Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
Methinks there is some false logic in that argument. A counter argument is that the aviation medical system has kept people out of the skies that shouldn't be flying due to medical reasons . (that is, the medicals are filtering out those who are unfit to fly and hence that the cause of incidents due to medical causes is low, 5 out of 800 = 0.625%). Saying that 1% is different to 0.5% is meaningless without confidence intervals, and suffers from the problem of rare events being compared. If there were no medicals, the numbers of accidents do the medical causes would be higher. Regards Michael -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net on behalf of Mike Borgelt Sent: Fri 10/11/2013 4:10 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals No, the lack of value of aviation medicals has been demonstrated by long pragmatic and statistical experience. I don't have the URL to hand but one study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. The BGA did a study many years ago of 800 glider accidents in the UK. IIRC about 5 may have had a medical component which would seem to be in accordance with the US experience. Of those, again IIRC, one was a medical condition that wouldn't be picked up in a PPL medical, two had PPLs and one was a serving military officer who had more frequent medicals of a higher stringency than a PPL medical. Even CASA recognised this in writing in a discussion paper in 2002 about the proposed Recreational Pilot's Licence. They proposed the same medical standard as a State driver's Licence (very little, looking at what drives). They specifically said some in the aviation industry might be uncomfortable with this but that the stats were clear that formal medicals did nothing for safety. This was a welcome attitude in the regulator - actual evidence based rule making. Of course the cretins in the GFA sent a couple of people (Meertens and Hall) along to the Minister to kill this proposal for gliding, along with the collusion of Paul Middleton of the RAAus. One of the more notable acts of bastardry in Australian aviation which has a long history of such. Mike At 05:41 PM 11/10/2013, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CEC655.49080C07 Hi All, To self declare is hardly onerous. If you have any of the conditions that make you ineligible to self declare, then get an Australian Medical Certificate. I now await the bun-fight regarding the value of aviation medicals and whether they have really made the skies safer, using the argument that medicals are costly and someone knows somebody that had a medically incapacitating event just after they had passed their medical etc.. Would the same argument work regarding glider maintenance, saying that form 2 are not worthwhile because there have been instances where gliders have come to grief after passing their form 2 etc. Doctor's hat on Michael == Dr. Michael Texler M.B. B.S. M.D.(Adel) F.R.C.P.A. Consultant Anatomical Pathologist c/- Department of Histopathology, PathWest, B Block, Level 5, Fremantle Hospital, Alma Sreet, Fremantle 6160, WA, Australia Ph: +61 (0)8 9431 2681 Email: michael.tex...@health.wa.gov.au -- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Matt Gage Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013 14:52 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals However, the crazy situation is that if a US pilot holds a class 2 medical, they can fly here using that unless they gain Australian citizenship, at which time they have to suddenly self certify or get an Australian class 2 Or an Australian who has lived overseas for many years is unable to use their class 2 on a brief holiday here Looks like we have badly thought through regs, or possibly the interpretations on the web site are too simplistic. I hope it's the latter Matt On 11 Oct 2013, at 17:25, Christopher Thorpe mailto:ctho...@bigpond.comctho...@bigpond.com wrote: An Australian flying on an Australian pilot certificate who is ineligible to self-declare their medical status must hold an Australian Medical Certificate. This is the case even if an Australian also holds citizenship of another country. If the person holds dual citizenship of countries other than Australia and they are ineligible to self-declare, then they will need to provide a Medical certificate issued by the State that issued their Pilot's Licence. Christopher Thorpe From:
[Aus-soaring] [FWD: Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring.]
