David Barnes and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Case [2012] AATA 756

[2012] AATA 756

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2012/1219

Re

David Barnes

APPLICANT

And

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr Egon Fice, Senior Member
Dr Roslyn Blakley, Member
Date 1 November 2012
Place Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decisions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority dated
19 October 2011 and 10 November 2011.

...[sgd Egon Fice].....................................................................

Mr Egon Fice, Senior Member

AVIATION – Class 2 medical certificate – Class 1 medical certificate – Private Pilot (aeroplane) Licence – application for medical certificates – risk to the safety of air navigation – Type II diabetes mellitus – refusal to undertake further testing

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) reg 5.04

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) regs 11.015, 11.030, 67.010, 67.015, 67.145, 67.150, 67.155, 67.165, 67.175, 67.180, 67.205, 67.220, 67.265

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Egon Fice, Senior Member
Dr Roslyn Blakley, Member

1 November 2012

  1. Mr David Barnes is the holder of a Private Pilot (aeroplane) Licence (PPL).  On 28 October 2010 he was examined by a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME) for the issue of a Class 2 medical certificate.  The medical report provided by the DAME to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) stated there were areas of concern which required referral to a specialist and that there were some doubts that Mr Barnes was fit to exercise the privileges of his licence.  CASA notified Mr Barnes on 20 December 2010 that he was required to make an appointment with the DAME for further blood tests.

  2. By letter dated 30 June 2011 CASA notified Mr Barnes that it had issued to him a Class 2 medical certificate valid for 12 months from the date of his medical examination.  In that letter CASA also stated that when his medical certificate became due for renewal, in addition to the usual renewal medical examination, he was required to provide a number of additional reports.  The letter also stated that his medical certificate had been endorsed FOR CASA AUDIT indicating that processing of his new medical certificate by CASA would be delayed pending receipt and review of the reports referred to in the letter.  It indicated that if appropriate, his existing medical certificate could be extended for up to


    2 months.

  3. It appears that in about December 2010 Mr Barnes wrote a letter to the DAME in which he mentioned applying for a Class 1 medical certificate.  This letter was not copied to CASA.  Nevertheless, after receiving the copy from the DAME, CASA wrote to Mr Barnes on 12 July 2011 stating that CASA was prepared to reassess his application as a special case having regard to his claim that he applied for a Class 1 medical certificate.  CASA explained that Mr Barnes was required to provide an audiometry examination report.  CASA stated that Mr Barnes needed to meet the Class 1 standard and that should it issue the medical certificate sought, it would be prepared to issue it for one year from the date of examination.

  4. In an e-mail dated…

Details
AGLC
David Barnes and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] AATA 756
Case
[2012] AATA 756
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Mr David Barnes and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Mr Barnes sought to challenge CASA's refusal to renew his Class 2 medical certificate, as well as its decision not to issue him a Class 1 medical certificate. The crux of the dispute was CASA's insistence on further medical examinations due to Mr Barnes' type II diabetes mellitus diagnosis, and his dissatisfaction with the duration for which his medical certificates were issued.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether CASA was justified in refusing to renew Mr Barnes' Class 2 medical certificate and to issue him a Class 1 medical certificate. Specifically, the court needed to determine if CASA's request for further medical examinations and its decision to limit the duration of the medical certificates to 12 months were in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Barnes' failure to comply with CASA's requests and his continued use of anti-diabetic medication affected the outcome of the case.

The court found in favour of CASA, affirming the correctness of their decisions. The reasoning was that Mr Barnes did not comply with CASA's requests for further examinations, which were necessary due to his diabetes condition. Furthermore, CASA's decision to issue a medical certificate for a maximum period of 12 months was in line with its policy and the Director of Aviation Medicine’s Evaluation Handbook. The court also noted that CASA has the authority to request further testing where deemed necessary for aviation safety. Since Mr Barnes refused to undergo further testing, CASA's refusal to reissue his medical certificate was deemed justified. Moreover, Mr Barnes' subsequent provision of medical reports after CASA's refusal did not alter the outcome, as his initial refusal to comply rendered CASA's decisions valid.

In conclusion, the court upheld CASA's decisions and dismissed Mr Barnes' claims. The court found that CASA's actions were within its regulatory authority and justified under the circumstances. The decisions to refuse the renewal of Mr Barnes' Class 2 medical certificate and to deny his application for a Class 1 medical certificate were both upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In our opinion, CASA was correct to refuse to renew Mr Barnes' Class 2 medical certificate in November 2011. Mr Barnes had not complied with requests for further examinations which were requested because he had been diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus. His attempt to provide further information occurred after CASA's refusal and therefore it could not be taken into consideration. The only course left open to Mr Barnes was to make a fresh application for a Class 2 medical certificate.CONCLUSION Mr Barnes claimed that he had made an application for a Class 1 medical certificate after he had applied for a Class 2 certificate renewal. He was experiencing some difficulty in providing the information CASA sought to enable it to satisfy itself that his diabetes condition did not pose a risk to the safety of air navigation. Furthermore, Mr Barnes was dissatisfied with the fact that CASA was only prepared to issue a medical certificate for a period of 12 months. Mr Barnes was demanding that it be issued for a two year period. Although CASA agreed to deal with his request for a Class 1 medical certificate as a special case, we find that such a course of action is outside the authority granted to CASA to issue medical certificates. Applications for a medical certificate must be made in accordance with the approved form and in the manner approved by CASA for that purpose. In any event, because Mr Barnes continued to use anti-diabetic medication at the time of his purported application, he could not, in any event, meet the medical standard for the issue of a Class 1 medical certificate. Furthermore, Mr Barnes refused to undertake further testing even though directed to do so in accordance with the CASR. Therefore, we have found that CASA's decision to refuse to issue Mr Barnes with a Class 1 medical certificate was correct. It appears that Mr Barnes' main complaint about the reissue of his Class 2 medical certificate was the fact that CASA refused to issue that certificate for a period of two years. Rather, in accordance with its policy and in accordance with the DAME Handbook, CASA issued that certificate for a maximum period of 12 months. In addition to that, Mr Barnes complained about the fact that CASA had requested further testing which he considered to be unnecessary. Regardless of his opinion, CASA is authorised under the CASR to seek further testing where it deems that to be necessary in the interests of aviation safety. Given the possible medical problems which arise out of diabetes mellitus, we find that CASA acted correctly in seeking further testing. When Mr Barnes declined to have further testing undertaken, CASA, correctly in our opinion, refused to reissue his Class 2 medical certificate. The fact that Mr Barnes subsequently provided further medical reports after CASA had refused the issue of a certificate is of no assistance to Mr Barnes. At that time, his 12 month certificate had already been extended for a further two month period and it did not appear that Mr Barnes intended to comply with CASA's request.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.