The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[Arthur Pape]

Dear All,

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE CONCERNING AVIATION COLOUR VISION STANDARDS:
“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

First, let me give you a concise history of the struggle by and for those pilots who have a colour vision defect. My role in the struggle is well documented over many years. I am an Australian GP and Aviation Medical Examiner and have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots.

I started my flying in 1976, at the Mid Murray Flying Club in Swan Hill, Victoria. Within a couple of years I managed to hold a CPL and a Command Instrument rating, but because of my CVD, I was prohibited from flying at night. I was mystified as to why this restriction was in place and after about ten years of research, I appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to have the night restriction removed. In the process of preparation I was assisted enormously by AOPA, both morally and financially. One of the memorable highlights in the preparation was a large meeting held at the club rooms of the Mid Murray Flying Club to which a couple of hundred colour defective pilots flew and drove from across the country to offer support and help plan the assault on the aviation colour perception standard.

The success of my own appeal was a just reward for a great deal of hard work and wide support, but the victory was bitter-sweet, as the Authority of the day refused to let the benefit of my success flow to any other pilot with the colour vision problem. That in turn led to a second far more comprehensive appeal for all the colour defective pilots of Australia. This case was nominally on behalf of Jonathon Denison, a young colour defective commercial pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited from night flight in Australia. By mutual agreement between the parties, it was decided by the AAT to treat the Denison appeal as a wide-sweeping test case.

Again, the appeal succeeded and the ban on night flight was overturned for all colour defective pilots in Australia. To this date, the Denison appeal is still the most comprehensive examination of aviation colour vision standards that has ever been conducted in the entire world. The hearings lasted for over 30 days and called witnesses including experienced pilots and air traffic controllers, optometrists and visual perception psychologists to name just a few. As a direct result of the appeal’s success, many such pilots found doors opening to career opportunities that were previously denied to them.

During a period of relative sanity and pragmatism, the (now called) Department of Transport opened the way for colour defective pilots to use the ATPL if they could pass the control tower signal gun test. A pass on this test earned them a clean medical certificate, on which there was no longer any mention of colour vision related restrictions. I myself passed this test, and, had I been a younger man, I could have entertained a career as an airline pilot, notwithstanding the fact I had a diagnosis of deuteranopia, which is one of the more severe forms of colour vision defect. I continued in my medical career and enjoyed a modest participation in aviation. The colour vision issue was never far from my mind.

Many pilots with colour vision defects did pass the control tower signal gun test and many, who prior to 1990 would not have been allowed to fly a C152 at night, made it all the way to the rank of Captain in the various airlines in Australia. A significant number are still employed amongst the most senior and experienced crew.

All would have been well, but for the fact that some competent pilots had trouble passing the control tower signal gun test and as a result they remained banished to the rank of First Officer within the various airlines. As their numbers grew, it became obvious to me that the control tower signal gun test was being used as an arbitrary device to determine if a CVD pilot could be classified as “safe” or “unsafe”.

At the level of airline aviation, the control tower signal gun is a device that no airline pilot is ever likely to have to endure. Not only is the chance of exposure to such a signal almost infinitesimally small, the interpretation of such a signal is operationally impossible. Without labouring the point, imagine a B737 captain finding that he has lost radio communication as he calls “ready” at the holding point of a major runway at Sydney airport. There are three possible signals: white (return to starting point), red (not clear for take-off) and green (cleared for take-off). A 737 at a holding point cannot do a U-turn without entering the runway, which can’t be done without a green signal light, which in turn has the meaning of clear for take-off. It amounts to simple nonsense and the control tower signal lamp (at least for RPT operations) belongs in the aviation museum.

So it is that one of the pilots who is being held back from using his ATPL by his inability to pass the signal gun test has lodged an appeal to the AAT to have his restrictions removed. At first, it seemed that his appeal could be limited to just the issue of whether the signal gun test was a real world “practical test” that realistically delineated between “safe” and “unsafe”, but this is not the way CASA is treating the appeal.

Documents lodged to the AAT make it clear that CASA is treating this appeal as a golden opportunity to try to turn the clock back some 25 years in regard to the colour vision standard. It is patently clear that CASA is seeking to reverse every gain made in the Pape and Denison cases a quarter of a century ago and in the years that followed. Their desire is to reimpose restrictions of the most radical nature for those who fail to meet their renewed strict standard. Not only are CASA trying to restrict these pilots from progressing their careers, they are now actively proposing changes that would end their careers entirely.

(TID formatting)

There are two issues I want to bring to the attention of the entire aviation industry of Australia. The pilot who has lodged this appeal is a dedicated, hardworking and very competent pilot, employed as a First Officer on the Dash 8 for a regional airline. He has some 6000 hours of experience in a wide variety of operations. His company, his superiors and his peers endorse his professionalism and want him to assume command. But he does not have access to the sort of funds that CASA will be throwing into the legal battle that is looming. He has managed to obtain legal representation at a substantially discounted rate, but even with the discount, he would have to find a minimum of about $100,000 in costs to present his case and tackle the might and the apparently unlimited financial resources of CASA. We estimate that CASA is spending over half a million dollars on this case.

The second issue is that a failure of this appeal would have enormous ramifications for several thousand Australian pilots who have a colour vision defect. I know of many airline pilots whose careers would be adversely impacted should this appeal fail. Add to that the hundreds of CVD commercial pilots who could once again find themselves restricted to the pre 1989 limitations, and possibly even more drastic restrictions (for example, no instrument ratings, no carriage of passengers, no night flying at all). It is beyond belief, but these are the aims of the current CASA medical staff in regard to this appeal.

It is indeed patently obvious that CASA is treating this appeal as a de-facto appeal against the Denison decision of 1989 and if they succeed I predict a catastrophic result for the entire colour vision defective pilot community of Australia.

The preparation of this appeal is well advanced. We have a strong case and the likelihood of success is reasonable (there are no certainties in life except death and taxes, isn’t that how the saying goes?). The single most daunting obstacle to success is first and foremost the problem of costs. Whereas Denison’s and my appeal were ultimately funded by the Legal Aid system, it appears that such funding will not be forthcoming for this appeal. I am amazed at this fact, as there is no doubt that CASA is treating the appeal as a “Test Case”. If CASA goes ahead in this planned manner, it will be very much a case of “Might over Right”.

There are two things I want to ask the general pilot community to consider. The first is that each and every pilot considers a contribution to a fighting fund to help fund his case. I ask this of all, but more so, of those pilots who have enjoyed the benefits of the struggle waged all those years ago in liberating the thousands of Australian colour defective pilots from the irrational and unjust colour vision standard. The second thing I ask is that people write to their politicians and in particular the Minister, Warren Truss, to voice their disapproval of the tactics being employed by CASA to overwhelm and discriminate against a group of deserving, competent and safe pilots.

Last year I set up a not-for-profit organisation called the Colour Defective Pilots Association Pty Ltd which is incorporated in Victoria - www.cvdpa.com (http://www.cvdpa.com/).

Kind Regards,

Dr Arthur Pape
E: [email protected]

[Tidbinbilla]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Dr. Pape. This topic is now stickied on this forum.

May I suggest you contact Nick Xenophon with your concerns on this particular case. I know of at least one other case where he has intervened with the draconian (and backward) AVMED section of CASA, and achieved a speedy and favourable outcome for an aggrieved ATPL holder.

TID

[5-in-50]

Could i suggest a PayPal option? It'll widen the scope for potential donors.

[Frank Arouet]

Is it my computer or has Arthur Pape's message gone?

[Ovation]

Is it my computer or has Arthur Pape's message gone?

It's there alright, but only colour blind pilots are able to read it.

[triadic]

Subject matter is not there...??

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Seriously, could someone please post Dr.Pape's original message.

[Scion]

another problem is their treatment of type 2 diabetics.

anyone out there ready to start another "Sticky"

[Arthur Pape]

My post "The Empire Strikes Back" is still coming up when I log in. If it has been withdrawn, I can imagine it is only because in the post I ask for financial support. Anyone who wants to see the post and to support this very worthy cause can find the links on the cvdpa.com website. It is vitally important that CASA be prevented from winning this contest in the AAT by suffocating the appellant, John O'Brien.


Arthur Pape

[Arthur Pape]

Oh, by the way, if you are having problems seeing the original post, try to have it re-posted by contacting the moderator in a private message.
Cheers,
Arthur Pape

[Frank Arouet]

Arthur;

Is it possible to get sponsorship through somebody in the optical game.

A lot here are on the bones of their bum so to speak and probably wouldn't make much of a difference in the big scheme of things. Support goes without saying, so we all hope some philanthropists who normally prefer to remain anonymous will send you a PM.

I'll send a couple of emails to worthy Lawyers and mention the words Pro bono. I know this generally makes them choke on their T bone steaks, but something like this could benefit them more in advertising than cash. I'll ask them to contact you direct, so you may keep us informed personally.

The other thing I can think of is a Government grant from The Public Interest and Test Case Scheme if it is still going.

Perhaps Creampuff knows if this is still an option?

Keep up the good work Arthur.

[F.Nose]

It amazes me that CASA are being so regressive. Colour vision restrictions were regulated way back in the 40's and 50's when they actually had some context. With the technological advances of today I can't think of a single application that is affected by colour vision. My bet is CASA will be playing the international standards card.

I am happy to make a donation to this fight but I agree with Frank, I doubt that the Pilot fraternity as a whole will raise the required funds. Surely there are CVD Pilots out there who are members of the AFAP or other unions. If so, and their jobs are threatened by this (as they will be), then the their union must have an obligation to protect them.

The AFAP in fact offer substantial Loss of License insurance to their members. My guess is they would have a financial interest in this as well as an obligation.

[717tech]

This may be a stupid question but wouldn't a union like AFAP be interested in something like this?

[F.Nose]

Jimmyconway,

Have another read Dr Pape's post. It appears quite clear to me.

[Biggles66]

maybe you can sticky this to the airliner / rpt forum too (Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)) considering they could be adversely affected and probably have more funds than your average GA pilot.

[Hot High Heavy]

Just to clarify, does the control tower signal gun test refer to or cover the Farnsworth Lantern test? Or are they different tests??

[johnobr]

Thanks Tidbinbilla for stickying this important topic.

Are CASA proposing a colour vision test more restrictive than the tower gun signal test?

Yes. As a result of these proceedings, we have become aware that CASA are 'reviewing' their testing procedures with a view to introducing the new 'CAD' test into Australia. For CVD's, this test is even harder to pass than the signal gun test. See below for a demo:

CAD - Color Vision Assessment - YouTube

It is important to acknowledge that CVD's will always perform poorly in any colour vision test. The issue is whether this bears any resemblance to our ability to fly safely.

CASR 67.150 (6)(c) requires a test which simulates an operational situation. Up until now, the signal gun test has always been used for this purpose. Despite it's highly questionable relevance to modern aviation as Arthur has already explained, the CAD test is far worse. If anyone can tell me how this above test simulates anything a pilot does in an aircraft then I'd be very interested to know!

Further, we are aware of professional pilots who have attempted this CAD test and failed it. For example, we personally know of airline Captain's in Australia (who have got there by virtue of passing the signal gun test) and have gone through the recruitment process for overseas carriers such as Emirates but have been unsuccessful because they have failed the CAD. So they are safe to return to our shores and be Captains of B737's and A320's, yet they are considered 'unsafe' to fly similar aircraft overseas.

The CAD, like most colour vision tests, does a very good job of diagnosing one's CVD, but it in no way reflects a pilot's ability to fly an aircraft safely. To make matters worse, AVMED are recommending that for those who fail this CAD test should it be introduced here, that we be issued with VFR only medical certificates, valid for daytime operations only and with no carriage of passengers.

Clearly any restrictions such as these would make CVD pilots unemployable and be a complete reversal of all the gains made since the Pape & Denison decisions.

Fundamental to our argument is that as professional pilots, we are required to demonstrate on a regular basis our ability to fly safely by way of passing sim and line checks. Arthur delivered this very insightful presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine in Melbourne last year which highlights the lunacy of the situation:

Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube

This may be a stupid question but wouldn't a union like AFAP be interested in something like this?

We are in contact with the various unions including AFAP, as well as various politicians and are requesting their support. If people cannot afford to contribute financially, as Arthur mentioned one vital thing which everyone can do is to email their politicians as well as their respective unions to encourage them to support this matter.

My bet is CASA will be playing the international standards card.

That is certainly one of the things they are trying to do. It is well known that Australia is already one of the most liberal countries in the world when it comes to CVD standards. However, that is only as a direct result of the hard work of Arthur and others during the Pape & Denison appeals which was a victory for common sense as well as using empirical evidence based on facts. It is a matter of record that on the final day of the Denison hearings that both parties agreed that it was the most thorough and exhaustive examination of colour vision standards that had ever been undertaken in the entire world. Both sides agreed that whatever the result, they would accept it and promote it internationally. The CAA back then ultimately lost decisively and of course never did promote the result amongst other ICAO nations, which is part of the reason why Australia is still out on a limb all these years later.

There is an attitude within the current medical hierarchy to set right their failure in both of these previous cases, which is why they're going into this current battle with the view to literally win it 'at all costs'.

Thanks in advance for your support and feel free to email myself or Arthur should you wish to find out more info.

Cheers,
[email protected]

[mates rates]

If you pass the Farnsworth lantern test you don't require the tower light test.

[Creampuff]

So what, precisely, are the so-called ‘representative bodies’ being paid to do, if not support this pilot?

And why is it going to cost $100,000 to copy and paste the submissions from the Pape and Denison matters into the submissions for the new matter?

[4Greens]

Can a colour restricted pilot tell the difference between a red and starboard nav light?

[Capt Fathom]

Does it affect the safe operation of an aircraft 4Reds ?

In all my years of night flying, I have never had to assess wingtip lights and decide in they were heading left or right, coming or going!

Apart from winning or losing a bet! :E

[mates rates]

Could it be the changeover from T-Vasis to PAPI that is causing the concern in Canberra? No I don't think they are that smart!!

[Sarcs]

TB: May I suggest you contact Nick Xenophon with your concerns on this particular case. I know of at least one other case where he has intervened with the draconian (and backward) AVMED section of CASA, and achieved a speedy and favourable outcome for an aggrieved ATPL holder. From Senate Estimates yesterday it would appear that Senator Fawcett has taken up the baton for this matter and Senator X was in attendance so squeaky wheel and all that..:ok:

Once Hansard is released will copy and paste the Senator's questions...interesting by play with the DAS i.e. he was very cagey in reply!:ugh:

Top stuff Dr Pape and good luck John.."may the force be with you!":D

[4Greens]

If you get low on some approach light guidance systems they turn red - is this noticed by colour defective pilots?

[johnobr]

If you get low on some approach light guidance systems they turn red - is this noticed by colour defective pilots?

4Greens - Have a look at the YouTube presentation I posted on page 1 of this thread regarding the Case Studies of Professional Pilots with a CVD.

You will see that between these 3 pilots, there has been a combined total of several thousand PAPI approaches flown. As one of these pilots, I can honestly say that PAPI has never posed an issue for me.

CVD pilots are required to pass the same high standards in flight and sim checks as colour normals. 23 years worth of evidence in Australia indicates we are just as capable of performing all required tasks with no difficulties.

[Foundandlost]

I completed my commercial after the Denison ATT decision and have based my entire career on the fact that I most likely wouldn't be able to fly command for an airline (still can't understand why).... but would however be able to fly commercially. (This I have done for over 19 years and 8000hrs, with many of these hours with a reputable aeromedical organisation flying day and night into both capital cities and black hole station strips without incident) I think if the decision was reversed there would be a lineup of insurance company's forced to payout loss of licence cover looking to recover a very large sum of money....... Good luck with the fight John and Arthur.

[Sarcs]

As promised :ok:: Senate Estimates 18/11/2013 - CAsA (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F1f4a327 c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F1f 4a327c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0000%22)

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Are you aware of the case of the Commonwealth versus Denison, in the late 1980s?

Mr McCormick : No, not personally.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It is a trial case that was put up to determine whether pilots with a colour vision deficiency should be able to operate in night operations, RPT operations and commercial operations, and it was found that they could. In fact a whole new test was devised—the tower-gun test—to clear that, and we now have pilots who have been flying for a number of years and thousands of hours in RPT aircraft, single-pilot operations with multifunction displays, very safely. To my understanding there have been no incidents. Can you confirm whether or not it is correct that CASA is looking to review that, on the application of one of the pilots who seeks to become a captain, exercising the rights of his ATPL, on the basis of the safe flying record, and that CASA is looking to challenge that and obstruct it in the AAT?

Mr McCormick : My understanding is that following on from an AAT decision about colour deficiencies—it may very well be the case you are referring to, but I am not sure—CASA now allows pilots with colour deficiency to fly, up to commercial pilot licence standard. To my knowledge we are the only major regulator in the world that allows this.

The FAA does not allow it, neither does Canada and the ICAO standards do not allow it. I believe the matter before the AAT—and I will refer to my general counsel if necessary—involves the pilot applying now to go not only from commercial but he wants an Airline Transport Pilots Licence. We are already out ahead of the world on this. The actual matter is before the AAT, hence I would prefer not to comment on it until we get a result. But as I said we are very liberal with this already, compared with ICAO and the rest of the world.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I recognise that, and if you look at Australian aviation history, with things like DME and T-VASI we have led the world on a number of occasions and the rest of the world now thanks us for that. My concern is that there is considerable talk and concern within the industry that CASA is not only seeking to prevent this person from exercising the privileges of an ATPL but is in fact seeking to wind back the decision to pre-1989—pre the Denison case—to realign itself with the FAA and other people. I am just trying to understand whether there is in fact that intent, but, also, if the evidence base is very clear both in the Denison case and in the thousands of hours of flying since, that pilots can operate safely, then what is the safety case for not actually allowing someone to exercise the privileges of an ATPL?

Mr McCormick : As to the exact nature of the AAT proceedings, I would prefer not to talk about it. We will take on notice your question about whether we are attempting to withdraw anything. The issue around medical standards is that quite a lot of these medical standards are not set by CASA. In fact we do not set any medical standards. We use whatever the expertise in that particular area says is the requirement, unless we have good reasons to do otherwise. The fact that we have had many years without accidents or incidents—and I will assume for moment we have not, but I will take that on notice—I think we are in a situation where, to go even further, we would need more than a safety case. We would most probably need medical science to tell us that that is probably not too far. As I said, we are already out in front of the world on this. So, we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.
And later on with the ATsB:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I assume you have been watching on the monitor the proceedings with CASA. Are there any accidents or incidents or concerns in Australia that have been brought to ATSB's attention as a result of a pilot having a colour vision deficiency?

Mr Dolan : I am not aware of any investigations we have undertaken where a contributing factor to an accident was colour vision deficiency. My colleagues might have a different view.