Brilliant! Thanks Cath.It occurs to me that the path of the albatross' flight is very similar to that of a surfer using the power of an ocean wave to move forward.If they're going to have drones doing this I hope they them well away from airports.Cheers,Greg. Original Message Subject: [Aus-soaring] Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring. From: Cath Conway c...@internode.on.net Date: Sun, October 13, 2013 9:42 am To: "Aus-Soaring in Australia." aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Adelaide Uni Gliding Club augc-peo...@lists.internode.on.net Worth watching the video too. -Cath http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/the-nearly-effortless-flight-of-the-albatross?goback=%2Egde_96351_member_5794645416452567041#%21 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] [FWD: Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring.]
http://youtu.be/Vi0hrjqU15I Been doing it for some time. World record is IVO 450mph Sent from my iPhone On 14/10/2013, at 6:01, Greg Wilson g...@gregwilson.id.au wrote: Brilliant! Thanks Cath. It occurs to me that the path of the albatross' flight is very similar to that of a surfer using the power of an ocean wave to move forward. If they're going to have drones doing this I hope they them well away from airports. Cheers, Greg. Original Message Subject: [Aus-soaring] Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring. From: Cath Conway c...@internode.on.net Date: Sun, October 13, 2013 9:42 am To: Aus-Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Adelaide Uni Gliding Club augc-peo...@lists.internode.on.net Worth watching the video too. -Cath http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/the-nearly-effortless-flight-of-the-albatross?goback=%2Egde_96351_member_5794645416452567041#%21 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
Nice conjecture, but unfortunately for you the BGA DIDN'T have a formal medical requirement at the time so there was no filtering by formal medical. Same for the US glider and balloon pilots and both are based on a large number of events so the stats, even if somewhat uncertain, are likely pretty good. In any case it is quite obvious that medical causes are a VERY low percentage of aviation accident causes (~ 1% or lower) and the accident rate isn't significantly improved by having formal medicals and simply cannot be not matter how stringent you make them. Everyone self certifies before going flying anyway as most don't have a medical immediately before going flying on any given day. I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. That and your demonstrated lack of ability to think logically even when not under the pressure of actually flying an aircraft are a worry. I wouldn't fly with you nor let anyone I cared about do so. Mike At 12:26 AM 14/10/2013, you wrote: Methinks there is some false logic in that argument. A counter argument is that the aviation medical system has kept people out of the skies that shouldn't be flying due to medical reasons . (that is, the medicals are filtering out those who are unfit to fly and hence that the cause of incidents due to medical causes is low, 5 out of 800 = 0.625%). Saying that 1% is different to 0.5% is meaningless without confidence intervals, and suffers from the problem of rare events being compared. If there were no medicals, the numbers of accidents do the medical causes would be higher. Regards Michael -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net on behalf of Mike Borgelt Sent: Fri 10/11/2013 4:10 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals No, the lack of value of aviation medicals has been demonstrated by long pragmatic and statistical experience. I don't have the URL to hand but one study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. The BGA did a study many years ago of 800 glider accidents in the UK. IIRC about 5 may have had a medical component which would seem to be in accordance with the US experience. Of those, again IIRC, one was a medical condition that wouldn't be picked up in a PPL medical, two had PPLs and one was a serving military officer who had more frequent medicals of a higher stringency than a PPL medical. Even CASA recognised this in writing in a discussion paper in 2002 about the proposed Recreational Pilot's Licence. They proposed the same medical standard as a State driver's Licence (very little, looking at what drives). They specifically said some in the aviation industry might be uncomfortable with this but that the stats were clear that formal medicals did nothing for safety. This was a welcome attitude in the regulator - actual evidence based rule making. Of course the cretins in the GFA sent a couple of people (Meertens and Hall) along to the Minister to kill this proposal for gliding, along with the collusion of Paul Middleton of the RAAus. One of the more notable acts of bastardry in Australian aviation which has a long history of such. Mike At 05:41 PM 11/10/2013, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CEC655.49080C07 Hi All, To self declare is hardly onerous. If you have any of the conditions that make you ineligible to self declare, then get an Australian Medical Certificate. I now await the bun-fight regarding the value of aviation medicals and whether they have really made the skies safer, using the argument that medicals are costly and someone knows somebody that had a medically incapacitating event just after they had passed their medical etc.. Would the same argument work regarding glider maintenance, saying that form 2 are not worthwhile because there have been instances where gliders have come to grief after passing their form 2 etc. Doctor's hat on Michael == Dr. Michael Texler M.B. B.S. M.D.(Adel) F.R.C.P.A. Consultant Anatomical Pathologist c/- Department of Histopathology, PathWest, B Block, Level 5, Fremantle Hospital, Alma Sreet, Fremantle 6160, WA, Australia Ph: +61 (0)8 9431 2681 Email: michael.tex...@health.wa.gov.au -- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Matt Gage Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013 14:52 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals However, the crazy situation is that if a US pilot holds a class 2 medical,
Re: [Aus-soaring] [FWD: Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring.]
