An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


AVMED and Mr. McSherry in the AAT

The following from the recent AAT finding, where there was a finding for the applicant. This is a very significant finding.

In part:

  1. Accordingly, we understood the effect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to be that the only risk which he considered to be real related to an incompletely incapacitating bleed related to Mr McSherry’s use of Warfarin. However, he also conceded that the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed occurring and having adverse consequences in terms of safety was significantly below 1%, noting that the statistical likelihood of an incompletely incapacitating bleed occurring whilst Mr McSherry was flying was in the order of 0.03%. Whilst Associate Professor Navathe resiled during his oral evidence from a number of the opinions and conclusions expressed in his written statement, he maintained his view that Mr McSherry suffered from a safety-relevant condition, because of the risk of him suffering from an incompletely incapacitating bleed.
  2. Having carefully considered all of the medical evidence however, together with Mr McSherry’s evidence as to the history of his condition and the nature of the flying he does, we have concluded that whilst we accept many aspects of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence, we do not accept what we took to be his ultimate conclusion, that the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed occurring whilst Mr McSherry was flying had the result that his need to take Warfarin was a “safety-relevant” condition.
  3. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other.

The final conclusion by the AAT was:


  1. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.