Mr Walsh : No, we would have to take it on notice to do a search of the database to see if we have any cases on record.

Mr Dolan : We will search the database to confirm, but we are reasonably certain that we do not have one of those.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It would be great if you could do that. Perhaps I should have asked CASA, but do you have an indication of how many pilots are operating on a licence with a CVD restriction?

Mr Dolan : We would not have that information. It is a licensing issue for CASA.
:D

[fury]

There are a number of issues that need to be examined.
1. Is colour vision really needed and relevant in aviation?
2. Does the CASA Medical Section have the ability to move with the times and apply modern thinking?
As a young pilot we had to perform such tasks and tests that seemed relevant, but at the best they were obscure. The Nav light test was one that I can think of, surely TCAS has taken care of that? I am joking, but never have I had to look at another aircraft at night and decide is it coming toward me or going away. Modern airliners have a number of aids to navigation and safety enhancements that make piloting skills more about management of systems than raw talent. I think colour detection falls into this category. Besides in a two crew environment any deviation from laid down parameters will be brought to the attention of the other pilot. I believe if you did a risk analysis of the threats that this colour deficiency poses and the mitigators would make the risks in the low to medium range.
CASA's Medical Section has over the years shown it's decisions and attitude has be driven by who is leading the section. At the moment it is very risk averse and would rather give decisions that ground pilots and justify it in the interest of safety. The problem with this is that it interferes with peoples lives and livelihoods for arbitrary reasons. I have known a number of people who have lost there medical due to injury and it has taken a extraordinary amount of time for them to get it back, even when the weight of professional opinion has said that they were fine. I believe colour defects fall into this category as the weight of evidence suggests that it has no relevance in aviation.
Finally lets talk about ICAO and it's guidelines. Although ICAO is an entity in it's own right it is made up of member states, these states contribute to policy and guidelines. ICAO does not get it right all the time and if they are anything like any government department in Australia or even the UN they get it wrong, the guidelines are out dated or there is some vested interest at play. In the case of colour defectiveness the guidelines are out of date and have no relevance in a modern aviation environment. Australia used to lead the world in aviation thinking, but, in recent times we have stepped away from that role. This is one area where we as an aviation community can show leadership and make change for the better.

[johnobr]

If you're concerned about these latest developments, it's vital that you contact your pollies including Senator Fawcett and others to voice your concerns. :ok:

Your Local MP
Senators & Members Search Results - Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?mem=1&q=)

Hon. Warren Truss MP
Federal Transport Minister:
E: [email protected]

Senator David Fawcett
E: [email protected]

Senator Nick Xenophon
E: [email protected]

[Kharon]

The FAA does not allow it, neither does Canada and the ICAO standards do not allow it.
But as I said we are very liberal with this already, compared with ICAO and the rest of the world. that quite a lot of these medical standards are not set by CASA.
I think we are in a situation where, to go even further, we would need more than a safety case. We would most probably need medical science to tell us that that is probably not too far.
When they wind in this advanced, modern, scientific, fully supported exception to ICAO, it will probably be the only part of ICAO for which as exemption has not been filed...More regulations and restrictions make for more safety – what a narrow, bureaucratic, black letter law, prehistoric approach.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Even ICAO don't want to deal with this puppy; a sad, sorry state of affairs, when you consider what it costs to keep other ICAO compliant countries baffled; deciding if Australia is compliant in fact, rather than on paper. (refer Boyd - Hansard Maintenance).

[Anthill]

The FAA DOES allow the signal gun test. The NZ CAA allows colour defective pilots on a case-by-case basis.

[johnobr]

The NZ CAA allows colour defective pilots on a case-by-case basis

Slight thread drift away from Australia for a moment, but there is currently a review underway into CVD standards in NZ at present. Very interesting read below:

Colour deficient pilots: Is there light at the end of this tunnel? (http://www.caa.gen.nz/colour-deficient-pilots-light-tunnel/)

What is interesting is that the restrictions which CASA are trying to reimpose here are the same as those currently applied to many NZ pilots. Just a coincidence that our PMO previously worked for the NZ CAA?

The Leader of the NZ First Party - Winston Peters - has also recently taken up the baton on this matter:

New Zealand Parliament - 6. Pilot Licensing?Colour Vision Requirements (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130530_00000006/6-pilot-licensing%e2%80%94colour-vision-requirements)

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Why does Civil Aviation Rule Part 67 require that the applicant for a commercial or airline transport pilot licence have no deficit of colour vision to an extent that is of “aeromedical significance”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Civil Aviation Rule Part 67 contains colour vision requirements that are designed to meet the standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization—known as ICAO—in line with annex 1 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Annex 1 requires contracting States to the convention, of which New Zealand is one, to test applicants to ensure there is no colour vision deficiency that could interfere with the safe performance of a pilot’s duties. In practical terms, pilots need to be able to discern different colours used in aviation—for example, on navigation charts, in cockpit instruments, in airport lighting, and in air navigation lights.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that Australia’s implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard enables pilots with all types and degrees of severity of defective colour vision to operate VH-registered aircraft across the globe, and that these operatives are flying planes into New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The reality is, in relation to Australia, that New Zealand and Australia do apply the same standards, as required by the International Civil Aviation Organization—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, they don’t.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —well, just hear me out—and use the same primary screening method. However, in Australia’s case the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal has made some decisions on some individual cases that require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia, which is the safety regulator there, to issue medical certificates to applicants with some colour deficiency. The authority endorses the individual’s medical certificate as not conforming with the requirements of annex 1 of the convention, and commercial pilots are limited to co-pilot duties only and, I understand, are not able to fly commercially into New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that these colour vision defective pilots in Australia continue to meet the most stringent of operational training, testing, and ongoing review requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia and their airline employers, and that these operatives have been for the last 25 years flying into New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am advised that that is not the case. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia requires pilots to get approvals from the regulator of the country that they are flying into. In the absence of any such approvals, the Minister is not aware of any Australian colour vision deficient commercial pilots flying in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that over the 23 years that Australia has followed this implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard there have been no accidents or accidents reported in which the colour vision status of the pilot has been found to be implicated causally, so why is he insisting upon fictional standards unsupported by countries like Australia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry, but that does not appear to be the case in relation to the matters that the member has raised.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You don’t know what’s going on, that’s why.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, you are wrong, Mr Peters. The reality of the situation is that the Chicago convention requires New Zealand to sign up to the same tests. Australia has the same tests, as I have explained to the member. It has an appeals tribunal that has allowed some pilots to fly, but with restricted practices. In terms of New Zealand’s standards relative to the rest of the world, we are seen as having standards that are more liberal than some countries and also slightly more requiring than others, but all are under the Chicago convention.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, that is the point. I have done my homework and you have not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there has not been one recorded aviation-related fatality anywhere in the world in which the colour vision of the pilot has been implicated causally, can he provide the evidence upon which the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority continues to justify its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard, whereby New Zealand certified pilots with defective colour vision have imposed upon them restrictions so severe that they make a professional career—

Hon Member: Who wrote that question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am able to write my own question, not like the bozo over there, all right? I am able to write my own question, not like the dumbo over there.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to help the order of the House. It starts because of interjections from my right-hand side. Would the member please complete his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So here we go—whereby New Zealand certified pilots with defective colour vision have imposed upon them restrictions so severe that they make a professional career in aviation a practical impossibility in their own country, and yet if they get a job in Australia, they could fly planes into New Zealand? How ridiculous is that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: First let me say that I think the House must admire the generosity of the member in bringing this issue up, because he is not known for colour blindness himself. But the reality—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member raising a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, I am, and it is that the Minister, as the Standing Orders require, should try to answer the question—he has never been much of a wit; in fact, he has been half of a wit most of the time—and get on with being a responsible Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister please just address the question to help the order of the House.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I suppose you could call that one all, but I do not think so. The reality of the issue that the member raises is a very important issue, because if you look at some of the examples—he asked whether it has ever effected any accidents anywhere in the world. There are actually two documented aviation incidents—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, there are not.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and one accident in the United States where colour vision was seen as a contributing factor.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, that’s been contested—overruled.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member can say that, but, actually, the job of the air safety regulator is to ensure that it meets the international rules, and that is what it is doing in this case. If the member is saying that he knows better than the aeronautical regulator, that he should be trusted to make some judgments that, actually, our tests do not need to be as strong as they are internationally, well, he is fine to have that view, but the reality is that we trust our regulator every day to provide the sort of safety that New Zealanders depend upon. It is a serious subject, and, actually, we are required to sign up to the international regulations.

[bankrunner]

Can a colour restricted pilot tell the difference between a red and starboard nav light?

The rear facing whites are always brighter and easier to see from a long distance than the red or greens. You can figure it out just based on those and the other aircraft's movement long before the reds/greens come into view. (Speaking as someone with perfect colour vision.)

[YPJT]

As one who has benefitted fro Dr Pape's work all those years ago I will be signing up to CVDPA and contributing as well as contacting my local member whom I do get on quite well with.
When I first gained my PPL back in 96 my medical was endorsed "day VFR Pvt.
It wasn't until I attended a CASA safety forum a year or so later that the then boss of CASA av med told me that I could progress to CPL, IFR, NVFR. I never bothered trying to do the twr light test as I wasn't going to try and progress towards ATPL.
I, like many others will be p1ssed off if they do wind back the clock and remove three of my licence priveleges.

As for the PAPI question. Nailed it every time. :ok:

Interestingly, a few people I know who worked as aircraft refuellers have been stopped due to at least one company enforcing CVD exclusions. Despite the fact that they could easily differentiate the different colours of fuel in sample jars. Not to mention the alternative measures such as density checks, aroma and unambiguous delivery system labelling.

I'll bet the refueller that mis fuelled a Cessna twin many years ago wasn't CVD. :mad:

[Arthur Pape]

Nav light colour coding goes back to before aeroplanes existed. Aviation adopted the marine nav light code whose origin lies in antiquity. There is only one thing that is fundamental in collision avoidance, and is characterised by the acronym CBRD, which stands for "constant bearing, range decreasing". If you see an object or a light satisfying the CBRD criteria, you are going to hit it! Remember, bearing in aviation is in two planes, vertical and horizontal. If the CBRD criterion is satisfied, then the appropriate manoeuvre (reaction) is anything that changes the rate of bearing change to other than zero. Think about it, colour has no relevance to the action needed to be taken for collision avoidance. There is no correct response to a red (or green or white) light that is specified by the colour. The need to correctly name the colour of an observed nav light in order to avoid collision is a myth


AP

[Sarcs]

Perhaps the US EAA approach can be learnt from and also highlights what can be achieved by concerted pressure on your elected politicians..:ok::EAA Urges Support for Bill on Sleep Apnea Policy (http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-12-04_eaa-urges-support-for-bill-on-sleep-apnea-policy.asp)

December 4, 2013 - EAA urges members to contact their congressional representatives (http://govt.eaa.org/) and express support for a bipartisan bill that would force the FAA to subject its new draconian sleep apnea policy to a formal rulemaking and public comment process.

The legislation (H.R. 3578 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3578/text)) has been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is now headed for the full House. EAA and other GA organizations support this bill and are asking their members to urge their representatives to join as co-sponsors.

The FAA's new policy, introduced in November, would require any airman applying for a medical certificate with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or greater and a neck size of 17 inches or greater to be evaluated by a sleep specialist and, if diagnosed with a disorder, receive any treatment deemed necessary prior to receiving certification. FAA's federal air surgeon, Dr. Fred Tilton, stated that "once we have appropriately dealt with every airman examinee who has a BMI of 40 or greater, we will gradually expand the testing pool by going to lower BMI measurements until we have identified and assured treatment for every airman with OSA."

EAA and its Aeromedical Advisory Council believe the new FAA policy is unnecessary and overreaching, and would place additional burdens and expense on individual aviators. EAA has expressed its objections (http://eaa.org/news/2013/releases/2013-11-20_eaa-sleep-apnea-letter.pdf) to both the policy and the process under which it was enacted to FAA, but the agency dismissed those objections (http://eaa.org/news/2013/releases/2013-12-04_faa-tilton-letter.pdf).

H.R. 3578 requires the OSA policy to undergo a formal rulemaking process before it can go into effect. Rulemaking includes an opportunity for public comment and a cost-benefit analysis. A similar bill concerning sleep apnea rules in the commercial trucking industry recently passed by unanimous consent.

"We urge EAA members and other aviators to act now to gain the necessary congressional support for this bill," said Sean Elliott, EAA's vice president of advocacy and safety. "This policy needs full rulemaking review and cost-benefit analysis as required by FAA's own policy, because it would have far-reaching implications for those holding airman medical certificates."
And a link for the proposed bill H.R.3578 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3578ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr3578ih.pdf):D

[Tankengine]

Cleared to enter,
One of the really silly things with this is that it was discovered in WW2 that colour defective people can often see through camouflage built by "normal" colour people, so are in fact potentially better soldiers! :ugh:

[brissypilot]

It's great to see VIPA getting in and supporting this cause:

Media Release - December 9 2013 - Pilots' Careers put at risk by Court Appeal | VIPA (http://www.vipa.asn.au/node/155)

[Kharon]

BP# 44 –"It's great to see VIPA getting in and supporting this cause:

Bravo Virgin, well done (again). Couple of good points there, (i) Why is this 'sticky' relegated to the GA pages when it clearly affects all pilots, the issue of medical certificates and the way Avmed are currently operating. In secundus, where are the AFAP, IATA and that doyen of robust GA representation AOPAA ? in this matter. This is not, as you all well know just about the few with colour vision 'issues'. It's not you know, just ask your DAME.

[YPJT]

Great news. Surely support from a major airline pilot's association will have to add significant weight to the argument.

[Sarcs]

VIPA initiative is gaining momentum...:D

Today's the Australian article:
CASA denies rule changes on colour vision
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority has denied that it is trying to wind back the colour vision policy for pilots or conduct a de facto appeal of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on the issue.

Virgin pilots are lobbying the federal government in an attempt to head off what they believe will be new restrictions on colour vision-defective pilots they say could destroy hundreds of careers.

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association is worried that an AAT appeal involving CASA has implications for the 1987 Pape and 1989 Denison decisions that opened to the door to pilots with colour-impaired vision.

They have approached senators Nick Xenophon and David Fawcett (dynamic duo strikes again or is it Hans Solo & Luke Skywalker..:E ) about an appeal lodged in the AAT by a pilot against a decision by CASA to refuse to reclassify him as a captain because of his performance in a signal gun tower test.

VIPA says the test is outdated and it knows of no accident or incident where an impaired colour vision was a causal factor. It says the performance of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots is no different to that of their peers with normal colour vision.

VIPA executive director Simon O'Hara said CASA was using the case as a de facto appeal against the earlier AAT decisions, which allowed hundreds of CVD pilots to fly with no restrictions across the industry. "VIPA believes there is little doubt that the current action planned by CASA and its defector appeal will, if CASA succeeds, impact on hundreds of competent and safe pilots across the industry, including those presently employed in all of Australia's major airlines," he said.

Mr O'Hara said 8-10 per cent of the pilot population was affected by colour vision impairment, and this could have implications for future pilot shortages. "This means you have a lot of first officers who will not be able to become captains because of the restrictions placed on their medical," he said.

But in an answer to a Senate committee question, CASA said the Denison and Pape decisions were not binding in the face of current aviation medical standards requiring a person to be able to readily distinguish colours relevant to safely performing their duties, but it was unaware of any proposed amendments in relation to the regulations.

CASA said the regulations required applicants to take an Isihara pseudoisochromatic 24-plate colour vision test and, if they failed, a Farnsworth Lantern Test. Those who fail the second test may be required to identify coloured lights in a test simulating an operational situation.

Although the third level of testing included the signal gun tower light test, CASA conceded its value had been called into doubt. It said it was looking at a British test as an alternative.
Hmm..no mention about the FF defo action but I'm sure the DD will be all over that...:ok:

[johnobr]

Despite CASA's denial that they're not seeking to wind back the clock, I concur with Arthur Pape's original post that documents lodged with the AAT tell a very different story.

Although the third level of testing included the signal gun tower light test, CASA conceded its value had been called into doubt. It said it was looking at a British test as an alternative.

For an example of the British test (the CAD) which they are looking to introduce refer to my post #18 on Page 1 of this thread. It's not representative of anything that 'simulates an operational situation' as required by the regs. It's just a glorified game of Tetris.

If they want to test an operational situation, why not come for a few jump seat rides or better yet observe some simulator sessions? I guess the problem with that is that they would actually realise that CVD's perform identically to pilots with normal colour vision in all situations.

No wonder they're not interested in a common sense approach like that - perhaps they're a little worried that the entire CVD standard might just be proven irrelevant? :ugh:

[outofwhack]

And maybe they might feel they have lost face and their r'aison d'être if they let what they think are 'somewhat blind' people fly planes.

If only they could see the science and logic in the argument that they appear blind to themselves. I'm sure they are being affected by pressure from their overseas counterparts. They should show some backbone and trust the evidence.

Oow

[Sarcs]

We seem to have concurrent conflicting aero-med issues in the US and here that involve both countries regulators and their apparent disregard for contrary medical, empirical and accident/incident historical data & evidence.

Therefore I thought an update on the FAA's proposed (soon to be enforced) Sleep Apnea Policy and various industry stakeholders response will be of interest to some on here...;): FAA Will Fast Track Sleep Apnea Policy (http://www.aero-news.net/AnnTicker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35aa9df1-5db9-4046-b5e1-d90b146436b2)

Says Only Congressional Action Will Stop The Implementation

During a Dec. 12 webinar presentation to discuss the agency's controversial new OSA-screening proposal with industry stakeholders, Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton appeared determined to push ahead with the requirements. Tilton’s insistence on moving ahead with the plan was clear, despite the concern expressed by industry stakeholders about the need for more transparency, including the provision of a means for industry input, regarding the new mandate. “If Congress passes a law [forcing industry consultation], we’ll be compliant with it,” Tilton said during the webinar. “Until they do so, we will move forward with this.”
[/URL]<A href="http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35AA9DF1-5DB9-4046-B5E1-D90B146436B2#" abp="107">[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/politics/2010/FAA-logo-0510a.jpg"] (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35AA9DF1-5DB9-4046-B5E1-D90B146436B2#)</A abp="110">
AOPA reports that Tilton said requiring testing for sleep apnea is a "process change" and does not require the normal rulemaking procedures, so it would not be followed. He said AMEs would be given guidance by the FAA, and the policy would go into effect in January.

“This is unacceptable,” said Doug Carr, NBAA vice president for safety, security & regulation, who participated in the webinar. “The FAA is preparing to roll out a major new requirement on pilots without providing a data-driven justification for the policy, explaining its costs and benefits, or giving any means for the pilots who would be affected to give the agency feedback on it. For many of the pilots at NBAA Companies, flying an airplane is how they make a living, so we take very seriously the FAA’s seeming lack of concern, and lack of transparency, on this matter.”