At 07:16 AM 14/10/2013, you wrote: http://youtu.be/Vi0hrjqU15Ihttp://youtu.be/Vi0hrjqU15I Been doing it for some time. World record is IVO 450mph Sent from my iPhone If I was anywhere near that thing I'd want to be behind a 2 thick Lexan shield. It is interesting how researchers keep re-inventing the wheel though. Over the years there has been lots of talk of dynamic soaring and one or two interesting occurrences but the weather conditions required are very narrow or it is difficult to do in full size gliders. Does anyone REALLY want to fly just in the lee of a ridgetop with significant wind speed ? Even if you manage to do it in a small high speed sailplane going round and round in one place like that R/C model be really interesting for all of 10 minutes or so. Currently we seem to be stuck with finding upwards vertical motion in the air which our present day total energy instrumentation doesn't do a very good job of, although that is about to change. Mike Borgelt Instruments - design manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] [FWD: Interesting article on research into dynamic soaring.]
Believe the video in Cath's post was previously used by Paul MacCready in his presentation at the 2005 SSA convention. The RC glider speed record video appears to be from Parker Mountain, a D-S site for a decade or more. You can imagine how many RC gliders have hit the dirt there at a vast rate of knots. Full-face helmets would be a better idea than goggles, but if I recall correctly most flights end at the bottom of the hill. Less than 100km to the north of Parker, USAF Test Pilots have tried to dynamically soar an L23 at Edwards AFB. Their report is linked below, 46 pages of data for what one of the participants casually summed up as: It doesn't scale up very well. Jim http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469903.pdf ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
[ Simon pops up and makes a rare comment ] Mike, I'm sure you mean well, but attacking the person rather than the issue isn't good form - on any mailing list. Debates of this sort work much better without ad hominem attacks. They can often lead to impugning people who seriously are not deserving of it. I know Michael T and he absolutely isn't deserving of that attack in any sense (then again, neither is anyone else). Attack the issue, by all means - with both claws, mate. But not the people. Please. Thanks, Simon [ Simon now returns to quietly lurking - having not done nearly enough gliding of late, due to his brain being consumed of late with working on an IFR rating ] On 14/10/2013, at 8:19 AM, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com wrote: Nice conjecture, but unfortunately for you the BGA DIDN'T have a formal medical requirement at the time so there was no filtering by formal medical. Same for the US glider and balloon pilots and both are based on a large number of events so the stats, even if somewhat uncertain, are likely pretty good. In any case it is quite obvious that medical causes are a VERY low percentage of aviation accident causes (~ 1% or lower) and the accident rate isn't significantly improved by having formal medicals and simply cannot be not matter how stringent you make them. Everyone self certifies before going flying anyway as most don't have a medical immediately before going flying on any given day. I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. That and your demonstrated lack of ability to think logically even when not under the pressure of actually flying an aircraft are a worry. I wouldn't fly with you nor let anyone I cared about do so. Mike At 12:26 AM 14/10/2013, you wrote: Methinks there is some false logic in that argument. A counter argument is that the aviation medical system has kept people out of the skies that shouldn't be flying due to medical reasons . (that is, the medicals are filtering out those who are unfit to fly and hence that the cause of incidents due to medical causes is low, 5 out of 800 = 0.625%). Saying that 1% is different to 0.5% is meaningless without confidence intervals, and suffers from the problem of rare events being compared. If there were no medicals, the numbers of accidents do the medical causes would be higher. Regards Michael -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net on behalf of Mike Borgelt Sent: Fri 10/11/2013 4:10 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals No, the lack of value of aviation medicals has been demonstrated by long pragmatic and statistical experience. I don't have the URL to hand but one study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. The BGA did a study many years ago of 800 glider accidents in the UK. IIRC about 5 may have had a medical component which would seem to be in accordance with the US experience. Of those, again IIRC, one was a medical condition that wouldn't be picked up in a PPL medical, two had PPLs and one was a serving military officer who had more frequent medicals of a higher stringency than a PPL medical. Even CASA recognised this in writing in a discussion paper in 2002 about the proposed Recreational Pilot's Licence. They proposed the same medical standard as a State driver's Licence (very little, looking at what drives). They specifically said some in the aviation industry might be uncomfortable with this but that the stats were clear that formal medicals did nothing for safety. This was a welcome attitude in the regulator - actual evidence based rule making. Of course the cretins in the GFA sent a couple of people (Meertens and Hall) along to the Minister to kill this proposal for gliding, along with the collusion of Paul Middleton of the RAAus. One of the more notable acts of bastardry in Australian aviation which has a long history of such. Mike At 05:41 PM 11/10/2013, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CEC655.49080C07 Hi All, To self declare is hardly onerous. If you have any of the conditions that make you ineligible to self declare, then get an Australian Medical Certificate. I now await the bun-fight regarding the value of aviation medicals and whether they have really made the skies safer, using the argument that medicals are costly and someone knows somebody that had a medically incapacitating event just after they had passed
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
OK I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. Mike Borgelt stated. One study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. Your point being that self reporting medical accident rate is 0.5% versus 1% for powered a/c pilots? Same for the US glider and balloon pilots and both are based on a large number of events so the stats, even if somewhat uncertain are likely pretty good. Before you attack me personally please provide some links to creditable data with regards to the stats and confidence intervals. 'Likely pretty good' would not get accepted in a published report! winmail.dat___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
Well said! Tom - Original Message - From: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. To:Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Sent:Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:31:59 +1030 Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals [ Simon pops up and makes a rare comment ] Mike, I'm sure you mean well, but attacking the person rather than the issue isn't good form - on any mailing list. Debates of this sort work much better without ad hominem attacks. They can often lead to impugning people who seriously are not deserving of it. I know Michael T and he absolutely isn't deserving of that attack in any sense (then again, neither is anyone else). Attack the issue, by all means - with both claws, mate. But not the people. Please. Thanks, Simon [ Simon now returns to quietly lurking - having not done nearly enough gliding of late, due to his brain being consumed of late with working on an IFR rating ] On 14/10/2013, at 8:19 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote: Nice conjecture, but unfortunately for you the BGA DIDN'T have a formal medical requirement at the time so there was no filtering by formal medical. Same for the US glider and balloon pilots and both are based on a large number of events so the stats, even if somewhat uncertain, are likely pretty good. In any case it is quite obvious that medical causes are a VERY low percentage of aviation accident causes (~ 1% or lower) and the accident rate isn't significantly improved by having formal medicals and simply cannot be not matter how stringent you make them Everyone self certifies before going flying anyway as most don't have a medical immediately before going flying on any given day. I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. That and your demonstrated lack of ability to think logically even when not under the pressure of actually flying an aircraft are a worry. I wouldn't fly with you nor let anyone I cared about do so. Mike At 12:26 AM 14/10/2013, you wrote: Methinks there is some false logic in that argument. A counter argument is that the aviation medical system has kept people out of the skies that shouldn't be flying due to medical reasons . (that is, the medicals are filtering out those who are unfit to fly and hence that the cause of incidents due to medical causes is low, 5 out of 800 = 0.625%). Saying that 1% is different to 0.5% is meaningless without confidence intervals, and suffers from the problem of rare events being compared. If there were no medicals, the numbers of accidents do the medical causes would be higher. Regards Michael -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [2] on behalf of Mike Borgelt Sent: Fri 10/11/2013 4:10 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals No, the lack of value of aviation medicals has been demonstrated by long pragmatic and statistical experience. I don't have the URL to hand but one study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. The BGA did a study many years ago of 800 glider accidents in the UK. IIRC about 5 may have had a medical component which would seem to be in accordance with the US experience. Of those, again IIRC, one was a medical condition that wouldn't be picked up in a PPL medical, two had PPLs and one was a serving military officer who had more frequent medicals of a higher stringency than a PPL medical. Even CASA recognised this in writing