McClymont and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. McClymont against a decision by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to refuse him a conditional Class 2 Medical Certificate. The dispute centred on whether Mr. McClymont's diagnosed glaucoma condition, specifically his bilateral visual field loss, meant he failed to meet the relevant medical standards for safe air navigation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining this issue.

The Tribunal was required to consider three key questions. Firstly, whether Mr. McClymont met the medical standards for a Class 2 Medical Certificate as prescribed by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR). Secondly, if he did not meet these standards, whether the extent of his failure was "likely to endanger the safety of air navigation" under regulation 67.180(2)(e)(ii) of the CASR. Finally, if a risk to safety was established, the Tribunal had to determine whether any conditions could be imposed on his licence under regulation 11.056 of the CASR to mitigate that risk.

The Tribunal's reasoning was heavily influenced by the expert medical evidence provided by CASA's appointed optometrist, Mr. Gibson, and an ophthalmologist, Dr. Fitzgerald. Their evidence indicated significant visual field loss in both of Mr. McClymont's eyes, including defects within 20 degrees of the visual axis and a severely compromised central superior quadrant in his right eye. This evidence was largely unchallenged by Mr. McClymont, who presented no contrary medical opinion. The Tribunal applied the principle from previous cases, such as *Hall and Civil Aviation Safety Authority*, that even a small risk to air safety may necessitate action, and that the assessment of likelihood is not purely statistical but involves weighing safety requirements against the applicant's interests. The Tribunal found that Mr. McClymont's visual impairment presented a more than remote risk to air navigation safety, and that the proposed imposition of a safety pilot condition was uncertain to adequately ameliorate this risk, as a safety pilot might not be aware of the subtle limitations of Mr. McClymont's vision.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed CASA's decision to refuse the conditional Class 2 Medical Certificate. The Tribunal concluded that Mr. McClymont did not meet the relevant medical standards and that the extent of his failure was likely to endanger the safety of air navigation, with no sufficiently effective conditions able to be imposed to mitigate this risk.