The FAA’s OSA-screening mandate, first announced by Tilton last month, would require pilots with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or greater to undergo screening for the condition.

Shortly after Tilton’s announcement, it was revealed that the agency would require pilots to bear the significant costs of getting tested for OSA (as much as $5,000, according to some sources), and obtaining the requisite equipment to treat the condition, if necessary. The FAA has suggested that this policy would eventually apply to additional pilots, regardless of the class of medical certificate or the operation in which the pilot flies.

Following the webinar, Carr noted that, while the FAA may dispute the need for industry consultation on its new policy, some members of Congress clearly do not agree with the agency’s assertion, and have responded with legislative action.

A bipartisan bill (H.R.3578) introduced last month by House aviation subcommittee chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-2-NJ) would compel the FAA to follow established rulemaking processes, including a means for industry stakeholders to provide input, before moving forward with its OSA-screening requirements. At the time today’s webinar was held, the measure was awaiting consideration by the full House of Representatives.

“We will continue our efforts to aggressively support H.R.3578, because it will ensure the agency’s plans are vetted through the rulemaking process, which includes public comment and a cost-benefit analysis," Carr said.

NBAA has repeatedly questioned the FAA’s implementation plan for its new OSA requirement.

NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen expressed his continuing concern about the requirement in written testimony he submitted for a hearing on aviation policy and planning held by the aviation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday.

AOPA reported that Tilton admitted during the webinar that there have been no fatal FAA accidents that could be attributed to sleep apnea, but it is none the less "a serious problem in other modes of transportation and the agency believes many pilots may be flying with undiagnosed sleep disorders."
Hmm..that Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton character sure sounds familiar..??:ugh:

[brissypilot]

Hmm..that Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton character sure sounds familiar..??:ugh:

Sure does sound familiar... any relation to our own PMO?

For an interesting read, check out this AAT case from a few years ago:

Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Civil%20aviation%20)#fnB68)


496. Having considered the conflicting evidence, we find that the risk of post-traumatic epilepsy for Mr Hazleton is well within the acceptable medical criteria for the aviation industry. We have taken account of all of the evidence and appropriately given weight to the factors affecting the disputed facts. In determining what are acceptable limits or tolerances in this case, we reject the oral evidence of Dr Wallis and Dr Drane and the written evidence of Dr Navāthé.

500. We find from the clinical and epidemiological evidence, Mr Hazelton’s virtually uneventful history since the accident (particularly in relation to the absence of post-traumatic epilepsy in that period), there appears to be a preponderance of weight pointing to an “inherent unlikelihood” of post-traumatic epilepsy for the applicant[638] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Civil%20aviation%20)#fn636). In so concluding we note in a complementary way, that the respondent’s case was not uniformly robust. In particular, we placed weight adversely for the respondent on the fact that three of the doctors, the Principal Medical Officer, Dr Navāthé and the medical officer Dr Drane, and Dr Wallis from his New Zealand consultancy, who had worked together previously had inconsistent opinions with other doctors from within CASA and with external expert opinion, and we were not satisfied that all of the views of those doctors were objective assessments. We considered Dr Drane’s evidence, who had the benefit of the opinion of Dr Hastings, the United States specialist, but we found Dr Drane seemed unduly influenced by Dr Navāthé’s opinion.

501. We noted in particular, in July 2009 (8 months after Mr Hazleton’s assault incident), email evidence of the strong views taken by Dr Sham Tak Sum and the more moderate views of Dr Fitzgerald, both of whom are employed by CASA. Clearly, Dr Sham Tak Sum and Dr Fitzgerald would have been sympathetic to re-licensing Mr Hazelton, but those views seemed to have been minimised by the other medical officers at CASA and that evidence is at odds with Dr Navāthé’s written statement.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Back in the 1990s, Dr. Pape represented IAOPA at an ICAO medical standards conference in Warsaw, a conference where colour vision was "the" major subject.

At the time, the proponents of ever more restrictive standards were shouting the odds about the use of standard colours in glass cockpits, and how this settled the argument, once and for all time, of the nee for "standard" colour vision of pilots.

This was anticipated, we ensured Dr. Pape was equipped with a useful set of pictures of the glass cockpits of a B767, where the screens had lost the colour ( I forget the actual, defect) and became grayscale screens.

Dr. Pape was able to point out that the MEL operational limitations for the defect were precisely zero, the aeroplane was certified to operate without limitation in the absence of colour.

Quite simply, the point is that the need for standard colour vision has always been assumed, it has never been proven.

Put another way, it has never been proven that a CVD pilot in any way is a threat, and therefor increases the risk of the operation.

Tootle pip!!

[gerry111]

Well said, Leadie.

[WhiskeyKilo]

Hi all,
In 2010 I underwent a colour vision test to determine my aptitude to become a pilot. I passed the practical test (Farnsworth Dichtomat) however at my recent class one test I was told that CASA does not accept the practical test anymore. Has anyone else had this problem and if so how did they get through it? I really need some help, I've always wanted to become a pilot and this will stop me in my tracks.

[Arthur Pape]

Dear Whiskey Kilo, please write to me personally with your exact tests that you have done and I will try to sort it out for you. Arthur Pape

[dubbleyew eight]

Dr Arthur Pape if we were japanese you'd be one of our living treasures.

I dont know if Australia has ever considered the merits of the accolade, so we dont have an equivalent here in oz.

The standout best pilots on our airfield are all colour blind in at least red green.
...well except for me that is. :E

Two of the best electrical engineers I worked with were colour blind as well.

These people all stand out in my mind for their talent and intellect.

I do hope you are successful in beating the regulators into exercising some sense.
We simply dont need this stupid prejudice in a day and age when we can synthesis so many suitable durable alternate colours.

[Creampuff]

Clive Palmer is on the current list of Australia's Living Treasures.

Interpret that and do with that what you will...

[brissypilot]

Direct from the CASA website:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Medical Certification frequently asked questions (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593)

If I fail the Farnsworth Lantern Test does that mean I can't get my medical?

Aviation Medicine Colour Vision policy is currently under review.
That kind of goes against their statement in The Australian last week that they're denying any rule changes on colour vision. :=

And then:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - 6.8 Other Special Examinations (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101572)



Note: Colour vision testing for these applicants is to follow the sequence:
PIP
FALANT
practical lantern testing
A pass on any of these tests will satisfy the requirements for issue of an unrestricted Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.
This also confirms that Avmed have now stopped the use of the control tower signal gun test which was previously an additional test available for option three (3) above. The practical lantern test that remains is simply a modified version of the Farnsworth test.

When will these people get that pilots don't fly aircraft around in laboratories having to name colours of tiny pin pricks of light? :ugh:

[Sarcs]

For your info Doc the QONs from Senate Estimates have just been released and there is three outstanding QONs (one written) posed by Senator Fawcett that will be of interest to you. These QONs are due answers by the 10 January 2014.

Cheers

Sarcs

132 CASA 02

FAWCETT: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency

Senator FAWCETT: I will come back to that at another time. Thank you for that clarification today. On another issue of safety, does CASA have any record of incidents or accidents in Australia arising from pilots who have a colour vision deficiency?

Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice.


133 CASA 03

FAWCETT: AAT Challenge

Senator FAWCETT: I recognise that, and if you look at Australian aviation history, with things like DME and T-VASI we have led the world on a number of occasions and the rest of the world now thanks us for that. My concern is that there is considerable talk and concern within the industry that CASA is not only seeking to prevent this person from exercising the privileges of an ATPL but is in fact seeking to wind back the decision to pre-1989—pre the Denison case—to realign itself with the FAA and other people. I am just trying to understand whether there is in fact that intent, but, also, if the evidence base is very clear both in the Denison case and in the thousands of hours of flying since, that pilots can operate safely, then what is the safety case for not actually allowing someone to exercise the privileges of an ATPL?

Mr McCormick: As to the exact nature of the AAT proceedings, I would prefer not to talk about it. We will take on notice your question about whether we are attempting to withdraw anything. The issue around medical standards is that quite a lot of these medical standards are not set by CASA. In fact we do not set any medical standards. We use whatever the expertise in that particular area says is the requirement, unless we have good reasons to do otherwise. The fact that we have had many years without accidents or incidents—and I will assume for moment we have not, but I will take that on notice—I think we are in a situation where, to go even further, we would need more than a safety case. We would most probably need medical science to tell us that that is probably not too far. As I said, we are already out in front of the world on this. So, we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.

140 CASA 10 (written)

FAWCETT: Safety - Colour Vision Deficiency

1. What resources has CASA provided in the AAT investigation of colour vision deficiency in the current AAT investigation? Please provide details in terms of:

Current AAT case (to date)
CASA dollar inputs
Number of CASA personnel involved
Total CASA man hours
Third party man hours
Third party costs

2. What is CASA's total allocated budget for the current AAT hearing- forecast or approved as per table above?

3. How do all the above figures compare in broad terms to the AAT Denison case of 1989? Link: QONs index (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/Infrastructure_final_qon_index.ashx)

ps Oh and I forgot to mention that the bureau are conducting a search for incidents/accidents where CVD was a factor..:ok:141 ATSB 01

FAWCETT: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency

Senator FAWCETT: I assume you have been watching on the monitor the proceedings with CASA. Are there any accidents or incidents or concerns in Australia that have been brought to ATSB's attention as a result of a pilot having a colour vision deficiency?

Mr Dolan: I am not aware of any investigations we have undertaken where a contributing factor to an accident was colour vision deficiency. My colleagues might have a different view.

Mr Walsh: No, we would have to take it on notice to do a search of the database to see if we have any cases on record.

Mr Dolan: We will search the database to confirm, but we are reasonably certain that we do not have one of those.

[WhiskeyKilo]

Dr Pape, I have sent you an email.

You truly are a god amongst men

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi All,

I'm new to PPRUNE and so far I like what I'm seeing on pilots with colour deficiency.

I'm currently 4 hours and one ground school exam away from my PPL. I went to Gatwick last week to go through a class 1 medical examination because one day, I'd like to go commercial hopefully. I new I was colour blind to red/green and I'd read up on this CAD test. I thought at first the CAD test would give me the chance to pass the full medical. Unfortunately I couldn't have been more wrong. I thought the CAD test was a complete farce!! Not only did it make me feel extremely nauseous with the flickering around the screen but it was totally irrelevant to the safety of flying an aircraft at night! Where the hell did the CAD test come from?? What a complete waste of time and money! What gives them the say on whether or not I am safe to fly in the dark?!? Maybe I'm missing the point?

I've read up on that extra testing they do at the City University in London and was wandering if it's any more relevant than the CAD test. If so, does anyone out there know how to get in contact with the Uni to arrange an appointment.

I've been flying on an NPPL medical declaration since I started my PPL training. But now nearing the end, I'd like to hold a full class 1 medical so that I can go on and do my IMC and Night Rating.

Any help on the matter would greatly be appreciated. Thanks folks.

[gaunty]

Close friend had a brill career in the RANR.

Retired with a brass hat.

As a younger Lt, passed the Navy unrestricted navigators "license" which Authorised him to navigate an RN ship worldwide and enter berth and leave any port without pilot or tug assistance That is a very high level of skill.

Decided with my encouragement to get a Private Pilot license. Failed medical due to color blindness.

So he can operate an Australian Naval ship anywhere in the world but was proscribed from flying.

Didn't persist and gave up the idea as too hard.

[scrubba]

Hey Gaunty,

Sympathetic as I are (the more pilots the better!), I imagine your friend did not have a lot of hours driving his warship solo at speeds in excess of 70 odd knots. Waddyer reckon the chances were that the whole bridge crew were also colour blind? :E

[outofwhack]

This isnt directed at anyone but a person with little or no marine experience should not assume that reliable colour vision is not a safety concern in marine navigation - there are a few professions where reliable colour recognition is very important e.g. paint matcher, vehicle sprayer

In the marine environment good colour vision might well be very important - there may be no other available cues or redundancy in the coding. Its a whole different area. I have no idea about the marine environment.

Sure - aviation adopted the port, starboard and rear nav lights from the marine environment but the colour part does not serve any useful purpose on an aircraft.

OOW

[Sarcs]

It was suggested to me that Dr Pape and the CVDA maybe interested in where the TASRR thread is currently at: Is Avmed the ultimate 3rd world bureaucratic onion?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html#post8254388)
{ Comment: In reference to the Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia (http://www.aerodrome.com.au/aerodrome-articles/1996/11/27/air-turbulence-the-dogfight-over-safety-in-australia/) article, I can now see why Fort Fumble may indeed be still holding a grudge, certainly paints the picture of what you're up against..:ugh:}

Kharon: Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous. Ah yes the Avmed imbroglio..:rolleyes:..and the 3rd world bureaucratic approach of the subcontinent PMO, who is seemingly taking back the advancements of modern medicine to at least the 19th century.:ugh:

For the WLB to get a feel for this bizarre monstrosity of bureaucratic obfuscation and embuggerance, one only need visit the FF AAT records in recent years: CAsA AAT decisions (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austlii.edu.au%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsinosrch.cgi%3Fmethod%3Dtitle%3Bquery%3DCivil%2520Avia tion%2520Safety%2520Authority%3Bmeta%3D%252Fau%3Bmask_path%3 Dau%252Fcases%252Fcth%252FAATA%3Bview%3Ddate%3Boffset%3D0&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F)

If they're game the WLB should also take a sampling of the more than 2000 page DAME Handbook (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fwcmswr%2F_assets%2Fmain%2 Flib100096%2Ffoi_f13_5348.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F) ....{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif}

And while stepping through the Avmed minefield the WLB should enquire about this little outstanding project on Part 67: Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical -
Consultation history
Title Details Date Consultation updates in 2011 Project FS 11/39 - Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fnewrules%2Fprojecthistory .asp%3Fsession%3D1744221561%26pc%3DPC_100680%26project%3DFS% 252011%2F39&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F) - Medical Project approved. 22 Sep 2011
While on the subject of FF stalled projects the WLB need to take a serious look at this list... Active projects (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fscripts%2Fnc.dll%3FWCMS%3 APWA%3A%3Apc%3DPC_93089&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F)
{Comment: It would appear that one of the main reasons for a lot of the stalled projects is because they are awaiting for a new reg to be written, approved or enacted}

Either way you cut it the WLB have definitely got a serious bureaucratic onion to peel back..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

Hmm...given the size of the onion (and the time constraints) perhaps the WLB should seriously consider taking up the generous offer of assistance from the Chair of the Senate RRAT committee...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Addendum to Kharon's post : I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making? It is kind of ancient history now and filed well back in the Shelfware Chronicles but is this what you were referring to "K" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
From the ATsB Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FAbout_Parliament%2FParliam entary_Departments%2FParliamentary_Library%2Fpubs%2FBN%2F101 1%2FAviation&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F):

19 November 1996
Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996

You are right though it did cause a massive stink at the time, perhaps best summarised in the following article: Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerodrome.com.au%2Faerodrome-articles%2F1996%2F11%2F27%2Fair-turbulence-the-dogfight-over-safety-in-australia%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F)
{Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape:D features heavily in that article}

......"It was a well-orchestrated public resignation, with Dick Smith faxing the media a copy of Dr Liddell's letter to the director of air safety, Mr Leroy Keith. Dr Liddell's claims of low morale, the disempowerment of line management, the undermining of air safety surveillance and cuts in the budget to fund unbudgeted office refurbishments, are sufficient to make it a front-page story...."

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...:ugh:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[johnobr]

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...

Definitely not much has changed! :ugh: Some more ancient history below from just after the Denison AAT victory in 1989 in correspondence from the late Laurence Gruzman QC. AOPA played an instrumental role in the campaign all those years ago as highlighted in Arthur Pape's articles (http://cvdpa.com/further-reading/aopa-articles) he wrote for their magazine at the time. :D

Dear Mr Wilkinson,

Following our discussion yesterday I am prepared to express, for publication in AOPA magazine and to pilots generally, my views as to the methods which should be adopted by pilots who wish to take advantage of the recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case of Denison v Civil Aviation Authority.

Denison was an extension to Commercial Pilots of Dr Arthur Pape's case, Pape v CAA, which was applicable to private pilots and I am familiar with that case and its aftermath. That case broke new ground and after that decision there was no logical basis upon which the CAA could prevent private pilots from flying at night because they were duetans, or at worst, deutans with similar disabilities to those of Dr. Pape. That disability is commonly but wrongly referred to as "colour blindness", a term which has many intricate meanings. It is sufficient to state that Dr Pape's disability is the most common form of "colour blindness" and therefore the decision in his case was applicable to most so-called "colour-blind" pilots”.

The decision in Pape dispelled forever the notion that normal colour perception by a pilot is essential for safe flight at night. A Civil Aviation Authority whose sole reason for preventing flight at night by deutans was a perception of lack of safety would have immediately removed the restriction for pilots whose disability was embraced within the reasoning in Pape's case. In fact, the CAA did not regard itself as subject to the law as laid down by the AAT and has continued for over a year to apply the outmoded criteria by which it has restricted night flight.

In view of the decision in Denison it is wrong and illegal for CAA to discriminate against pilots who suffer from the colour perception defect identified in that case and pilots suffering from such a colour defect are entitled forthwith to exercise the privileges of their private and commercial licences at night. In so doing they will be fortified by the results of a massive investigation (at public expense on both sides) and the consideration of the evidence by a highly experienced aviation tribunal in what was regarded by both parties as a test case of general application. The judgment of the tribunal was arrived at after a most exhaustive review of evidence which included masses of expert evidence and expensive experiments carried out by CAA and are contained in 60 pages of learned and practical evaluation of all the evidence and the conclusions derived therefrom. The Tribunal in Denison upheld PAPE and extended it to Commercial Pilots.

The question is what can pilots do to enjoy the results of the decision if, as in the past, the Authority ignores the findings of the AAT and puts individual pilots to the great expense and inconvenience of appealing in each case to the AAT to remove the restriction. Seven cases are still pending before the AAT by pilots seeking to obtain the benefit of PAPE's case to which, in most cases, they were automatically entitled. This is a frivolous and vexatious abuse of power by the CAA.

In my view, in these circumstances, an illegal restriction of this kind may, after due notice and consideration of any matter put forward by the CAA in an individual case, be disregarded. The Authority (Assistant Manager, Flight Standards in the Region) should be informed in writing by each pilot that unless the illegal restriction is removed within say 7 days, the pilot will exercise the privileges of his licence without regard to the restriction.