in a discussion paper in 2002 about the proposed Recreational Pilot's Licence. They proposed the same medical standard as a State driver's Licence (very little, looking at what drives). They specifically said some in the aviation industry might be uncomfortable with this but that the stats were clear that formal medicals did nothing for safety. This was a welcome attitude in the regulator - actual evidence based rule making. Of course the cretins in the GFA sent a couple of people (Meertens and Hall) along to the Minister to kill this proposal for gliding, along with the collusion of Paul Middleton of the RAAus. One of the more notable acts of bastardry in Australian aviation which has a long history of such. Mike At 05:41 PM 11/10/2013, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CEC655.49080C07 Hi All, To self declare is hardly onerous. If you have any of the conditions that make you ineligible to self declare, then get an Australian Medical Certificate. I now await the bun-fight regarding the value of aviation medicals and whether they have really made the skies
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
At 09:45 AM 14/10/2013, you wrote: OK I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. Mike Borgelt stated. One study in the US was that medical conditions for powered aircraft pilots were around 1% of accident causes. Fortunately they had a large body of experience with glider and balloon pilots who self certify and the medical rate of accident causes was 0.5% or so amongst them. Your point being that self reporting medical accident rate is 0.5% versus 1% for powered a/c pilots? Yes, surprising isn't it? IIRC the people who did the study didn't expect that either. They didn't claim that this was significant and neither do I. What both the authors and I claim is that the medical causes of aviation accidents are such a small percentage of all causes that eliminating them won't achieve anything significant in the way of safety. Of course making the medicals more stringent may well appear to make things safer in absolute numbers of accidents as you'll simply eliminate lots of pilots and flying hours. Same for the US glider and balloon pilots and both are based on a large number of events so the stats, even if somewhat uncertain are likely pretty good. Before you attack me personally please provide some links to creditable data with regards to the stats and confidence intervals. 'Likely pretty good' would not get accepted in a published report! The only person making evidence free assertions is you. If there were no medicals, the numbers of accidents do (sic) the medical causes would be higher. Where are your links to show that formal aviation medicals have any value? As I said I don't have the URL to hand for that study and frankly I can't be bothered looking it up for you. It was over a considerable period of years and thousands of aircraft, glider and balloon accidents. IIRC it was linked as a result of a discussion on the old AUFCHAT group about 7 or 8 years ago. It may have been a post by Boyd Munro as he used to post there sometimes. It is probably on one of my PCs. Who knows if the webpage still exists? The BGA study was from the 1970-75 period in Sailplane and Gliding and was a response to the usual periodical attempt by the bureaucracy to bring things into line . The bureaucrats retreated that time as the BGA had shown that the benefits of requiring formal medicals were negligible while the costs were considerable. You can look up the back issues somewhere I guess. The CASA discussion paper from 2002 probably still exists in the depths of the CASA database. Ask them. The US EAA and AOPA are currently petitioning the FAA for effective elimination of the 3rd Class medical for day VFR simple aircraft, only one other person in the aircraft. here: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2012/March/20/AOPA-EAA-file-medical-exemption-petition Do your own Google search and you'll find many posts on this topic. This has been done to death numerous times and I'm not aware that anyone has ever shown that formal aviation medicals have any safety value. Unfortunately the people proposing the elimination of medicals do their homework, put together the case, get the bureaucrats on side and then somebody stands up and says I think it would be safer if we kept the medicals and I'm a Doctor whereupon the bureaucrats take the easy way out. In the last couple of months we've had posts here from people who are having trouble with CASA medicals for no really good reason. I know a fair number of private pilots and most of them do seem to worry about passing the next one. The risk these people pose to innocent third parties on the ground or in the air is very small (no I don't have the numbers or confidence intervals but in the media I hear about far more ground vehicles hitting houses than aircraft hitting houses) but all of them drive cars on the roads where vehicles closing at 200kph are separated by a painted white line and the ability of the drivers to miss. In engineering there is no virtue in making systems more complex or expensive than necessary. There are two questions to ask what problem are we REALLY trying to solve here and what does the experimental evidence say?. Common errors are trying to solve the wrong problem and ignoring clear experimental results. As a doctor you have a bias to solve the medical problem even though in the overall system it is a very small part of the problem. Before accusing me of using faulty logic you might also like to read my post properly. I realise now that you probably didn't know that the BGA didn't have formal medicals. You made an unwarranted assumption before posting. Mike ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments -
