A_F_2015_01_02_

to wear prescription glasses, even
though I could now easily pass the
long distance vision requirements, as
well as a requirement to carry reading
glasses. I was also informed that I
was now subject to a special CASA
audit, and that for my next medical
renewal, I would require further
ophthalmology tests.
I emailed AvMed about the
prescription glasses requirement, and
to ask why I was subject to a special
audit for a Class 3 medical when an
ICAO signatory regulator allowed
me to operate commercial flights on a
first class medical that had no further
restrictions. I received a rather terse
reply stating that the requirement was
because my “eyes were diseased ”.
I asked my ophthalmologist was
there any situation with the condition
of my eyes that would render me
incapable of safely operating an
aircraft. He said none. I now have the
situation that to exercise the privileges
of my Australian license, I have to
wear glasses that I don’t need or
have, and to renew my medical, I am
subject to unnecessary inconvenience

and expense. AvMed seem to have

forgotten what the “S” in CASA

stands for. I think I shall just let my

CASA medical lapse, and do my

recreational flying on my Hong Kong

license, they seem to have a better

grasp on reality. The FAA will soon

announce that a third class medical

is no longer a requirement, Australia

should do the same.

The attitude difference between

the FAA and CASA could not have

been more different. The FAA are

mandated by Congress to promote

aviation, CASA seems to see its

role as obstructing aviation. GA in

Australia is being slowly strangled by

political indifference, and regulatory

obstructionism, things need to change.

Geoff Carr

Hong Kong

Apology to Dr

Pooshan Navathe

In the September/October issue

of Australian Flying, we included

an article written by Tony

Taggart that contained a number

of assertions he made about Dr

Pooshan Navathe.

Australian Flying does not adopt

or endorse any of the assertions

about Dr Pooshan Navathe and to

the extent that readers may have

understood that Australian Flying

asserted that they were correct,

unreservedly withdraws them on

behalf of the magazine.

Australian Flying apologises to

Dr Navathe for publishing those

defamatory assertions and any

harm they may have caused him.

One for the “girls”

Ed itor,

Thank you to Carol for her article

regarding the “glass ceiling” for

female pilots [Australian Flying Nov-

Dec 2014]. There was one discordant

note: a caption on a photo referring

to “the girls” at Basair. The women

in the photo were aged 18 and 21 – a

clear example of “unconscious bias”.

I was unable to find a caption

referring to men as “boys”.

Dr Heather Parker

Hi, Heather.

We sent this around to some

professional women to comment on,

and found a very mixed response.

At is was, the caption you refer to

was extracted straight from the text,

which was written by a woman.

Can a woman have unconscious bias

toward other women? Nevertheless,

we accept what you are saying, and

from this point on we will refer to

females over 18 as “women” and

females under 18 as “girls” when used

in a formal sense. Informally, we will

still accept “girls” for any females

where colloquial language would

normally be acceptable.

Thanks,

Hitch

Bill takes on Kylee

Dear Steve,

It is not often that I am prompted

to pen a letter to the Editor, but I

cannot let your “Editor’s Pick ” from

Kylee Foot pass without comment.

With the very greatest of respect,

she should look up the accident

australianflying.com.au 11

January - February 2015 AUSTRALIAN FLYING

the Australian GA accident rate

is about three times the US rate,

and deteriorating