This procedure will enable the Authority to reply to the pilot putting any reasons why it alleges that the decision does not apply to the particular pilot and to threaten any action they may contemplate. However, the Authority will doubtless bear in mind that any action taken against the pilot's licence is appealable to the AAT, which, upon the basis of the decision in Denison, will find that the night operation was quite safe and that any breach was purely technical and caused by the Authority's failure to implement the findings of the AAT. Similar reasoning would doubtless be applied by a Court if the Authority charges a pilot with a breach of the regulations by flying contrary to the restriction. This advice presupposes that a pilot is otherwise qualified to fly at night and complies with recency requirements. Obtaining the necessary qualification will in some cases impose problems.

In summary, the CAA is, bound by the law in the same way as any individual member of the community. If it places itself above the law it can expect little assistance from the Courts if it seeks sanctions from individuals who disregard CAA’s illegal restrictions on their activities. The Courts do have the power of making their views felt as by ordering the CAA to pay certain costs.

I congratulate Dr Pape on the successful conclusions of the long, lonely and expensive battle which he has almost single-handedly waged against CAA on behalf of colour defective pilots. The Judgement In Denison is an historic document and a great tribute to his skill, knowledge, perseverance and courage, aided, I should say, by his wife.

Yours sincerely,

Laurence Gruzman, QC .
May, 1989 - A.O.P.A.

[Kharon]

Honour, rectitude, integrity. Often hear those words bandied about. Probity, fairness, decency are some others which get flicked about, with little thought given to what they really mean. No, I've not lost 'it'; just had time to look at, study and think about things, like the CVD pilot issue; all triggered by the Avmed situation and creating some sort of quasi 'medically flavoured' submission to the WLR.

But how to get the right message into the Kenwood safe and have it understood is a puzzle. How do you correct legislation which is essentially correct, for starters. It appears that Australia is unique in our 'enlightened' approach to colour vision and the evidence is there to support that safety has not ever been compromised. There has been no foul or penalty caused by our scientifically proven system. Yet although we are, arguably, one of the least ICAO compliant countries, (if you count the registered differences); but suddenly, for some outré reason, we need to regress. Why ? Oh, because we may be 'out of step' with ICAO, EASA and FAA. So what, tell them to catch up, be a leader not some whining puppy following the big dogs. Our CASA medico's need to be showing the way and defending the Australian track record.

It's bad enough that half a dozen or so competent blokes have had to fight for their medicals. Avmed do have a fair few scalps on the trophy wall, but they are insatiable. A visit to the AAT list will demonstrate the litigious nature of this branch of medicine. The DAS could, with a stoke of a pen, rectify this and support the industry which contributes to his pay cheque. We get all manner of instruments dished out, exemptions and the like. We need someone to honour the system, show some integrity instead of sitting back and authorising (or allowing) the spending of an untold amount of money attempting to have men, the calibre of Dr. Arthur Pape disqualified as an independent witness. Disgusting. Until fairness, decency and some common sense is flowing from the top floor, we are going to be stuck on this bloody awful merry-go-round.

What's wrong with a simple system, like the USA one ?. Go to the vet, nose wet ?, coat shiny ?, tail wags ?, no worms ?, all good: issue certificate and pay money; job done. Bureaucrats building empires, by decrying the very people they approve to do the job, (that's the qualified, skilled, hands on medical practitioners at the coal face) are creating a world were your fitness assessment will solely depend on a form and a pro-forma, managed by a clerk. The WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – bring in the Senate crew, open the whole thing up and clear out this unholy mess, so cunningly concealed from public view. "Specialists, don't need no stinkin' specialist opinions".

And, just for Saturday fun -

Barry Hempel came to town,
a riding on a dispo;
he tipped his aircraft upside down
and finished up as 'ipso'.

Barry Hempel saw the vet,
he said his head was cured
Don't mind the hole, it's in control
I'll never end up skewered.

Chorus –
Barry Hempel is our man, he conned the boys at avmed;
bluffed the law by the hanger door
and went off flying, evermore.

To the tune of -'Yankee Doodle'.

[brissypilot]

If there aren't enough examples already of Avmed's incompetent decision making, here's another recent example from the AAT files. There's definitely a common trend starting to develop...

Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2013/941.html)

23.CASA called Dr Pooshan Navathe, its principal medical officer and the primary decision-maker. Some of Dr Navathe’s evidence detailed, quite unnecessarily, the legal framework for regulatory aviation medicine, the processes of aviation medicine decision-making within CASA, risk management and suchlike. The relevance of that evidence was never explained to me. Dr Navathe’s statement discussed, and annexed, various articles from medical research before expressing the opinion that[15],

... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.

24.Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:

90.Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.

91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal

Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.

25.Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report[16]:

The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.

It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed.

31. But even if that evidence was to be regarded as being evidence of a condition or of an effect of a head injury I have a distinct preference for the evidence of Dr Cameron. He alone had the benefit of a clinical examination of Mr Bolton. He concluded that Mr Bolton’s risk of posttraumatic seizures was no greater than that of the general population. The studies relied upon by the other witnesses, he said, considered the full range of head injuries not merely the very mild head injury suffered by Mr Bolton. It was Dr Cameron's opinion that a skull fracture increased the risk of posttraumatic epilepsy only if there had been penetration of the dura or if there had been bleeding in the cavities of the brain. Neither occurred in the present case. That evidence satisfies me that, had I concluded that Mr Bolton did not meet the medical standards, his present medical condition is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

32.I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.

[Creampuff]

It’s always mildly amusing when a Frankenstein injures its creators.

Having decided to micro-manage medical certification in response to a non-existent safety problem, by funnelling all decisions to one person, there’s no one left in the regulator who can provide a truly independent, expert opinion to justify the decision under review. :D

It will be interesting to see whether CASA can find independent experts to support future decisions of Dr Navanthe that are the subject of review by the AAT.

[Kharon]

CP # 68 "It will be interesting to see whether CASA can find independent experts to support future decisions of Dr Navanthe that are the subject of review by the AAT".

There is a story floating about the place that Avmed is providing up to (+/-12) 'experts' in support, many from overseas, no doubt at great expense. We can only hope they are all not 'briefed' in the same manner as the Bolton experts (post # 67). Credibility rating ? Shambollic, Shambollocks or Shamebollic (you choose).

I didn't have much luck trying find home grown 'official' guidance on the CVD issue, but for those non CVD, with an interest in the subject the following links are worth a few moments. The knowledge CVD blokes (and blokettes) have of their condition and how to deal with it is as impressive as some of the 'pro' flexibility medical experts. There are those who would go back to the dark ages where medieval thinking was guided by the church or the local moss woman (who probably got burned at the stake – twice, if she was any good at her work). Science and medicine have taken a few steps forward since then, how can it make sense to even contemplate a step backwards.

USA. (http://www.leftseat.com/baggish.htm) - Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part4-standards-standard424-174.htm). - NZ 1. (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.govt.nz%2Fmedical%2FMed_Info_Sheets %2FMIS006.pdf&ei=Q5jXUpfeAYPkkQWJ-ICoAw&usg=AFQjCNEgiF2toPd_z2iik-LrgRxCfbe3Lw&bvm=bv.59568121,d.dGI) - NZ 2. (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.govt.nz%2Fmedical%2Fgd_colour_visio n.pdf&ei=Q5jXUpfeAYPkkQWJ-ICoAw&usg=AFQjCNF1-lV3xi9uMy_NPgC0Y7s7LILxZw&bvm=bv.59568121,d.dGI)

Hell, even ICAO haven't touched the basic remedy for about 70 years.

“The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.” (ICAO Convention Annex 1 – Chapter 6.2.4.2).

Did you know that dogs are not colour blind, they are dichromatic seeing only two primary colours – blue and yellow. They seem to manage very well, leading blind folk across the road; the more people I meet, the more I like my dogs.

[Sarcs]

Phew..:rolleyes:.for a sec there I thought the Empire may have forced the binning of this thread..:oh: Ok all's good..thought some recent (and not so recent) commentary on various Avmed issues maybe of interest..:D

1st Shine Lawyers on Bolton AAT decision: AAT restores right to fly for pilot (http://www.shine.com.au/aat-restores-right-fly-pilot/)The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) recently set aside the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after being attacked in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).

On the evidence before the Tribunal, per Deputy President Hack SC, it was not open to say that Mr Bolton, the 23 year old pilot, had either a “condition” or some secondary consequence as a result of what happened to him to support the cancellation of his medical certificates. Mr Bolton recovered well, but CASA’s concern was that after what happened, he had an ongoing risk of seizures, which would endanger air safety. Mr Bolton’s contention was that what happened did not affect the underlying brain so seizures were not likely to result.

The weight of the accepted evidence supported Mr Bolton’s views – that there was no present ailment, so the Tribunal held that Mr Bolton met the appropriate medical standard. This conclusion is, in itself, unremarkable. What is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.

The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:

9. A person giving evidence based on his or her special knowledge or experience in an area

a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;

b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.

Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include this declaration:

I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.

While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.

Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings.

Should the evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept it.

Thankfully, Mr Bolton was found to neither suffer from a condition nor (if he had one) would such a condition be of a kind to endanger the safety of air navigation.

The Shine Lawyers Aviation Department acts for pilots and other aviation operators who are aggrieved by decisions made by CASA to suspend, cancel, vary, or add conditions to Australian issued aviation authorisations, pilot licences and medical certificates. This work extends to both AAT and Federal Court matters as well as general aviation legal advice.
- See more at: AAT restores right to fly for pilot - Shine Lawyers Aviation News (http://www.shine.com.au/aat-restores-right-fly-pilot/#sthash.0mQyVoZY.dpuf) :D

2nd AOPAA TASRR (WLR) 'draft' submission (paragraph 9): 9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, demanding specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and frequent rejection of those specialist reports Avmed has demanded. Demands have become ever more complex and expensive; opinions of DAMEs are often ignored, and opinions of appropriate specialists are often ignored. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor. It can be argued that CASA should rely more on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion. Hmm not bad..:D..but not quite the heavy hitting, ballsy approach that we, once upon a time, came to expect from AOPAA.

'Blast from the past' examples from submissions to the...

...'Submissions responding to notice of inquiry on an exemption application under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (http://www.humanrights.gov.au/submissions-casa-exemption-application) ...'

..."The CASA says further, that the “making of the amendment regulations for Part 67 of CAR 1998 is imminent”. The proposed regulations are currently subject to industry consultation through the medium of Notice of Proposed Rule Making publications which have been distributed throughout the aviation industry. The statement contained in the application to the effect that the making of the proposed Part 67 is “imminent” appears to be based on the premise that the industry consultation is irrelevant, or that it is finalised, or that industry has not been invited to make submissions in respect of this Part. The submission also infers that the making of the regulation will be automatic upon its completion and that disallowance is not contemplated. There is no evidence contained in the CASA application which would permit a finding that any of the above matters have been addressed.

It is submitted that the CASA application contains insufficient evidence upon which any finding could be made that it comes within the requirement that it be exceptional: the CASA has not included any material which would clearly justify such an exemption..."

..."The risk factor can not be eliminated. It is submitted that the objects of the anti-discrimination legislation, and the safety objects with which the applicant is concerned can both be met by treating each case on its merits, rather than by having mandatory exclusions imposed, in respect of which the affected person has no means of challenge.

Similar considerations apply in respect of other medical conditions sought to be covered by the application, including that of colour-blindness, and in the latter case, these submissions adopt and endorse those made by Dr Arthur Pape..."


...."Historically, Australia and other contracting States have dealt with non-compliance with the Convention by the proper and allowable method of filing of a Notice of Difference, in each case, with ICAO. Filing of such a Notice brings the non-compliant State into conformity with the subject matter of the Notice. Such Notices have been filed by all contracting States, including Australia.

The CASA in this application have failed to mention this important aspect of manner of compliance, and failed to include in its application advice to the Commission of the many Notices of Difference which it (and its predecessors) have filed, and of the large number of non-compliances by Australia. No evidence has been produced from which a finding could be made that either non-compliance, or compliance by means of the filing of a Notice of Difference, has ever, or will, put Australia’s regulatory authority “at great risk”, or at any risk, of non-acceptance by either ICAO or other contracting States.

Further, the United States o America’s medical standards differ significantly in important aspects from those of ICAO, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has not been accepted by the remainder of the contracting international aviation community.

Overall, these matters relate only to Australia’s international obligations, which can be well met by the required procedures of Notice of Difference: they have no bearing on Australia’s domestic affairs..."
:D:D:ok:

I'll leave the comments to those more qualified to do so...:E

[Kharon]

What's interesting is the amount of talk this thread has generated amongst the troops; lots of axes to grind; there are stories (unsubstantiated – of course) that even the 'big end of town' have just about had enough of the Pooshambolic method of aviation medicine and associated paperwork. I hear there is a large increase in the number of liver function test being done because someone went to a birthday party and had a few more ales than the prescribed maximum, or nodded off to sleep during 'My Kitchen Rules'; or is now consulting with diabetes or cardiac specialists. The specialist advice being ignored, the good doctors rolling about the floor laughing while collecting hefty fees.

I hear Arthur Pape and a couple of other 'clever lads' have made appeals for medical sanity; the big question is, will they be heard and can they change anything. If the tales are true, then change is long overdue.

[Frank Arouet]

Anybody at AVMED who believes they can best Arthur Pape are in for a shock. Arthur has the patience of a rabbit trap and the will of a Lioness defending her cubs. His record of past is proof of his determination. It was he who orchestrated change that CASA are trying to change back. Talk about back to the future.


One hopes AOPAA are supporting him, as it was an AOPAA initiative years back when they were relevant.

[brissypilot]

For your info Doc the QONs from Senate Estimates have just been released and there is three outstanding QONs (one written) posed by Senator Fawcett that will be of interest to you. These QONs are due answers by the 10 January 2014.

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/sup1314/infra/index)

Almost a month late and still waiting... :ugh:

On another note, the AFAP are also critical of Avmed in their submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.afap.org.au/html/s02_article/default.asp?nav_top_id=116&nav_cat_id=214):


13. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.

[Sarcs]

BP the AQONs have just been released..

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development AQONs (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/sup1314/infra/index)
So lets see what CAsA had to say on the CVD QONs..

Question no.: 132
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54 (18/11/2013)

Senator Fawcett asked:
Senator FAWCETT: I will come back to that at another time. Thank you for that clarification today. On
another issue of safety, does CASA have any record of incidents or accidents in Australia arising from
pilots who have a colour vision deficiency?
Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice.

Answer:
CASA’s occurrence data files do not show a record of any accident or incident attributable to pilots’ colour
vision deficiency. Question no.: 133
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT Challenge
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54-55 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
Senator FAWCETT: I recognise that, and if you look at Australian aviation history, with things like DME and T-VASI we have led the world on a number of occasions and the rest of the world now thanks us for that. My concern is that there is considerable talk and concern within the industry that CASA is not only seeking to prevent this person from exercising the privileges of an ATPL but is in fact seeking to wind back the decision to pre-1989—pre the Denison case—to realign itself with the FAA and other people. I am just trying to understand whether there is in fact that intent, but, also, if the evidence base is very clear both in the Denison case and in the thousands of hours of flying since, that pilots can operate safely, then what is the safety case for not actually allowing someone to exercise the privileges of an ATPL?
Mr McCormick: As to the exact nature of the AAT proceedings, I would prefer not to talk about it. We will take on notice your question about whether we are attempting to withdraw anything. The issue around medical standards is that quite a lot of these medical standards are not set by CASA. In fact we do not set any medical standards. We use whatever the expertise in that particular area says is the requirement, unless we have good reasons to do otherwise. The fact that we have had many years without accidents or incidents—and I will assume for moment we have not, but I will take that on notice—I think we are in a situation where, to go even further, we would need more than a safety case. We would most probably need medical science to tell us that that is probably not too far. As I said, we are already out in front of the world on this. So, we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.
Answer:
CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.

Each application for a medical certificate is required to be determined by reference to the statutory scheme and the individual circumstances of the medical certificate applicant. From that perspective, the Denison and Pape decisions are not binding on CASA in terms of the way in which it deals with the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiency.

Both of those cases were decided over 20 years ago under a different legislative framework and have been largely superseded by advances in aviation medical science and increased use of colour in aviation, especially in the cockpit.

The current aviation medical standards for colour perception are set out in item 1.39 of table 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), which requires a person to “readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant licence.”

Regulations 67.150(6) and 67.155(6) of the CASR, which apply to the class 1 and 2 medical standards respectively, require an applicant to demonstrate he or she meets the medical standard by undertaking specified testing in the prescribed order.

The first level of testing an applicant must undertake is the Ishihara Pseudo-isochromatic 24 Plate (PIP) colour vision test.

If the person fails that test then he or she must undertake a second level of testing, the Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) test.

If the person fails the second level of testing, then an applicant may be required to correctly identify all relevant coloured lights in a test, as determined by CASA that simulates an operational situation.

If a person fails this third level of testing, then no statutory provision is made for the person to be further tested.

Some international regulators have more recently funded research into the development of aviation specific tests for colour vision. One such aviation specific test, which has now been adopted by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, is the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test which is based upon aviation specific colours and operational requirements.

CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation. CASA will seek and consider the views of aeromedical specialists before any final decisions are taken on this matter. Although no rule changes are envisaged at this time, any rule changes would be consulted with industry in accordance with CASA’s normal regulatory development process. Question no.: 140
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page: Written
Senator Fawcett asked:
1. What resources has CASA provided in the AAT investigation of colour vision deficiency in the current AAT investigation? Please provide details in terms of:

Current AAT case (to date)
CASA dollar inputs
Number of CASA personnel involved
Total CASA man hours
Third party man hours
Third party costs

2. What is CASA's total allocated budget for the current AAT hearing- forecast or approved as per table above?
3. How do all the above figures compare in broad terms to the AAT Denison case of 1989?
Answer:
1.Current AAT case (as at 4 December 2013)
CASA dollar inputs $10,200 (employee costs)
Number of CASA personnel involved 3

Total CASA man hours 146 hours

Third party man hours 115 hours

Third party costs $33,510 (expert report fees)

2. CASA does not allocate a specific Budget to individual litigation matters.

3. CASA has not been able to locate sufficient material which would allow such a comparison to be made. Question no.: 141
Program: ATSB
Division/Agency: (ATSB) Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (18/11/2013)

Senator Fawcett asked:
Senator FAWCETT: I assume you have been watching on the monitor the proceedings with CASA. Are there any accidents or incidents or concerns in Australia that have been brought to ATSB's attention as a result of a pilot having a colour vision deficiency?
Mr Dolan: I am not aware of any investigations we have undertaken where a contributing factor to an accident was colour vision deficiency. My colleagues might have a different view.
Mr Walsh: No, we would have to take it on notice to do a search of the database to see if we have any cases on record.
Mr Dolan: We will search the database to confirm, but we are reasonably certain that we do not have one of those.

Answer:
A review of the ATSB’s data base revealed one occurrence in 1996 that makes reference to colour blindness.

The incident (ATSB reference 199603027) happened on 20 September 1996 and involved a privately operated Piper Navajo that landed with the landing gear retracted at Roma, Queensland. The investigation found that the pilot probably forgot to lower the landing gear when he became distracted after landing checks were delayed and as a result of trying to sight another aircraft.