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
Carol did a little search and turned this up: http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/petition_for_exemption.pdf 41 pages, page 11 has this heading if you don't want to read it all. Equivalent level of safety is demonstrated in history This petition for exemption is backed by sound statistical data Continue from there. Various statistical studies are referenced. Mike Borgelt Instruments - design manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
Thanks Mike and Carol, That's Gold, OK, bring it on. Implement it and see what happens! Unless I have completely mis read it again, an initially medical issuance would still be required (i.e. Driver's licence initial issue requires a medical and this is used in lieu)? Then attendance and sign of for medical self awareness courses and using self report for restricted operations (i.e. single engine, one pax max etc..)? Michael From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013 10:27 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals Carol did a little search and turned this up: http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/petition_for_exemption.pdf 41 pages, page 11 has this heading if you don't want to read it all. Equivalent level of safety is demonstrated in history This petition for exemption is backed by sound statistical data Continue from there. Various statistical studies are referenced. Mike Borgelt Instruments - design manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/ tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals, BGA, ASA, Ballooning USA
Michael, I think you will find that the BGA requirement now is different from the one that applied in the 1970s when the study I referred to was done. The BGA got done over by European harmonisation We're all just trying to go flying with the minimum fuss and bother. It is all too easy to start specifying requirements without good evidence to back them. This just results in flying becoming more difficult and expensive and I don't think anyone here wants that. We don't need to give the politicians and bureaucrats ideas and ammunition. There is one possibility I won't post about on the web. I have talked to a few people about it and I get them to promise they won't do that either. Mike At 12:48 PM 14/10/2013, you wrote: Thanks Mike. Noted. I'm not sure you actually read my post. Either that or your reading comprehension is extremely poor. Mike, I have carefully re-read your posts. You said: The BGA did a study many years ago of 800 glider accidents in the UK. IIRC about 5 may have had a medical component... No-where did you explicitly mention in your post that the BGA uses self declared medicals, so I apologise for not looking that up prior, so I may have been in error to use 5 out of 800 as a medical accident rate. On looking at the BGA website, however; Before going solo, you need to get a GP certificate, hence this is NOT self certifying. Hence there is some medical filtering even if only once (analogous to driving a car). (http://www.gliding.co.uk/learningtoglide/whocanglide.htm ) Fitness As a general rule, if you are fit enough to drive a car, you are fit enough to fly a glider. Before you fly, you will need to sign a simple medical declaration and, before you fly solo, you will need to get your GP to certify that you meet the same standards that you must meet to drive a car. For more information, please see the medical page. Gliding is suitable for people with a range of disabilities - for more information, see the heading Disabled Gliding. Borgelt Instruments - design manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Initial issue medicals driver's licence
On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Texler, Michael michael.tex...@health.wa.gov.au wrote: Great! You can medically self declare here in WA for your initial, no requirement to see a doctor! You medically self-declare before every flight. That class-2 medical certificate you received 23 months and 29 days ago only certifies your medical fitness at the specific time and date of the examination; everything after that is based on your personal judgement call. - mark ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Medicals
