Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Work starts on new self-declared medical - The CASA Briefing

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Work starts on new self-declared medical - The CASA Briefing

Old 30th Nov 2021, 06:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 92
Work starts on new self-declared medical - The CASA Briefing

"Once the technical working group has completed its review CASA will put out a detailed proposal for broad consultation. This is likely to occur in the first part of 2022."

Should we be hopeful, excited even?

The CASA Briefing
Possum1 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2021, 09:35
  #2 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now officially on Life's scrap heap, now being an Age Pensioner and not liking it one little bit! I'd rather be flying but in the meantime still continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 67
Posts: 2,757
Devil

In my best Elliot Goblet voice:

"I'm so excited, I'm beside myself with joy!"
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2021, 13:07
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,078
Old news - see other post re class 5 medical. Not holding my breath either!
triadic is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2021, 17:57
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by triadic View Post
Old news - see other post re class 5 medical. Not holding my breath either!
Yes - I missed that thread. At least the editor of the CASA Briefing thought it was important enough to lead with that story.

You quoted UK and US self-certification in the other thread. CASA could save on all the consultation as this matter has already been discussed ad nauseum in these countries and just publish a proposal tomorrow. Wouldn't that be nice?

None of us are getting any younger out here.
Possum1 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2021, 22:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,521
Just publish a proposal! Good grief..!, What do you think is going to occupy a horde of paper shufflers for a year or more if they can’t write an encyclopaedia of obtuse ideas on how we might be consulted and a time frame for a final edict in 20??.
us oldies will probably all have passed on by then.
Doing just what is logical, practical and works in other countries is anathema for CAsA.
I t is necessary to have a uniquely australianised document only suitable for Australian citizens because the air down under is so different.
And Aviation is so dangerous only we can keep you safe.!
aroa is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2021, 23:32
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,922
The process itself is a manifestation of CASA’s congenital inability to make decisions on the basis of objective data. The experiment has been run and the results are in.

We should not underestimate the scaremongering skills of AvMed and other interest groups who leverage off the human mind’s natural tendency to overestimate the probabilities of events with awful consequences. That’s why, in the 21st century, it’s ‘acceptable’ for me to drive a car with 5 POB towing a caravan with an all-up weight of 4,500kg, night and day in all kinds of weather, sharing the roads with bus loads of school children, without having a medical certificate from ‘RoadMed’, but if I jump into an aircraft less than quarter the weight of my ute and caravan, with one passenger, and go flying: Oh the humanity! The potential death plunge and mid-air collision caused by sudden incapacitation requires medical scrutiny and medical certification, no matter what the objective probabilities of either of those outcomes happens to be. (Unless the aircraft I jump into is a GFA glider or RAAus registered – go figure.)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 00:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,320
You quoted UK and US self-certification in the other thread. CASA could save on all the consultation as this matter has already been discussed ad nauseum in these countries and just publish a proposal tomorrow. Wouldn't that be nice?

None of us are getting any younger out here.
Unfortunately the UK and US rules are different, if there was concensus it would be easier, but as usual the UK is more restrictive than the US.

Things they need to avoid is the 'seat' limit ideal, a max take off weight is all that is needed. Make it a simple 3 tons to allow most six seater varieties (I would prefer same as road vehicles for consistency of 4.5 tons as i don't see any extra complication of flying a Navajo or Chieftain VFR any more dangerous than a Jabiru). My reasoning is any seat limit puts pressure on the pilot to squeeze him and his family into something unsuited for the job. It's not like tomorrow there will be a splurge of PPLs with no medical buying million dollar plus twins anyway, so the financial aspect controls it.

Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.

Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.

Simple rules like cant fly IFR, night, Aerobatics, etc as these place additional stress on the body and a full medical is required then, as its outside the realms of what a normal driver would experience. It would be probably even acceptable to place additional rules on weather conditions as to ensure VMC opperation.
43Inches is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 00:25
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,922
Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.
It’s stupid also because self-certified pilots have been flying over built up areas in Australia for decades.

Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.
It’s stupid also because self-certified pilots have been flying in controlled airspace in Australia for decades.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 12:24
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
Unfortunately the UK and US rules are different, if there was concensus it would be easier, but as usual the UK is more restrictive than the US.

Things they need to avoid is the 'seat' limit ideal, a max take off weight is all that is needed. Make it a simple 3 tons to allow most six seater varieties (I would prefer same as road vehicles for consistency of 4.5 tons as i don't see any extra complication of flying a Navajo or Chieftain VFR any more dangerous than a Jabiru). My reasoning is any seat limit puts pressure on the pilot to squeeze him and his family into something unsuited for the job. It's not like tomorrow there will be a splurge of PPLs with no medical buying million dollar plus twins anyway, so the financial aspect controls it.

Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.
If you are fit enough to hold a driving licence
Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.

Simple rules like cant fly IFR, night, Aerobatics, etc as these place additional stress on the body and a full medical is required then, as its outside the realms of what a normal driver would experience. It would be probably even acceptable to place additional rules on weather conditions as to ensure VMC opperation.

Actually the UK PMD is quite simple.
If you are currently fit to hold a driving licence you are good to go.
PPL privileges only. UK airspace, VFR Day only. Max 4 seats. 2000kgs. max weight.

Has got many pilots airborne again here.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 14:06
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 68
Posts: 1,067
Not to mention saving over a grand a year that I can spend on flying.

Just a shame its non ICAO requiring my flights in the USA to be P u/t.
Dave Gittins is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 23:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,320
PPL privileges only. UK airspace, VFR Day only. Max 4 seats. 2000kgs. max weight.
I agree with it's simple, but I don't like the 'seat' limits. Make it a passenger limit fine, but you would be safer flying a 6 seater with 4 on board than a 4 seater maxed out with pax and bags. What does it matter if its a 6 seater with 4 on board under 2 ton, just means you can fly a lance, or saratoga or bonanza. The US rules are better as it does allow more six seat twins with the higher MTOW and up to 5 passengers for similar requirements. We have to remember there are a few heavy foru seaters out there with significant performance with Cirrus types, so what is the real difference between flying an SR-22 and a PA-32. SR-22 and PA-32R have the same MTOW. The SR-22 is much faster, has a higher stall speed (approach speed) and higher basic weight, why would I be limited to an SR-22 just because of seats there is no valid safety reason here....

Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Dec 2021 at 23:47.
43Inches is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 00:55
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,922
CASA saying it's "in the interests of the safety of air navigation" makes it a valid reason, no matter how ridiculous.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 12:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
I agree with it's simple, but I don't like the 'seat' limits. Make it a passenger limit fine, but you would be safer flying a 6 seater with 4 on board than a 4 seater maxed out with pax and bags. What does it matter if its a 6 seater with 4 on board under 2 ton, just means you can fly a lance, or saratoga or bonanza. The US rules are better as it does allow more six seat twins with the higher MTOW and up to 5 passengers for similar requirements. We have to remember there are a few heavy foru seaters out there with significant performance with Cirrus types, so what is the real difference between flying an SR-22 and a PA-32. SR-22 and PA-32R have the same MTOW. The SR-22 is much faster, has a higher stall speed (approach speed) and higher basic weight, why would I be limited to an SR-22 just because of seats there is no valid safety reason here....

I think that the initial CAA alleviation from a medical by an AME was aimed at recreational pilots.The 4 seat rule is just an arbitrary limit by a clueless Neddy in the UK CAA. They probably don't realise that some private pilots fly six seaters. Although the 2000kgs limit is also a factor.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 13:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 68
Posts: 1,067
The UK Secretary of State for Transport could have told him !
Dave Gittins is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.