The occurrence record noted that the pilot had a colour vision deficiency where he could not discriminate between red and green. It is not clear whether the colour vision deficiency played any role in the pilot not observing the landing gear position, noting the landing gear indication lights are red (up) and green (down), but the pilot should still have been able to observe only one light illuminated for the up position as opposed to three lights for the down position. Pilot distraction is a common cause of occurrences involving wheels up landings, irrespective of any colour vision impairment. For the lighter side of other FF/PMO (Avmed) instigated & compounding issues...:ok:

Talking of cultures..did you hear the one about...?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-18.html#post8301715)

Cheers...Sarcs :ok:

[brissypilot]

Thanks Sarcs,

CASA’s occurrence data files do not show a record of any accident or incident attributable to pilots’ colour vision deficiency.

Then why are CVD pilots battling CASA at the AAT once again, for the 3rd time?? :ugh:

CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.
CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation.
There are reports that a number of experienced Emirates pilots have recently been made redundant as a result of the CAD being introduced an annual colour vision test in the UAE. I'm sure our infamous PMO would love to see the same occur in Oz.
CAD - Color Vision Assessment - YouTube
Maybe I'm blind, but it doesn't look very aviation specific to me. Seems more like another laboratory based test... I'm still trying to figure out how it simulates an operational situation!

Judging by the reported recommendations in the PMO's AAT witness statement that for pilots who fail the CAD be issued with VFR, daytime only medicals, with no carriage or passengers, it's hard to see how CASA are denying plans to wind back the colour vision policy. :=
2. CASA does not allocate a specific Budget to individual litigation matters.
Kharon
There is a story floating about the place that Avmed is providing up to (+/-12) 'experts' in support, many from overseas, no doubt at great expense. We can only hope they are all not 'briefed' in the same manner as the Bolton experts (post # 67). Credibility rating ? Shambollic, Shambollocks or Shamebollic (you choose).
With 12 witnesses, one would think that these costs will very quickly escalate. :ugh:

[outofwhack]

ClearedToReenter,

Do you believe everything you read?

Dont you think that the UK CAA introducing a new colour vision test charged at GBP120 a throw might just be keen to encourage all those thousands of CVD pommes to travel the country again to have a go [and fill their coffers]. What better carrot than saying 'Hey guys we might let you have a career if you can pass this new test [that in no way represents the task of a pilot]'.

If all in the UK had saved their money that they spent trying to pass lab based colour tests that are mostly unrelated to the task of piloting and hired some lawyers instead they would be where Australia is now - with 24 years of accident free day/night flying by every type of colour blind pilot from private to airline levels.

I foolishly did the CAD for real at Gatwick and it is a visual nightmare - nothing like what you see on youtube.

We dont need more lab tests. The proof that we are safe is in the complete lack of accidents in Australia where CVD pilots have reached all levels over the last 24 years.

Do you really think the UK is in the lead by introducing a new test?
Its really sad to see 1 in 10 youngsters knocked back from this career when it has been proven in court and in practice that they are perfectly able to perform the job with safety identical to a colour normal person. How long is this unjust worldwide discrimination going to last? 90 years and counting....

OOW

p.s. just because we now live in Australia and are allowed to fly does not make us able to name all colours correctly. We cant. You need to admit it. We are so lucky a brave man called Dr. Arthur Pape forced the rules to change because he proved in court that aviation safety, after the invention of radio, never did DEPEND on colour recognition or naming.

He achieved this at personal expense. Luckily Australia has an easily accessible independant review body for all government admin decisions (Administrative Appeals Tribunal - now by another name I am sure].

The CAA are keeping the CVD pilot population busy and poor by keeping them jumping hoops.

[Sarcs]

Have just read a very informative WLR submission (shhh??..that will soon be publicly available..;)) that actually quotes in full Dr Pape's original post at the start of this thread...:D Although the submission only briefly touches on the subject of CVD & other Avmed issues, I thought that the following quote (with the author's permission) was significant (my bold): Other medical matters

Our industry contacts assure us that the colour vision issue, although typical of other matters of aviation medicine concern, is far from being the only one that is elevating aggravation among pilots, DAMEs and specialists, and that these matters will be amply brought to the panel’s attention by individuals and groups who are affected. One general practitioner brought our attention to the fact that he can no longer access parts of the DAMEs’ handbook on the CASA website, and is concerned that it may be in the process of being rewritten by persons whose regulatory and medical experience may be less than optimal.

We are reliably informed that some 450 pilots of one single carrier alone are affected by these policies and practices, which appear to embrace the development of new standards in the complete absence of empirical validation or external consultation.

As with some other matters we are convinced that the Panel will be amply provided with well informed information on these issues. Obviously I cannot confirm the veracity of the author's source. However it does make for a very interesting & disturbing rumour in regards to other DIPs concerns with the FF Avmed section...:{

Also for the CVD crew keep in mind that the next round of Senate Estimates is coming up...2013-2014 Additional Estimates schedule of meetings (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/add1314/schedule.ashx)...and now might be a good time to fire off some additional suggested questions to the good Senators.:confused:..:ok:

[Sarcs]

The Australian Lawyers Alliance have made their submission to the ASRR publicly available...:D Submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance (http://www.aviationlaw.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Australian-Lawyers-Alliance_ASRR-Submission.pdf)

Of significance to the CVD/Avmed matter is the following excerpt from the Submission: 3. MODEL LITIGANT CONSIDERATIONS – EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE AAT

A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.

The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).

In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.

The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:
a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;
b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.

Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include a declaration:
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.

While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.

Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings. Should the medical evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept its evidence.

The ALA does not wish to pontificate in relation to the performance of our
professional colleagues’ functions within CASA in the context of AAT matters, but does wish to identify to the Panel that confidence in the air safety regulator will be enhanced if oversights as noted in Bolton, are remembered when preparing cases for the AAT by both applicant’s solicitors and CASA.
Cheers Sarcs..:ok:

[brissypilot]

Another day, another criticism of Avmed...

The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) has also weighed into the debacle in their submission to the WLR:

AAAA Sub Av Safety Review Jan 2014 (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/AAAA%20Sub%20Av%20Safety%20Review%20Jan%202014(1).pdf)

One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose.


The ability of the branch to hide behind the façade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.

[Kharon]

This CVD issue ain't going away, is it? Seems to me that the more I read the less clear the Avmed pugnacious stance becomes; is it double buggered? Except, and here I'll need help (Creampuff/ Leadie), on a point of law – is an AAT decision considered a precedent? Because if it's not, then must each case of CVD be heard individually? Don't know, but can anyone help?

If this is allowed, the costs will be staggering to the country; if CASA have to round up their overseas experts for each case. Seems to be a two edged sword, because if the industry appellants can't rely on the 1986/ 1989 decision as being a precedent, then how can Avmed rely on a win in one case in the AAT as being 'the' precedent for future actions against CVD pilots??. As I say, it's a puzzle. What, 25 years no accident history, thousands of flight hours logged over 24/7 operations in all kinds of weather, often with non CVD pilot support makes a logical nonsense of shambolic arguments, but the 'black letter' of law may yet make asses of those who think logically. Dunno, gives me a headache.

I did hear some of the old ponypooh – Shambolic has taken to the 1700 Friday email system to announce the restrictions on CVD pilot medicals, here again no confirmation, but hells bells, if true, he is drawing a long bow and very likely to seriously irritate the AAT president on who's good will he may later rely on in court.

Aye well, game on. Gotta love the rumour mill.

[Kharon]

Doc Liddell has tossed a logical medical grenade into the WLR, published by Phelan on - Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2172) - web site. Seems it's not just CVD pilots being discriminated against.

Fantome – I agree with OOW, your last post OTT; remember tidy bin rules.

[YPJT]

I once had the pleasure of speaking to Dr Liddell at a CASA / CAA safety seminar and discussed my then restriction of day VFR, Private ops only on my medical. He explained to me in detail how it had all changed and that I could pursue CPL, IR, NVFR etc. The only argument he could give me at the time for restricting ATPL was busting just above MDA and being able to quickly ascertain on a PAPI that you are on slope. You would hope that the arguments put forward by a medical and aviation professional such as Dr Liddell will carry some weight with the AAT.

[brissypilot]

Senator Fawcett (& Xenophon) really got stuck into CASA on the CVD issue today :D:D:D

CASA Questioned on CVD - Senate Estimates - 24/02/14 - YouTube

[Kharon]

Interesting passage of play for CVD boys and girls, no Hansard as yet so we'll have to wing it but: of note was.

0036 DAS defers a question playing possum "unsure of exact definitions" etc. act, nearly a well done routine, the art is to convince the Senator that he is not fully across the issue and must defer to a minion. The Fereday minion looks all cool, calm and collected while sitting at the back, but suddenly – show time – 0050 – the 'oh crap' moment. The Muppet, attempting not to wet it's self, eventually sorts out it's name plate then forgets to say who and what he is. The next few moments are embarrassing, Fawcett merrily leading the lamb to slaughter.

0427 – Poor Fereday. He's in so much trouble, the DAS suddenly ('finds notes') wades in with a rescue attempt; now it seems he is not so baffled by this CVD stuff and tries to bluff it out; alas, game set and match Fawcett.

McComic mentions differentiating between Red, Green and PAPI in the same breath; unless I've lost some marbles both PAPI and VASIS are Red/White, so why all the fuss about green? Can any one with CVD explain what they actually 'see' with a below glide slope indication; just ignore the other redundant options, such another pilot, EGPWS and all that safety stuff. Green is taxiway lights and bay numbers and not really supercritical.

Meanwhile the Muppet pulls his timber in and sits very still hoping to avoid further questions, definitely not quite so cocky during the rest of the flogging. Watch the guy sitting behind McComic, stress level slightly elevated?

It would be interesting to see how many CVD pilots had motor vehicle accidents, going through red or stopping on green. The AMSA seem to be a sensible crowd, and at sea, red/green are important it would be interesting to find their approach to the CVD issue; may be worth investigating.

1200 (Q) "Has a personality changed ?" – nail hit on head; they should have dug what's his name out his lair to answer those questions; now I'd pay for ticket to watch that show.

I still prefer Hansard, but I could develop quite a liking for this new fangled technology stuff. It's great fun and very enlightening. I now know who I would and would not invite to a poker game on the house boat; money for old rope I reckon.

[YPJT]

Well done Senator Fawcett. :D
Clearly well informed on the issue.

[Up-into-the-air]

The following post illustrates the RAus view (http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/casa-raaus-relationship.113621/page-4#post-414087)


Going public with a problem with CASA is not a recommended way to get on with them. That should be obvious to most who have dealt with them. There was a bloke at Avmed who if you disagreed with him at all, used to write your file up as you being psychologically disturbed. Just what you need to keep flying. ( It wasn't ME incidently)

I queried some of my medical history after uncovering some gratuitous and unhelpful comments put there that shouldn't have been by some DAME, my further request for more of the files were responded to by informing me the files had been lost. Yeah right!.... This is a while back. I have many friends in aviation, and I won't publish what their views of the current situation are, but not good at all.

[Kharon]

I hasten to add the delay in getting Hansard was all my own fault.

Mr Fereday: That is my understanding, but I am not the expert in colour vision testing.

If he don't have colour blind clue, why is the Muppet sitting there wasting everyone's time; we had the dog, just needed the pony. The grandiosely titled Principal Medical Officer (PMO) was noticeable by his absence; probably in the back room preparing an AAT brief grounding some poor sod for ingrown toenails, or excessive nose fuzz; or, maybe he and his old mate Wodger are conjuring up the next plan to save us all. The last one wuz a doozy.

Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any specific cases and assuming, as you say, there have been cases where we have withdrawn privileges, I am not aware of that myself.
Later:- we have this.

Mr McCormick: As I said, what has happened between November when I was here and that letter, this is the first that I know of it. We were, of course, expecting to be in the AAT to respond to a Mr O'Brien in February 2012, however, those proceedings are currently not listed for hearing as the previous hearing to commence on 31 March was vacated at the applicant's request.
Then this.

Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any changes around our approach to this. As I said, that letter is news to me. I am not across everything that leaves the building, particularly medical matters where I normally do not involve myself. We will take it on notice and I will get you an answer about what has transpired.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. Sadly, that completes CASA.

Amen and Hallelujah (till the next round).

[Fantome]

There was a bloke at Avmed who if you disagreed with him at all, used to write your file up as you being psychologically disturbed
ahhh . . yes . .. . surely Herr Docteur TS . . . . he who has
hastened the onset of high blood pressure and anxiety attacks in swathes of those grounded and those whose assessments are put on protracted hold . . . let us rue the day that a new broom and a new regime exercising summary powers of rejection came in to replace Rob Liddell. Approachability and accessibility should be right up there with medical nous in the criteria for appointment to Avmed.

Nothing short of a massive enema administered to the bowels of all those bureaucratic bounders will change things one iota.

[Kharon]

Wiki - Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is the original title of a novella written by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson that was first published in 1886.

The circumstances under which Doc Liddell departed the CASA fix have not, as yet been examined in any great depth. The saga of the Avmed decline seems to stem from that time, to the point where every medical could potentially wind up with an AAT hearing, it seems it's not just the CVD group having to struggle. One of the best ideas floated has been the notion that an 'independent peer review panel', made up of past and present Avmed qualified types could be made available to provide some expert sanity for those afflicted by the present system. Seems to be a unnecessary last resort in a sane world, but speaks volumes for DAME opinion of the current regime.

I did manage some light reading of other transport disciplines which require medical certifications; Road (http://www.austroads.com.au/images/stories/AFTD_reduced_for_web.pdf)- Rail (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Rob/My%20Documents/Downloads/Rail_safety_volume_two_assessment_procedures_part0)- Sea (http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/Medical_Exam_Guidelines.pdf).

Road:- Part B – 10.2.6. - Rail. 22.2.3. Colour vision. - Sea Part B Medical standards : Section 3 Eyes/vision.

AMSA even have a sensible pro forma certificate (http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/amsa303.pdf).

You can draw your own conclusions, but for mine, I like the way the AMSA 'operate'. There's not a lot difference in situation between theirs than the aviation scenario; and aviation has the benefit of different altitude separation, not so at sea. The calm, practical methodology of the AMSA has not been infected by the 'myth' of air safety; their requirements and approach to the task reflect the lack of safety hysteria, notable in all other forms of transport – bar aviation. There is also a considerable difference in the number of times the AMSA wind up in court or Tribunal. Perhaps sanity may be found within the ranks of the home grown AMSA safety experts; save us a few airfares, AAT hearings and Senate inquiries.

[T28D]

The latest out of Hansard from Mi Mi Mi Mi it is priceless




Been transcribing the events of yesterday, now up to about 21 pages and still going, and Bill Heffernan gets this week’s super-prize box of Timtams!


Chair: How did it go from a “critical nature of the incidents” to a “don’t worry about it”?


Mr Dolan: It’s a matter that we did rehearse with the references committee Senator, and in short our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation where the weather deteriorates from what was planned, we over-assessed it as critical in the early stage and by applying methodologies, concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.


Chair: Can I commend you that you look really well and less stressed than you used to for some reason?


Mr Dolan: (Undecipherable): “Got rid of the beard.”


Chair: “But that particular incident I just spoke of; no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. I mean, you can’t go from a critical incident to a minor or whatever it was, without something happening on the journey. Anyway we won’t go back there, but to any sensible person, that sounds like either a bloody cover-up or a balls-up.

[Up-into-the-air]

I was browsing the CASA web site, which seems to have more and more "missing pages" following a search than ever before, with easily found stuff just not being there anymore and found the following.

It is interesting that the tone of the material sent out in an e-mail newsletter is quite different from the "skull rants" every month, but the number of errors occurring are large and evident.

The confusion in all this eg. Firies and cabin crew is self evident, but you can call "Karl"!!.

DAME Newsletter - November 2013

NEW! – Direct AvMed Phone line

As of the 14th October the AvMed phone enquiries for Pilots and Controllers are being attended to by the AvMed assessing team. Please encourage all applicants to use this number when contacting AvMed.
Practice point: The new number for pilots and controllers is 1300 4 AVMED ( 1300 4 28633 ).
The contact number for DAMEs has not changed: +61 2 6217 1170.
Christmas is fast approaching

As you know, every year we have the medical application “bulge” before Christmas, and in the past we have had difficulties dealing with it. Last year, with your co-operation, we ran our “Christmas Procedure” and it ran like a charm. Everyone was happy and able to fly over the break. WE want to make this an annual procedure.
To ensure that applications are reviewed before the CASA Christmas shutdown ( 25th Dec – 2nd Jan) please tell your pilots, and have all medicals and documentation submitted to AvMed by the 6th December. We are unable to guarantee that any medical received after the 6th will be processed before Christmas.
MRS Online enhancement

An enhancement to the MRS on-line system occurred on Thursday the 25th October, we have reason to believe that correspondence by emailed to all DAMEs providing details and changes may not have reached everyone. This enhancement was to fix some existing problems, and to require a declaration to be scanned and submitted at the time of submission. This means DAMEs cannot submit a medical without first uploading the declaration form. This ensures that the completed medical is received as a complete document.
Why did this happen without adequate notice? Well, the plan was to send you advance information in this newsletter, but the IT team decided to deliver ahead of schedule! The choice was, delay (indefinitely) until the next window, or accept – a real Hobson’s choice! So we made it happen and sent you an email to advise. We apologise for the lack of communication.
If you are having problems with this upgrade because you do not have a scanner, please call Karl, and we can find interim solutions.
MRS Online

I would like to encourage all DAMEs who are currently not using the MRS On-line system to “give it a go”. It is far faster so applicants are happy too. Once you become familiar with the process I believe that you will find it a preferable system.
Practice point: All Payment forms must be emailed to [email protected]
BUGS: Lipids, Audio & Ophtho dates

This is a known nuisance! The fix has been a challenge with the MRS On-line asking for age requirements inappropriately. Currently, the system is now recognising all dates for these reports when they have been entered into the system this year. I will let you know immediately when dates recognised prior to 2013 are corrected.
Consent to email

As mentioned last month the MRS On-line declaration has been altered to include a “consent to email”. This will enable us to email any correspondence or Medical Certificate issued to the applicant the same day they are generated. This is currently not available for applications received on the paper based forms.
Sometime in November, we will start emailing out certificates to those applicants who are sending in electronic applications.
Practice point: Please check the applicant’s email address when doing the MRS Online medical!!
Emailing reports to CASA

We have recently had an issue where a DAME emailed directly to a CASA Medical Officer who was on leave. As such we had no access to the report and the applicant had been disadvantaged due to this.
Practice point: Please forward reports to the AvMed mailbox [email protected].
Airservices Australia Fire Fighters

We continue to receive inquiries in regard to the processing of Fire Fighter Medical applications. Fire fighters have to meet the Class 2 medical standard, and the medicals are done by DAMEs, but they are not CASA medicals! They are done on Airservices forms and following their procedures. The standards are absolute (no flexibility as when we make decisions – they either meet them or not). All inquiries need to be addressed to Airservices Australia, and submitted to Airservices Australia.
Cabin Crew

We have recently received several enquires about cabin crew medicals. Aviation Medicine is not responsible for assessing the medical fitness of cabin crew. Please contact the appropriate airline for such applications.
Survey Time - DAME Education

I hope you enjoyed seeing the results of the last survey. The next survey deals with the DAME education that is carried out by CASA in conjunction with ASAM. The survey will be emailed on the 1st November, please take two minutes to complete it (all our surveys are planned so as to be completed in 120 seconds). This is really important for us - to know how to best provide appropriate education to you.
DAME Education and CPD

Seminar and conference information (HTTP://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101061)
AMSVIC will hold a meeting on Saturday 19 April in Queenstown, followed by a day at Warbirds over Wanaka.
Dates for the other state based conferences in 2014 have not yet been finalised.