This is increasingly academic given that CASA have already decided to remove the requirement for class-2 medicals for private flight, with limitations. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_100908 The scheme should be live at the end of this year, and applies to all holders of SPL, PPL and CPL licenses. You'll need to ask your doctor to assess your medical fitness to the standard documented in the Austroads publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, with CASA amendments. Any GP can do it, and most of them should be across the requirements. Send the doctor's certification to CASA and you're done, no mess, no fuss. When flying under the drivers license medical standard, CASA imposes these restrictions: - Private operations only - Single engine - 1500kg MTOW - No more than one passenger - No aerobatics - Not above 10,000' AMSL - Day VFR. That encompasses the vast bulk of gliding activities. I'd strongly suggest that in the event that GFA's requirements for visiting overseas pilots are more stringent than CASA's, it'll be incumbent on GFA to change them accordingly. - mark On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Texler, Michael michael.tex...@health.wa.gov.au wrote: Thanks Mike and Carol, That’s Gold, OK, bring it on. Implement it and see what happens! Unless I have completely mis read it again, an initially medical issuance would still be required (i.e. Driver’s licence initial issue requires a medical and this is used in lieu)? Then attendance and sign of for medical self awareness courses and using self report for restricted operations (i.e. single engine, one pax max etc..)? Michael ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Initial issue medicals driver's licence
You can only medically self declare for solo pilot status, anything else (A.E.I. upwards) need to be medically certified : From 1 January 2013 pilots holding a GFA Instructor authorisation (i.e. AEI, Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3) must be medically examined by a legally qualified medical practitioner and found fit to fly in accordance with Appendix 2 of the GFA Operational Regulations; or be a holder of a current CASA Class 1 or 2 Medical Certificate. Same goes for a coach I think : Chris Runeckles On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.orgwrote: On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Texler, Michael michael.tex...@health.wa.gov.au wrote: Great! You can medically self declare here in WA for your initial, no requirement to see a doctor! You medically self-declare before every flight. That class-2 medical certificate you received 23 months and 29 days ago only certifies your medical fitness at the specific time and date of the examination; everything after that is based on your personal judgement call. - mark ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Initial issue medicals driver's licence
On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Chris Runeckles cmruneck...@gmail.com wrote: You can only medically self declare for solo pilot status, anything else (A.E.I. upwards) need to be medically certified : You're missing my point. If you fly immediately after receiving your medical certification, you're medically certified. If you fly an hour later, or a day later, or a year later (pick the interval of your choice), you're self-certifying that your medical certification is still valid, and that nothing about your health situation has changed to call the doctor's examination results into doubt. Your DAME/GP doesn't give you a piece of paper that says you're healthy for the next two years. They give you a piece of paper that says you were medically fit at the exact date and time at which they signed it. Any interpretation above and beyond that is a conceit and a fabrication. Doctors aren't time travelers, right? - mark [ class 2 medical certificate holder, with a realistic attitude about what it means… ] ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Initial issue medicals driver's licence
Doctors aren't time travelers, right? That depends whether you are a doctor or the doctor. Cheers Tim Tra dire e fare cè mezzo il mare From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mark Newton Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013 15:36 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Initial issue medicals driver's licence On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Chris Runeckles cmruneck...@gmail.com wrote: You can only medically self declare for solo pilot status, anything else (A.E.I. upwards) need to be medically certified : You're missing my point. If you fly immediately after receiving your medical certification, you're medically certified. If you fly an hour later, or a day later, or a year later (pick the interval of your choice), you're self-certifying that your medical certification is still valid, and that nothing about your health situation has changed to call the doctor's examination results into doubt. Your DAME/GP doesn't give you a piece of paper that says you're healthy for the next two years. They give you a piece of paper that says you were medically fit at the exact date and time at which they signed it. Any interpretation above and beyond that is a conceit and a fabrication. Doctors aren't time travelers, right? - mark [ class 2 medical certificate holder, with a realistic attitude about what it means ] _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3408 / Virus Database: 3222/6734 - Release Date: 10/08/13 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
