G then that one standard should apply. The type if aircraft is irrelevant. 

 

This medical question is not just about CTA it’s about flying in any airspace where dual standards currently apply - which is NOT CTA. There are two different standards for RAAUs and GA flying that same aircraft in Class G.  

 

 

Edited by Jaba-who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaba you are correct of course with reference to CTA.The conditions are listed in ANO 95.55

The ONLY limit currently is pilot qualifications/medical.

e.g. I have been using  class C&D for 10 years in a RAA registered aircraft

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this subject has been brought to a head because CASA has actively stated they will consider RAAus endorsements for CTA. 

 

This clearly extends the dual medicals dichotomy even further because they have said nothing about increasing the RAAus medical requirements  to be able to use that CTA endorsement. Nor anything about decreasing GA pilots requirements for medicals. 

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frank marriott said:

Jaba you are correct of course with reference to CTA.The conditions are listed in ANO 95.55

The ONLY limit currently is pilot qualifications/medical.

e.g. I have been using  class C&D for 10 years in a RAA registered aircraft

But lose your medical and you are locked out.

The craziness being - move 1/2 a mile to whatever side you need to be outside CTA and you’d be perfectly legal again. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 5:00 AM, turboplanner said:

Just following on from the last post I just noticed that The Australian Trucking Association was presenting on road safety at a Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and transport Reference Committee hearing, also last Monday, so the good Senators' eyes could have been spinning at the shortcomings of the PBS system, the high risk of allowing the new road train configurations into our city roads, the spike in truck and dog pedestrian fatalities, the use of B Doubles to deliver to urban factories without de-coupling, and mandatory noise-production devices for electric trucks.

I know it's off topic, but would the truck and dog v pedestrian be at all related to use of mobile devices and stepping between the truck and dog as they pass?

Making pedestrians responsible for their own safety might actually get some results. Maybe start suing their estate for damage to property and psych caused by wandering around with their head firmly in their sphincter.

We always seem to try and fix the symptoms, but not address the problem.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I know it's off topic, but would the truck and dog v pedestrian be at all related to use of mobile devices and stepping between the truck and dog as they pass?

Making pedestrians responsible for their own safety might actually get some results. Maybe start suing their estate for damage to property and psych caused by wandering around with their head firmly in their sphincter.

We always seem to try and fix the symptoms, but not address the problem.

 

The problem most likely is that the 7 axle truck and dog only requires a HC license and no medical. The same truck  as a 7 axle B double requires a MC(multi combination) license and medical is required. This is in NSW, so it's not only aviation that has stupid double standards.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

×