[brissypilot]

From the latest issue (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101852)…

DAME Newsletter - February 2014

AvMed Medical Officers

2014 bring with in many challenges for AvMed a significant one being that we say goodbye to two of our Medical Officers. Sadly (for us) both Dr David Fitzgerald and Dr Peter Clem are moving on to the next chapter in their careers. David has got a position as the Occupational Physician at Emirates Airways, and Peter has gone (back) to Defence in Brisbane. While it is a real loss for CASA, it is good for their careers, and we wish them all the best.

I wonder if Dr No might be next after the embarrassment he’s been causing in the Senate Estimates?

Senate Estimates – 18 November 2013 (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Questions%20on%20Notice%20Answers.pdf)

McCormick: “…we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.”

“CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.”

“CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation. CASA will seek and consider the views of aeromedical specialists before any final decisions are taken on this matter. Although no rule changes are envisaged at this time, any rule changes would be consulted with industry in accordance with CASA’s normal regulatory development process."

The Australian – CASA denies rule changes on colour vision (13 December 2013) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-denies-rule-changes-on-colour-vision/story-e6frg95x-1226781849764)

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority has denied that it is trying to wind back the colour vision policy for pilots or conduct a de facto appeal of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on the issue.

Senate Estimates – 24 February 2014 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Ff3681c2 b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Ff3 681c2b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0000%22)


Mr McCormick: “I am not aware of any specific cases and assuming, as you say, there have been cases where we have withdrawn privileges, I am not aware of that myself…”

"I think we are looking now at carefully moving forward, or in some cases if this test has been adopted by the UK CAA and is obviously under consideration by the FAA, we would look at moving, as it says, to where the appropriate and sophisticated medical research methodologies have led. It is the mere fact of updating things. As for actually the removing the issues, I will take that on notice. I do not know who we have removed privileges from."

And then the gottcha moment … :ok:


Senator FAWCETT: I can give you the letter afterwards. I have it sitting right here in front of me from your organisation dated 24 January doing exactly that. I will put it to you that with due respect this is not moving forward, despite the evidence that you gave here at estimates in November that CASA had no agenda or no plans to wind back the gains of the Denison case. This is, in fact, a very deliberate effort to adopt a standard which might medically ascertain that somebody does have a colour vision deficiency, but clearly as evidenced by multiple pilots that have flown for over two decades, it is not an accurate or effective measure of their ability to safely operate an aircraft. This is going backwards and not, in fact, forwards.

:D

[dubbleyew eight]

I worked with two colour vision deficient electrical engineers.
I also taught in my controls systems engineering course about designing to overcome colour vision deficits. (i have history on this)

one day the managing director hauled me into his office for a please explain, this colour vision nonsense that you teach blah blah blah.
colour vision deficit was not permitted among electrical engineers he opined.
close your eyes and think a moment. name the two most inherently talented engineers we have on staff, I asked.
after some thinking he gave me two names.
I agreed and then told him that both were colour vision deficit.
there was a bit of an explosion after that but it got him nowhere.

colour vision deficit people are needlessly discriminated against.
none in my direct personal experience have ever had an intellectual deficit.

on my airfield I have noticed a number of better than average pilots.
of those better than average pilots 5 of them are red - green colour blind.

surely it is high time for the rusted on senility in ICAO, the FAA and CASA to really address the only problem ever identified for CVD pilots.
CHANGE THE PAPI LIGHT COLOURS.
white and amber colours would remove the problems (if indeed they exist) completely.

if you don't fix this CASA you definitely are totally incompetent.

[Kharon]

This seems not to be so much about 'competency' but 'black letter law' and outrageous ego. The rules could be so very easily changed, no need to change the lamp lens. <5700 Kg SP/IFR competency demonstrated as per usual. >57 PIC/FO not with another CVD pilot, competency as per usual. A doddle with the right mind set.

Unknown - "Since the Denison ruling, CVD pilots have consistently demonstrated the ability necessary for the safe performance of duties through regular, rigorous flight and simulator assessments." (ICAO in bold).

[T28D]

One of my close friends is a red/green colour deficient highly respected General Surgeon with a busy practice.


Good thing CASA don't regulate Doctors !!!!!!

[Sarcs]

Fort Fumble Avmed PMO cops another pizzling in the AAT...:rolleyes: :ugh:

McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2014/119.html)

"..50. 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....

"...56. 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..."

How much can a Koala bear??:E

[Cactusjack]

Once again, no real shock. A CAsA employee trying to make a decision stick so as to save his own ego and pride, regardless of what the other evidences show.
CAsA are a long standing joke and think nothing of sacrificing another persons career and life to protect their own incompetences and pride.

Sorry, but Dr Pooshan is yet another on CAsA's list of high ranking personnel that should be shown the door, ASAP. :mad:

[brissypilot]

A number of CVD pilots received an interesting email during the week, along with re-issued medical certificates. This followed some probing questioning by some of the CVDPA folk. :D

You would have noticed that your recent medical certificate had a condition 13 which read "Limited to flights conducted inside Australian territory" instead of the earlier "Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1".

Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.

On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.

Aviation Medicine

Most interpreted the original condition to mean that although the Australian standards differed from ICAO, they could still operate internationally on the basis of their Australian licence and medical, in a VH- registered aircraft. The surreptitious change to the wording earlier this year then dramatically altered the type of operations that some pilots were able to perform.

Could it be that the pressure is slowly mounting on CVD issues?

[brissypilot]

Copied from Senate Enquiry (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-98.html) thread...

It was good to finally see the PMO get grilled in Senate Estimates last night on the CVD issue.

Well done to Senator Fawcett for pursuing this matter so passionately! :D

AIVWO0conJ8

[Up-into-the-air]

I listened to the exchange with the Honourable Senator Fawcett, the medical officer and mccomick.

Fawcett raised issues of the "Model Litigant" and how casa could justify it's actions.

mccomick could not justify to the Senator the spending of the ?? in excess of $100K to pursue the matter in the AAT and find a reasonable compromise prior to the AAT.

So mccomick invoked the "Safety Reason's" from the CAAct.

It is obvious how this will be prosecuted. Interesting that casa brought "Manager Legal Branch" Joe Rule out of the cupboard to help in the matter.

I wonder if the "wonder man" Ian Harvey - the million dollar Barrister will be working on this??

The video needs some careful study for the up-coming AAT hearing on CVT next month.

Mccomick certainly flagged that he is not open to any compromise.

Maybe a last hurrah by "the angry man".

[thorn bird]

Stevie, mate,
maybe your a tad naïve expecting anyone in CAsA to tell you the truth!
Mate, if their prepared, and do, perjure themselves in a court why would anyone trust anything they say?
Committing perjury, swearing false statements, manufacturing evidence is somewhat frowned on for us Plebs.
They on the other hand are entirely immune to sanction and are positively encouraged.
As one of their leaders once told a minister,
"Proof, minister if we had to provide proof we'd have to employ another hundred staff!!"

[Creampuff]

Senator FAWCETT: Dr Navathe, there are two confounds with that approach. One very simple example is that in my past at military college they used to have language aptitude tests, theoretically derived tests. Our counterparts from countries in Asia were not normally sitting those. A Chinese origin Singaporean student sat the test, failed dismally, was told he had no aptitude for tonal languages. The similar confound for you is that pilots who had been safely flying for tens of thousands of hours have failed the CAD test and yet have demonstrated their ability to safely operate aircraft in not just one test but multiple check and training tests with multiple instructors.

So if the contention that Mr McCormick made is that CASA approached this on an individual capacity basis, as opposed to one rule, then you cannot discount the fact that a theoretical test will not necessarily determine an individual's ability to use other cues to operate an aircraft safely. You mentioned that they looked at internal and external lights. It is a proven fact that in aircraft that are modified for night vision imaging systems, where all the emitted light is filtered with something like a BG7 filter, the colour hierarchies are completely disrupted and yet air crew in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, normal colour pilots, quite safely operate those aircraft in terms of interpreting that internal information. Likewise with external information—the human body adapts. There are things like hypersteriopsis. For years we have said that that would make it impossible to fly, yet the body adapts to that. So what you are seeing, in the case of this pilot—I understand you attempted in 2009 to not renew his medical, but subsequently you gave it back to him to continue flying as a captain in an ATPL situation—is that he has not passed the CAD test but demonstrates that he as an individual is able to competently fly an aircraft by day, by night, in IFR conditions. From the point of view of procedural fairness and natural justice, is it a good use of taxpayers' money to take these issues through to well over $100,000 in an AAT hearing when there are proven methods of establishing the competence of an individual to operate an aircraft?

Mr McCormick: We do not know what the sum of money involved is but we will go with what you are saying at the moment. The overriding principle here, whether it is colour vision deficiency, hearing deficiency or any sort of impairment on the pilot, is safety. We are talking about going towards an ATPL, when there is no standard of which we are aware for issuing an ATPL anywhere in the world, for what would be the benefit of a number of pilots—I think we are talking about a few hundred pilots in total. I agree they should be able to do the best they can in their career but our responsibility is to maintain the safety of the Australian travelling public. When we get to the point where we are pushing the boundaries, where we are pushing the science, looking for other ways to get around what could possibility be indicated from the clinical side is a dangerous thing to do, we are starting to impact on my ability to discharge my duties under section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act, and that is to provide safety as outlined in that act.

If we wish to go there, then we have to go there in a measured manner. We will not go there on one basic flight test. I am sorry, but we will research this as much as necessary and, with all due respect, I will not be issuing an ATPL to a person who has failed the test as outlined in 67. We intend to do nothing with those who already have their licence and have their privileges. We are writing to them, as I mentioned to you the other day, to say that if they have had some change in their vision or if they think something has changed that will affect them, then perhaps they should discuss it with their own doctor or with their own DAME. I agree we should move forward, but we are already way out in front of half of the world, if not three-quarters or all the world, and as we move forward we will do it at a measured pace. When O'Brien goes through the AAT, we will see what the AAT has to say, what their preferred decision is, and that will give us the basis from which we can move forward, whether it be a practical test or whether it be a clinical test or whatever combination is required. To do it now unilaterally would be dangerous.[Bolding added to substantive text.]

“Dangerous”.

I am reminded of this, from Carl Sagan (with evident geographical amendments):I have a foreboding of an Australian in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when Australia is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of Australia is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.When something is curtailed in the name of ‘safety’ and labelled ‘dangerous’, despite decades and tens of thousands of flying hours of evidence demonstrating the opposite, it appears someone is having difficulty distinguishing between what feels goods and what’s true.

The ‘precautionary principle’ has been described as the celebration of ignorance. But here, the regulator can’t even hide beyond the fear of the unknown. The results of the CVD experiment are already ‘in’. There is less risk of CVD causing an accident than appendicitis causing an accident. Yet pilots are allowed to fly around with a ticking time bomb inside them in the form of an appendix.

This goes beyond a celebration of ignorance. It is the triumph of the last remnants of prejudice against people ‘who shouldn’t be allowed to fly’ because we ‘feel’ it would be ‘safer’ if they didn’t. :yuk:

[aroa]

Thorny...so true ...and all overseen and condoned by the angry man'

Now there's a das with cojones !!! NOT

August draws nigh. Thus endeth the trough. And a very bad lesson for aviation safety. IMHO of course.
Been there, copped all that.:eek:
So what would I know...as a CAsA client/victim :mad::mad:

[Up-into-the-air]

My experience with the evil empire has only found 2 people who have kept to their word over the past 20 years.

No "feedback" is the mantra and by refusing to re-contact or communicate with the individual raising the issue, how can you ever be called to account [for your comments] or

"THE DECISION"

Of course I am cynical, but it goes back to a conversation with the setter of a CPL exam.

I raised serious educational problems and errors with the questions and answers.

I remember a conversation with the person who I found had set the CPL Exam at the time. We argued about the four part answer (a) and (b) we agreed were wrong, but no agreement about if answer was (c) or (d) and in the end I challenged the writer about the answer and he said:

"Of course the answer is (d), I wrote the question.

[thorn bird]

"This goes beyond a celebration of ignorance. It is the triumph of the last remnants of prejudice against people ‘who shouldn’t be allowed to fly’ because we ‘feel’ it would be ‘safer’ if they didn’t".


Creamie, here bloody here!!!!!!!!!!!!

[outofwhack]

Creamie - you had me at "A triumph of prejudice, dressed up as ‘safety’"


Another thing though .....

CAsA's $100k 'budget' is going to be more like $300k at least and will be our own tax payer money used against us!

I have little doubt CAsA is getting international pressure from certain foreign Avmed departments who have been expertly maintaining this prejudice for many decades. These countries have no equivalent of the Australian AAT.

[Creampuff]

I have no insight into what’s really going on, but I wouldn’t be surprised if CASA is hoping to use the AAT as a shield against those ‘foreign Avmed departments’.

“We tried to stop this ‘dangerous’ situation, but alas the AAT overrode us.”

I’ve been thinking about the ‘overriding’ principle of ‘safety’ when it comes to “any sort of impairment on the pilot”. I’d be interested in knowing if anyone else has made the same observation as me about a common impairment of pilots involved in accidents or incidents: The majority of pilots I know who’ve been involved in accidents or incidents are suffering androgenetic alopecia.

If that’s the general experience, surely the precautionary principle would be to ‘ground’ or restrict all pilots suffering androgenetic alopecia until a study has confirmed whether there is a causal link between that condition and safety. Unlike CVD, there’s positive evidence of a correlation between pilots with androgenetic alopecia and accidents and incidents. The ‘safety’ justification for ‘grounding’ or limiting these pilots until a causal link is disproved is therefore ‘stronger’ than for CVD. Surely it would be ‘dangerous’ not to do so?

[outofwhack]

Oh my god yes! Perhaps aviation medicine can prop up the hair implant industry much like they do the aviation colour vision testing industry $$$

[brissypilot]

It appears that Avmed have decided to disregard Senator Fawcett's valid questions in Estimates last week. In a sign of contempt, they have since released their new colour vision policies in the past few days:

Medical Certification - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593)

How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?
CASA has reviewed the application of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 – which covers the medical certification of pilots - as it relates to pilots with colour vision deficiency (CVD).

CASA is not changing the regulations relating to CVD but is putting in place new procedures to better align with the existing regulations.

There will be no impact on existing pilots as the new procedures will relate to new applicants only.

Australia is more flexible in its approach than other countries in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where a fail is recorded and a medical certificate can be issued if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility.

The new procedures are:

Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass, as per Part 67. If all tests are failed, the class 1 certificate is refused.

Initial issue of class 2 medicals
If the Ishihara test is failed, a certificate will be offered restricted to day VFR only. If the applicant wants this restriction removed, they must pass one of the tests as per Part 67.

Class 1 medical renewals
No immediate change. CASA will write to affected class 1 medical holders and the major airlines advising them to consider the impact their CVD may have on their flying, and such other obligations as they may have to inform their employer of a condition which may affect their ability to safely perform their duties. CVD Class 1 pilots may need to undergo a CAD test in the future.

Class 2 medical renewals
No immediate change. CASA will write to affected pilots asking them to consider the safety-implications of their condition and govern their own flying activities accordingly.

ATPL applications
A certificate will not be issued until a test has been passed as per the existing regulatory requirements.

One has to ask, if there is no immediate change for existing pilots, what is the safety case for refusing certification for new pilots? :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

No immediate change for existing pilots means there is no safety case to alter the status quo. It's an admission they got it wrong.


Pooshan: Only this morning, I saw a pilot with two heads and two bodies!
Skull: Two pilots standing next to each other?
Pooshan: Yes, I suppose it could have been.
Skull: In case there is an epidemic of double vision we must alter things to make sure. Sort it out will you old man!

[CoftC]

So, basically overnight, without consultation or notification, CAsA have changed the standards for Australia whereby a CVD pilot that has not passed one of the three tests cannot have a career as a pilot in any form.

They can't even fly freight, fly a crop duster, instruct, fly day vfr scenic flights, nothing:D:ugh:

My 15 year career so far flying IFR/night piston/turboprop charter, most of which as a Chief Pilot (and actually enjoying GA) has solely relied on the results of the Denison case and the work of Arthur Pape. Let's hope I can pass the CAD test or it's game over :{

I will never forget the day when I was 15 and my dreams were shattered with the school careers adviser discovering I was slightly CVD and telling me I couldn't fly for a living (oblivious to the relaxing of the regs due to the Denison case).It looks like many more dreams/careers will be denied or destroyed. CAsA has no consideration or care for the personal impacts this has, when there is NO safety case for it.

Wasn't Australia once the place for a 'fair go'?? CAsA, rather than leading the world are being total cowards:yuk:

[Creampuff]

Simple: You are 'dangerous'!

[outofwhack]

Colour normal pilots can safely name colours.

You may want to tell your employer you sometimes name colours incorrectly - specially those washed out colours. So you would be 'dangerous' at 'calling' a fashion parade.

You could assure them you know when a light is on or off irrespective of what colour it appears to be and remind them that in an aviation situation where colour is used to convey a message that there are sufficient other cues to be sure of the meaning.

Oh and 25 years of CVD pilots flying at every level without issue cant be ignored.

[BJ737]

Good day all as a fellow CVD pilot it is quite disturbing the latest CASA BS... thats coming out. I stand to lose my career as with many of you out there irrespective of the fact having flown 37 types acft including being fixed wing and helicopter instructor rated and 737-8 Captain and 5 diff jets !!!! It took me 10 years to get my medical initially and now ....!!

The point where I am going with this is that we all have our story and BIG BIG concerns and we need to keep ALL the news going, however I feel we also need to get some positives (however small or insignificant) in order for us to sustain the fight. Dr Pape, in my view has done more than anybody in the history of medical aviation , especially considering his career doesn't even depend on it. John is not only fighting for HIS career but for all of us. I cant sleep at night with all this going on.......How the hell does he and DR Pape sleep !!!!!!!!!

To end I have read all the postings but yet one to read GO BOYS, DONT GIVE UP, WERE BEHIND YOU etc etc.... I would like to thank all those out there fighting for us and I am sure there is plenty we don't even hear about !!! Lets give them as much positive encouragement as possible and get a we gonna win behind these boys.......

As churchill said.."NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP"

[No Hoper]

FOr someone who isnt colour blind, explain something please.
Do the colours a person who is red/green difficient see remain constant?

[Brainy]

As a dangerous colour-vision impaired pilot, I am clearly a risk to myself and others, and have been for the last 25 years. Quite how I have survived this long is nothing short of a miracle, clearly.

'No immediate change' for existing medical holders does not reassure me in the slightest. CASA cannot realistically continue to enforce 2 standards for the same 'condition' with different goalposts for new and existing pilots. How would a legal challenge against CASA to the issue of a 'day VFR only' medical for a new pilot stack up when I am allowed to operate under the waiver previously issued?

It is only a matter of time. Us CV-impaired liabilities are ultimately screwed I fear. I looked into the possibility of doing the CAD test, really just to see how I would go - one needs to travel to Sydney and part with $440 for the privilege. :ugh:

[outofwhack]

Don't be mislead into thinking that this means 'no change'.
A change has happened for sure.
But you won't lose your career for 2 years.


CASR 1998 Part 67.150 para 7
......... a person who held a class 1 medical certificate and satisfied the criterion immediately before the change, but fails to satisfy the criterion as changed, is taken to satisfy the criterion for 2 years after the day when the change is made.


It lets the change in standards go unchallenged for 2 years and then removes each pilots privileges at their medical renewal date thus not causing a synchronized uproar.

OOW

[CoftC]

CASA won't have their way because they have no case.

It's easy just to resign to this, but we need to stand up and fight, collectively.

Upon hearing what is going on, my friends both within and outside aviation have been very supportive, and can see that what is happening is absurd. It still needs to hit the mainstream media and gain public support.

The best way to fight this is through the CVDPA and their guidance. Support them generously with donations because they have a very strong case. How much is your career worth??

We have the opportunity in the coming months to hold onto the privileges that Arthur Pape has tirelessly dedicated his life to allowing us in this country, and we can help turn this around and gain momentum for change in other countries.

We need to fight not only for our own careers, but for those who have experienced the same blows with CVD: those not given the chance in other countries, those seeking a career in aviation and for CVD people prejudiced as a whole.

Collectively we can do this!!

[BJ737]

CocC you are spot on, as per my post we have to believe we gonna win, I know pprune is used as a big bitching post sometimes and rightly justified... However now we need to be positive and BELIEVE we gonna give CASA A BLOODY NOSE !!!! Go boys go !!!!

[BJ737]

hey outofwhack

not hundred percent you are right, what you say is correct, however CASA have stated "we are not changing the law but merely appying it in another way" therefore technically we might not get the 2 year leniancy as the law has not changed.........but then again who am I to question the sky gods !!!!!!

[T28D]

CoftC Hear Hear bloody well said, fight Mr Poobar with logic and collective wisdom gained of significant time, we have a better DEMONSTRATED safety case than Mr Poobar.

[CoftC]

In 2011, an aircraft crashed into a ferris wheel.

Therefore, there have been more accidents caused by collision with ferris wheels than by Colour Vision Defective pilots, worldwide.

[brissypilot]

Avmed has today written to all AOC holders encouraging them to consider whether it is safe to continue to allowing CVD pilots to operate:

Colour Vision Deficiency Letter to AOC Holders (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%20Letter%20to%20AOC%20holders.p df)

Talk about blatantly lying to the public over the past few months about denying any changes to wind back the clock. Visit the CVDPA website for the full story:

The Empire Strikes Back: An Important Update on Aviation Colour Vision Standards (http://cvdpa.com/highlights/the-empire-strikes-back)

Careers are now under very real threat - get on board and support these guys urgently! :ok:

Lets hope the likes of AFAP / VIPA / AIPA are onto this.

Mods - any chance of getting this thread sticked again??

[thorn bird]

Well if that letter doesn't flag just what a bunch of Scumbags inhabit Fort fumble I don't know what does?

[Arthur Pape]

I am heartened by the many wonderful and thoughtful contributions to this thread since its inception. I thought I would explain, in as few words as possible, what I see as the fundamental issues at the core of this topic.
The Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS), as specified by ICAO and replicated by practically all signatory states, requires that: “The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.”

At its philosophical/scientific core, this so-called “standard” represents a conclusion (or argument) based on three implicit assumptions, as follows:




There is extensive use of colour-coded information in the aviation environment.
The “safe performance of duties” in the aviation environment is dependent on “the ability to perceive readily those colours necessary etc etc……..”.
Without ‘the ability to perceive readily those colours, the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties”, these duties will be performed unsafely.

The validity or “truth” of the ACPS relies entirely on the validity or “truth” of each of the three assumptions. In turn, the validity or “truth” of each of the assumptions relies on evidence, as opposed to opinion and/or established prejudice.

Let’s consider the first assumption. At the dawn of aviation, over a hundred years ago, colour coding was used solely in the form of signalling by means of coloured flags or lights, as the means of communication between people on the ground and in the air. It was suggested that people who could not readily perceive the colours of those signals might perform their duties “unsafely”, and that suggestion, under the circumstances of the day, would have had some merit. Out of this there arose the ACPS, whose wording has changed little from those heady days of cloth covered aeroplanes and simple instructions to pilots using simple coloured objects in a simple “code”.
Since then there has been an exponential increase in the use of colour throughout the aviation environment, both in the aviation physical environment and in and on aeroplanes. The list of uses of colour is enormous, and the validity of the first assumption is self-evident to anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the aviation environment.
Result: Assumption 1 is “True”.

Assumption 2 is, however, problematic. For this assumption to be valid, it needs to be demonstrated that the perception of the colour(s) is sufficient and necessary to see the information that is required for the “safe performance of duties”. In other words, “see the colour” equals “see the information”, which results in “safe performance of duties”. This assumption could be tested empirically, but this type of work has never been done in respect to the aviation environment.
Result: Assumption 2 remains an unproven assumption

Assumption 3 is also problematic. To paraphrase assumption 3, would go like this: “see no (or different) colour” equals “see no (or wrong) information” which results in “unsafe performance”. To digress briefly, let me state that the existence of individuals with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) is a proven reality. That 8 to 9 percent of the male population and just less than 1 percent of the female population have one or other of the various types of CVD is beyond any doubt. Further, there are numerous reliable and proven tests available to detect and classify the severity of any particular CVD condition. Let me add also that the CAD test is an excellent test to diagnose and quantify CVD conditions.
So, in short, the ACPS, via the implicit Assumption 3 would predict that people with CVD should perform the duties (involved in flying an aeroplane) unsafely. This proposition could be tested empirically (i.e., by measurement, observation and analysis). No formal empirical testing of assumption 3 has ever been conducted.

It is a fact that pilots with CVD have been around for a very long time and in considerable numbers. For almost a century, the FAA has applied a wide variety of colour vision tests and practical tests, whereby tens of thousands of CVD pilots either passed the ACPS or were granted waivers against the standard. Since 1989, a few thousand Australian CVD pilots have enjoyed the freedom to fly at night and many hundreds have achieved successful careers in airline operations. If Assumption 3 were “true” one would expect there to be evidence of “unsafe performance of duties” by these pilots. This should be particularly evident in the incident and accident records kept by the aviation authorities of the USA and Australia. A landmark study in the mid 1970s by two researchers (Dille and Booze) working for the FAA examined the accident records of the large group of CVD pilots with a “waiver” and found not even one accident where the existence of a colour vision defect could have contributed to the cause. Furthermore, the accident rate for this group was no different than that of the general pilot population (accidents per 100,000 hrs of recent experience). Until 2002, the FAA had no record of any accident attributed to CVD, and since 2002 there have been none. The significance of 2002 is that in that year a Fedex B727 crashed while on a PAPI-guided night visual approach, and the CVD status of the flying FO was attributed a causal role in the crash. However, two other crew had normal colour vision and did not see what the PAPI should have been showing them. The relationship between this crash and the significance of CVD is highly contentious. The ATSB and CASA have admitted they have no record of any accident attributed to CVD.

The Australian experience since the Denison case in 1989 has provided excellent positive evidence against the “truth” of Assumption 3. There are estimated to have been several thousand CVD pilots operating with either no restriction or minimal restriction in the period in question, and a significant number at the highest level of airline operations. I can say with confidence that we have examples of even the most severe kinds of CVD working as captains and FOs on the full range of airline type aircraft. These pilots are surveilled, trained, tested and examined in exactly the same way that pilots with normal colour vision are handled. They pass and keep on meeting all requirements “necessary” for the “safe performance of their duties”, and these assessments are made by duly qualified examiners of airmen, as opposed to aviation medical doctors or optometrists. This is taken by many informed commentators as evidence that Assumption 3 is “false”, and raises the question as to whether the ACPS serves any useful role in modern aviation.

It is abundantly evident that the appeal by John O’Brien and the unprecedented interrogation of CASA on this topic in the Australian Senate has triggered a tsunami of hysterical and irrational activity within CASA. It is my view that CASA’s actions and the responses by the Director and the Principal Medical Officer to the Senate Estimates Hearings reflect an absurd and indefensible position. Claims of “medical evidence” by both in support of their stance cannot be substantiated because such evidence does not exist.

There is no “rocket science” in any aspect of this saga.

[Mick Stuped]

Bugger, this does mean as a an employer if I don't shift any color blind pilots to day and really VFR only ops, that if we have any incident or accident that in anyway could be turned around blamed on the poor color deficient pilot, we will be held accountable and will loose our AOC.

Is this the last flex of muscle from a department that could loose its teeth if DAME's get to pass medicals as recommended in the review. I wonder if they want this in law before they are closed down so no DAME can sign CVD pilots off as fit to fly.

What a load of bull manure.:ugh:

MS

[outofwhack]

I have little doubt John Obrien WILL win the case against CASA - providing funds don't run out.

That's the ONLY weakness in what is predicted to be landmark win!

Oow

[triton140]

Avmed has today written to all AOC holders encouraging them to consider whether it is safe to continue to allowing CVD pilots to operate ....

What an act of cowardice and bastardry! In one fell swoop, CAsA has rendered irrelevant the outcome of the O'Brien matter. Even if O'Brien prevails, AOC holders will remain on notice.

Oh, and by the way, no need to wait for an accident for this to cause grief. You can bet your bottom dollar that the next time CAsA reviews your AOC they will require you to show how you responded to this letter - chapter and verse on how you evaluated each of your CVD pilots, all documented and neatly defensible, perhaps an SOP, lots of medical reports? It will simply become too hard for AOC holders to employ CVD pilots, and that is clearly CAsA's intention in using this back door (maybe back passage is a better term!) approach.

I'm also sure the Senate will be carefully reading all of their transcripts, given that the sworn evidence given to the Committee seems at odds with these actions.

Another point - assuming there is no new evidence (and none has been forthcoming from FF and its doctors, and Dr Pape strongly asserts that there is none), is CAsA in contempt of the AAT in respect of the original AAT ruling?

Sad days for Australian aviation ......

[Kharon]

Woke up, let the dogs out, made a coffee and attended to email – so far- so good; then the CASA letter to AOC holders pops up – if YOU haven't read it, you must. Any sane, rational person who reads it can be left in no doubt as to the duplicitous, arrogant, cowardly, bullying nature of the regulator. Even those amongst us who have had an ambivalent, tolerant, mildly amused attitude toward the CASA antics, must now start to see the pure evil inherent in the system.

More so than even the Chambers report, this letter defines precisely the ills which beset industry, think about what the letter says and the implications – it's disgusting.

In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether t is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.

As I told recipients of that advice I would be doing, I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA’s further determination of the matter.

I doubt the Faraway Muppet has the mental horse power to write this missive. The U-bend tube episode of the purported author at the –Senate-; watch he who needed to be repeatedly fished out of his own mess by his lord and master, only to be ultimately dismissed as irrelevant. Watch the first 3-4 odd minutes.

If minister Truss or his team ever had any doubts that 'we have a problem' the letter should allay those doubts. In fact Truss should be screaming for a swat team to get over to Sleepy Hollow and sort it out, before the world and the media realise the size of the monster and the evil within the beast.

Minister, they have to go – and they have to go now. This letter is a national disgrace and embarrassing to the government at a time when the eyes and ears of the aviation world are on Australia. Let us hope their mild amusement and tolerance of antipodean antics does not turn to derision. The Kiwi's must be rolling about the floor, laughing.

Comrade SARCS - could you please post the 'Shambollic' clip. Ta.

Yes Minnie; I know – deep one in – deep one out – till equanimity returns.

[ihavelotsofquestions]

This is appalling.

Bullying at it's best.

[Kharon]

Mods – any chance of a sticky on the main (ANZ) page ?, this issue does affect airlines. I also wonder if a 'counter' would be possible – "Do you support the proposed CASA changes to CVD. YES / NO". Something like that; then the VIPA, AIPA, AFAP etc. etc (even AOPA may get off it's rump should the mood descend) and 'other' interested parties could have a say.

It's in the national interest basket, hell, every thing bar a sex scandal surrounds this issue.

I solemnly promise to resist all urges to resort to the use of 'chanties' for six months; I shall place them neatly in the tidy bin. What d'ya say – Howz about it – Huh???

[Creampuff]

If I were a CVD pilot and CASA had written a letter like that to my employer, I'd be taking defamation action ...

[brissypilot]

I have little doubt John Obrien WILL win the case against CASA - providing funds don't run out. That's the ONLY weakness in what is predicted to be landmark win!
These guys can be supported through the "Your Support (http://cvdpa.com/your-support/donate)" section of the CVDPA website.

I'm also sure the Senate will be carefully reading all of their transcripts, given that the sworn evidence given to the Committee seems at odds with these actions.
These latest moves by FF represent an unprecedented attack on the industry - all because a few individuals dared to question their decision making abilities. The ASRR (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-45.html) makes it abundantly clear that Australia has lost all confidence in the regulator. As Kharon says, they have to go and they have to go now. Whether you're CVD affected or not, I would suggest that ALL pilots need to be contacting their parliamentarians to express outrage at these latest tactics. A few suggestions are below. Support your fellow colleagues whose careers are now under very real threat.


The Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator David Fawcett
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Nick Xenophon
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Bill Heffernan
Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Glenn Sterle
Deputy Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected] ([email protected])


Your Local MP
Members and Senators - Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members)

Another point - assuming there is no new evidence (and none has been forthcoming from FF and its doctors, and Dr Pape strongly asserts that there is none), is CAsA in contempt of the AAT in respect of the original AAT ruling?
Perhaps the legal minds can better answer that one, but I think they're certainly treating the current AAT with contempt by pre-empting a decision that hasn't even been heard yet. If you read the 1989 Denison v CAA AAT transcript (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1989/84.html) - para 8 provides summarises how that case was conducted:
8. We understand that there are a considerable number of other pilots with defective colour vision who have requested the granting of licences which do not contain a condition prohibiting their piloting aircraft at night. For that reason the respondent indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case. Mr Rose, therefore, informed the Tribunal that the respondent intended to present its case in a manner which would encompass not only the applicant's situation but also broader issues relating generally to defective colour vision. At the request of the respondent the Attorney-General granted legal aid to the applicant to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by the respondent presenting his case in that manner. The matters which we have to consider in these proceedings have consequently been extended well beyond those which the applicant originally sought to raise, that is to say whether his defective colour vision made it unsafe for him personally to pilot an aircraft at night. The proceedings have taken 28 hearing days.
The announcements by CASA this week have sent Australia back to the dark ages with restrictions that are far harsher than those which existed pre-Denison. Yet interestingly, we now have significantly more CVD pilots operating at all levels of the industry. Despite this, it appears that CASA do not consider the upcoming AAT case a "test case" this time and it appears no form of legal aid has been made available. They are using bullying tactics to suffocate the CVD folk and it's a national disgrace!

[cockney steve]

Although I'm on the other side of the world and not even an Aviator, I've read this thread with an ever-rising sense of outrage.
What the hell are your politicians and lawmakers doing?
This is a blatant misappropriation of Public Finance,misuse of Government resources and abuse of position to pursue a vindictive personal agenda.
The latter is clearly at odds with the duties of the organisation, therefore their wages are theft by deception.
Miserable , duplicitous, lying scumbags would do a more honest job and carry out the duties of ensuring SAFETY more assiduously.
Shame you're not in europe, as you could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (As you're part of the Commonwealth, perhaps you can?)

These cretins should be held personally liable for their actions....then you'd see who was using the taxpayer's dollar to fund their own ego-trip and agenda.

Good luck to you all - other countries have more direct ways of dealing with despotic officials.

[Up-into-the-air]

Good to see others are reading of our battle with Fort Fumble (FF) and you might like to read in particular the Aviation Agriculture submission (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/12-ASRR-Submission-AAAA-Av-Safety-Review-Jan-2014.pdf), which does not hold back at all. [Sorry for the slight thread drift]

[Kharon]

Cockney Steve # 142 "This is a blatant misappropriation of Public Finance, misuse of Government resources and abuse of position to pursue a vindictive personal agenda.

The 'treatment' of CVD pilots by the Australian authority is only the tip of the ice berg. Without too much effort I could provide at least a dozen operators who have been given 'the treatment'; then, with even less effort provide a list of as many pilots, within 20 miles of where I sit now who have had or are experiencing the CASA 'treatment'.

This final outrage is one step too far: the breathtaking arrogance highlights the presumptive attitude to ignoring not only the 'law', but human and constitutional rights, anti -discrimination laws, common sense, human decency and dignity: all this with the assumption, and sure knowledge that with impunity, they can get away with it.

McComic: he who has perfected the noble art of setting your feet on fire, to keep your hands warm. Bravo.

Perhaps, they have a secret death wish – the 'letter' certainly has a Kamikaze feel to it.

[triton140]

Perhaps, they have a secret death wish – the 'letter' certainly has a Kamikaze feel to it.

We can only hope Kharon.

This is an outrageous attempt to circumvent the law - CAsA had suffered one defeat at the hands of the AAT and was about to suffer a second. So they concocted this cowardly letter to achieve what the law said they could not do.

It truly makes us a laughing stock.

[brissypilot]

CAsA had suffered one defeat at the hands of the AAT and was about to suffer a second

In fact they have lost two cases at the AAT on this issue.

There was the initial Pape (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/1987/354.html) case, which they then refused to extend the same privileges granted to other CVD pilots.

Then there was the second Denison (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1989/84.html) test case, which delivered a resounding victory to all Australian CVD pilots.

This third case was to be an attempt to tidy up the last loose ends of the Denison case after all rational discussions had failed.

You'd think CAsA would know when to give up! :ugh:

[Bill Smith]

Colour Vision Defective, A Pilots perspective.

I am a 47 year old CVD pilot. I currently work as a Captain on the A320/321/330 with a major carrier. Before joining this company I was a Captain flying an Embraer 170, a very modern fully EFIS Jet and prior to that a First officer on Dash 8’s. Prior to that many years in GA

When I first found out that I was CVD at my initial aviation medical I was shocked as, for me, it had never been a problem. I was advised by the all knowing “experts” that I would never fly for an Airline, but there were many careers such as instructing, charter, power line inspection and the likes. I continued on with my training building hours the same as all the colour normal pilots did. I did everything the same as them despite being colour defective.
I have followed the continuing discussions and arguments for and against CVD pilots for many years as I have a vested interest. I personally believe that my CVD is not an issue in my chosen career based on 20 years of experience being acutely aware that I am CVD.

I fly daily looking and manipulating coloured buttons and switches, I am sure if I was misinterpreting these, I would be picked up by my colleagues and by the rigorous check and training that we, as pilots endure. The few colleagues that know of my colour vision issue are genuinely surprised and the usual comment is “Well I can’t see a problem”. These professionals have been in the industry for decades and are extremely experienced check and trainers

Airline flying is highly regulated and extremely procedural. Tasks, be they normal or abnormal, are carried out in a step-by-step logical manner.
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what colour a light is on a switch.
We as professionals have learnt the system, know where the switch or push button is and whether it is illuminated or not. Allowing easy verification along with other visual and aural cues that are presented.

So let's break it down. A Master Warning or Master Caution sounds and the button 60 cm from the end of your nose flashes “Master Warning” or “Master Caution”, it happens to be “RED” or “AMBER”. You cancel the warning and after identifying the failure and after confirming with your colleague you begin dealing with the problem, either by ECAM, EICAS and or QRH, depending what you fly.
Certain tasks are carried out to deal with the failure. This may be identifying a system panel and then actioning a button or switch. This is done in a thorough logical manner, which requires you to be familiar with the position of all buttons and switches and what they do.
A modern cockpit is not a mass of unlabelled coloured lights. It is designed in an ergonomically logical fashion with systems labelled and clearly marked. As professionals, like any other professional, we are highly trained and skilled to know our systems interpret what they are telling us and act upon it.

On the A320, landing gear indications use symbols for example “green” triangles that illuminate when the gear is down. If it doesn’t you get a master warning and it also lights up the word “UNLK” above the suspect landing gear as it happens this is “RED” but it wouldn’t matter if it was any other colour as long as you understand that when the word is illuminated you have a problem
I know where the gear doors are despite the colour coding by their position and numerous other visual and aural cues that are at hand.

I know that all the doubters out there are going to bring up the PAPI. PAPI is unreliable in certain atmospheric conditions, our Flight manual states not to be used below 200’. I certainly would rather use a DME vs Height check or a VNAV guidance than rely on a PAPI in any weather conditions.
Notwithstanding this I have never had trouble interpreting PAPI indications or any other lighting system.
When I learnt to fly it was the runway perspective in the window not a coloured light that told me I was "on slope".

Now we come to the issue which is the draconian steps CASA has taken to this issue despite the 25+ years of CVD's flying with zero incidents.
All pilots should stand up to this, colour normals and CVD's alike this is an aggressive attack on our livelihoods and ignoring the in depth examination from the AAT appeals in 1989. If CASA is successful in stopping CVD's from flying, and have no doubt in your minds this is what they intend to do, It will be a huge experience drain to the industry, it will destroy peoples careers. It will also affect operators bottom lines when they have to replace pilots and train new ones for these loses.

Help Australia show the world in this area that there is no issue. Please get behind the upcoming appeal and donate to Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com)

[tail wheel]

What the hell are your politicians and lawmakers doing?
This is a blatant misappropriation of Public Finance, misuse of Government resources and abuse of position to pursue a vindictive personal agenda.
The latter is clearly at odds with the duties of the organisation, therefore their wages are theft by deception.
Miserable , duplicitous, lying scumbags would do a more honest job and carry out the duties of ensuring SAFETY more assiduously.

Yeah, that is a fair summary of CASA, one of the best I've seen! :ok:

[Bill Smith]

Please actively engage your Senators to help in this important issue. This both affects employees, employers.

CASA stated that they will not change existing holders medicals, well that is emphatically untrue as they revoked my ATPL. The inconsistency beggars belief.
If you want change you have to make some noise this will not go away.

Here is what I sent.

Dear Honourable Members,

My name is (Fill in the Blank). I am a (...) year old Airline Pilot with a Colour Vision Deficiency. I have held a Private Pilots Licence since (...), a Commercial Pilots licence since 1992 and exercised the privileges of my Airline Transport Licence since (.....). I currently am employed as (......) and have accumulated total flight time of around (....) hours. I am assessed at least three times a year on my ability to safely operate my aircraft in simulators and in the aircraft and pass.

I am writing to you all regarding the aggressive stance CASA is taking on CVD pilots and their careers.
Recently I renewed my Australian medical and was advised that I would no longer be able to exercise the privileges of my Airline Transport Licence, as I have been doing since (....), due to being “Unsafe” as I’m Colour Vision deficient.

There has been no industry consultation on these changes and they are without any safety justification. Senator David Fawcett has been actively trying to keep CASA honest regarding these changes however CASA seems intent on steamrolling changes through ignoring two AAT cases regarding this very matter and the indisputable fact that are a large number CVD’s have been flying in Australia for over 20 years. They have amassed 10’s of thousands of hours completely incident and accident free.

Re Arthur Marinus Pape and Secretary, Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 (9 October 1987) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/1987/354.html)
Re Hugh Jonathan Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84; 10 AAR 242 (7 April 1989) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1989/84.html)

This new aggressive stance by CASA not only is a waste of the tax payers money, as I’m sure that it will be challenged by many CVD’s, but will also destroy many pilots careers and take a huge amount of experience out of the Industry if CASA is allowed to wind back the clock 25 years.
There is already one case scheduled for the AAT in July.

Please get on board this important issue. Senator David Fawcett has been a loyal and rational advocate on this issue please support him and let Australia lead the world rather than just blindly follow suit.

Your Sincerely,

[Sarcs]

Top post(s) Bill and great initiative..:ok:..here's a link for ProAviation's commentary on the matter: Colour vision deficient pilots see red (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/07/colour-vision-deficient-pilots-see-red/)

[BJ737]

I see on previous post it was stated that CASA has to honour licence for 2. yrs after any rule change however CASA has been quite vocal they are not changing the rules merely interpreting them in a different manner. As per Bill post how did he lose his ATPL immediately with no 2 year grace? Don't bank on keeping licence for 2 years !!!

[Brainy]

Here is what I have sent to Senators Fawcett and Xenophon, Warren Truss and my local member. In case any of you need any ideas of where to start...


Dear <MP of choice>

I am writing to express my dismay at the belligerent attitude of CASA to pilots with defective colour vision. As you are aware, CASA has been embroiled in a case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the removal of privileges from a professional pilot on the basis of that pilot’s defective colour vision. There is no evidence to support the case made by CASA that pilots with defective colour vision pose a risk to safety, and indeed none has been presented to date by CASA. Despite reassuring the senate committee that there was no plan to change the rules regarding the way in which pilots with defective colour vision were to be treated, CASA has issued letters to all Air Operators’ Certificate (AOC) holders and all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs) this week that these pilots were potentially a threat to safe aviation operations, and their continued flying privileges should be scrutinised and re-considered. Additionally, they have now enforced rules which will deny pilots seeking an initial issue of a medical certificate appropriate privileges to operate under conditions other than Visual Flight Rules (VFR), by day only, if they fail the colour vision tests prescribed by CASA. This is despite decades of incident-free operations by hundreds of colour-defective pilots on Australian licences, and is a reversal of decisions made over 20 years ago that allowed Australian pilots with defective colour vision to fly with the same operational rights as their ’normal’ colour vision colleagues.

In the letters to DAMEs and AOC holders this week, CASA reports that ‘recent medical research’ indicates a risk to safe flight operations by pilots with defective colour vision, yet none of this evidence is presented by CASA in those letters, on its website, nor is it evident in the medical literature (I have searched). The only reference cited by Dr Pooshan Navathe (Principal Medical Officer, CASA) reports that there are differing standards for assessing colour vision amongst ICAO member countries (Watson DB. ‘Lack of international uniformity in assessing colour vision deficiency in professional pilots’ Aviat Space Environ Med 2014 Feb; 85(2):148-59). Hardly damning evidence of a risk to flight safety, more likely evidence of a risk to effective bureaucracy.

I am a pilot with defective colour vision. I have been operating aircraft under visual and instrument flight rules, day and night, in the UK and Australia since 1990 without any incidents related to my supposed inability to perceive colours in a ‘normal’ way. I am also a medical practitioner and understand the concept of ‘evidence based practice’. Under CASA’s new stance, colour vision-defective pilots will be (an indeed recently have been) stripped of the opportunity to earn a living, denied the opportunity to continue to fly as they have done for thousands of incident-free hours, without the presentation of any evidence that demonstrates a safety risk that needs to be addressed. AOC holders (the employers of these pilots) have been threatened in writing by CASA - "I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety” - what exactly is the intent of this directive? What is CASA expecting of the AOC holders in response, and what is the consequence of not addressing the ‘problem’ - loss of the AOC?? This is a baffling attitude for CASA to take, is malicious in intent and typical of their bullying attitude towards the industry.

I, and many of my pilot colleagues, are outraged by the developments detailed above. If CASA continues with its drive to ground, or severely curtail, the operation of pilots with defective colour vision, without making a legitimate, evidence-based safety case, legal action is likely to be forthcoming from the pilot community on a large scale, leading to an enormous waste of tax-payers money. All over an issue for which there is no demonstrable safety benefit. None. Surely the regulator should be held to the same standard of ‘evidence-based practice’ for its decisions as the medical and other safety-orientated industries are.

I would like to give CASA the benefit of a doubt and assume that these recent changes are borne out of incompetence rather than malevolence, but unfortunately I don’t think I can. I would implore you to continue to pursue this issue in the parliament and hold CASA to account on its actions, stop this profligate waste of public money, and at the very least hold them to the standard of ‘evidence-based practice’ as the basis of their actions.

I thank you for your attention and for your work so far

Yours sincerely

[aroa]

it just confirms that the acronym CAsA means seriously disgusting, immoral and dishonest.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

In World cup terms to use the soccer analogy... Is this the greatest "Own Goal"
EVER ?

Better sharpen your axe Warren...OFF with their heads !!

Knitting needles are GO !!

[Old Akro]

I apologise is this is too much going over old ground. But as I see it:

1. The regulator is writing to employers of properly licensed (and previously deemed to be safe) pilots asking them to reconsider the appropriateness of these pilots employment.

2. The companies require a good relationship with the regulator. Many of these companies will rely on exceptions from CASA regulations for financial viability. There is a large power imbalance between the regulator and the employers. This is the very definition of bullying.

3. There will almost certainly be some cases where it is clear who the pilot is (ie small employers), thus identifying the pilot. In this case, CASA is effectively releasing confidential medical information about an individual without consent or authority.

4. CASA is the safety regulator. They alone have the power to issue licences based on competence level and fitness for duty. It is in no way the role of the AOC holder to "second guess" CASA. What CASA is saying is that there are pilots who they have duly licensed as being safe and who are properly qualified for a role that they now wish the employer to terminate. They are asking the employer to take on the role of licence issuer from CASA. This is completely inappropriate.

5. If an AOC holder succumbs to the pressure (Bullying) from CASA and terminates the pilot, they will certainly be leaving them selves open for legal action against them by the pilot for unfair dismissal. And potential a punitive penalty that takes into account the pilots (now) diminished earning capacity. Especially if the pilot has been given satisfactory work performance reviews by the employer and has satisfactorily passed flight reviews with CASA appointed ATO's. So, the employer has the threat of retaliation by CASA on one hand and legal action by the pilot on the other.

6. If there is any threat of anything negative at all happening to the employer by CASA (which I think it would be easy to argue is the case) then I would expect that CASA are in breach of the third line forcing provisions of the Trade Practices Act.

This is a very clumsy, bumbling, bullying, amateur, punitive, incompetent, reaction by CASA to being embarrassed by the Senate over its own double standards and selective interpretation of its own rules that show favouritism toward some pilots and some AOC holders.

I hope the Senate shows it has balls and smacks CASA hard. I encourage any pilot who so much as feels disadvantaged to take legal advice.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I want to make clear just one point.

The need for a particular standard of colour perception in aviation (by NAAs) is assumed and asserted, it is not demonstrated, let alone proven.

In the mid-1990s, Dr. Pape represented IAOPA, the International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the peak body of all the national AOPAs, at an ICAO medical conference in Warsaw, because a major part of the agenda was colour perception (there is no such thing as "colour blind") and Dr. Pape is not just Australia's leading expert, but internationally recognised.

In those days, "glass" cockpits were cathode ray tubes (CRT) and a fairly common fault was the loss of the colour generator, so that the screen reverted to gray scales.

In anticipation of all the standard arguments about the "critical need" to see "true colours", Dr. Pape (courtesy of Qantas Airways Ltd) had true copies of the FAA/CASA certified MELs for the B767, which showed that loss of colour, with any of the screens operating in gray scale mode, produced exactly zero operating limitations.

Put another way, loss of the colour, and the need to read the numbers and interpret the scales without colour had precisely zero "safety" connotations.

Put more correctly, the loss of colour on the screen(s) did not increase risk of pilot error due misinterpretation of the information presented in normal or non-normal operation.

So much for the need for every pilot to see exactly the same colours.

Tootle pip!!

[27/09]

The only reference cited by Dr Pooshan Navathe (Principal Medical Officer, CASA) reports that there are differing standards for assessing colour vision amongst ICAO member countries (Watson DB. ‘Lack of international uniformity in assessing colour vision deficiency in professional pilots’ Aviat Space Environ Med 2014 Feb; 85(2):148-59).

If the Watson DB is who I think he is (PMO NZ CAA), Dr Navathe shared offices with him just prior to Dr Navathe moved to Canberra.

[CoftC]

Here is my letter to the MPs regarding the current issues, with a little help from my friends:-) Feel free to get ideas for your letters if you wish!

-----------------------------

As a Chief Pilot, I take seriously my responsibility for the safety of my passengers and crew. I also support the need for an appropriate, evidence-based regulatory environment for the Australian aviation industry to support economic development and a safe and prosperous society.

It is for this reason I write to you, asking that you would support the Minister for Transport, Hon Warren Truss MP, and Senator David Fawcett in their efforts to ensure fair and safe outcomes for pilots and the aviation industry.

I am 35 years of age and hold an Air Transport Pilots License (ATPL). I am our Company’s CASA approved Chief Pilot, and have over 15 years flying safe commercial operations in all weather conditions and at night. I also have a mild colour vision deficiency, which, although continuously being aware of it, has never become evident or a factor during operations I have conducted.

It therefore caused great concern to me, and many of my professional colleagues and their families, when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed their policies and procedures last week – without any industry consultation or notification - affecting the treatment of Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots.

It should be noted
• CVD pilots have been operating safely in all levels of aviation in Australia for the past 25 years
• there has never been an accident attributed to Colour Vision Deficiency worldwide

However, CASA announced policy changes last week that will prevent many CVD pilots from having a career in Australia. This not only will affect a considerable number of current Airline pilots, but will also negatively affect many pilots serving regional and remote communities, including those providing valuable passenger and freight charter services, as well as life-saving aeromedical operations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. There is a particular wealth of experience in the General Aviation sector with CVD pilots who have not pursued the typical airline path due to their imposed restrictions. If these pilots were to lose their privileges it will only hinder the safety and experience level of GA in Australia.

CASA have announced they are changing from operational testing to laboratory-derived Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) testing for pilots. The rationale for CASA’s change has not been explained, nor any supporting evidence provided. However, this new policy will deny new CVD pilots who cannot pass CAD testing, as CASA will not grant them a Class 1 Medical, unnecessarily precluding them from employment as a pilot in any form, regardless of the nature of the operation.

If this change in standard is extended to current pilots, many will lose their entire career, despite an impeccable safety record.

Australia has led the rest of the world in giving CVD pilots a fair go since the landmark “Denison” case in the AAT in 1989, allowing CVD pilots to conduct commercial operations and earn a living in aviation. The tireless work of colour vision expert, Dr Arthur Pape, has paved the way for Australian pilots to have fulfilling and safe careers in the industry.

Over the last 25 years and tens of thousands of hours, CVD pilots have proven themselves to be equally safe in operating aircraft to colour normal pilots. Many competent and safe pilots fail the CAD test, but have proven by experience that they can accomplish the safe performance of duties and safely operate an aircraft. In fact, it is debatable if the new CAD test that CASA has suddenly introduced is sufficiently of an “operational nature” for the final level of testing as required by current law. Only 35% of CVD's pass the CAD test, eliminating many proven safe pilots.

The recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), released by Minister of Transport, Warren Truss, found that CASA was failing the industry, the taxpayer and flying public, and choking the future growth of an industry that is vital to Australian society. It is also believed to have displayed unfair bullying tactics to the industry and that the industry had lost confidence in the regulator.

Consistent with these findings relating to the conduct of CASA, just last week CASA sent a letter to all Air Operators in Australia asking them to “consider whether it is safe to allow these (CVD) pilots to continue to exercise the privileges of their license”. Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim. This letter is extremely disappointing and distressing as it could jeopardize the employment of many long-serving and dedicated pilots and is completely unjustified.

Senator David Fawcett has been an outstanding and faithful ambassador for the rights of CVD pilots in Australia to continue to fly safely. I urge you to support him in bringing a fair outcome for the CVD pilots who have dedicated their lives to safe flying operations in Australia.

I also encourage you to support the Minister for Transport, Hon Warren Truss MP, to ensure the appropriate changes are implemented within the regulator to ensure the continuing safety and prosperity of the aviation industry in Australia.

[Old Akro]

There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Dr Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.

1. It is assumed that is something has a different colour it is for a safety reason. I think it is likely that some items are a different colour for convenience, tradition or aesthetics.

2. It is assumed that all things that are colour coded must be visible to the pilot, eg navigation lights. The pilot cannot see his own and in the current age, if you are close enough to distinguish red from green on another aircraft you're probably in a lot of trouble. We use radar and TCAS and even radio and strobe lights in the modern era, not little red & green lights. It would seem to me that red & green navigation lights are a non functional remnant from the past that regulators have not had the courage to discontinue.

3. It is assumed that colour is the only differentiator. knob / lever size, shape and texture is not discussed, neither is relative location.

4. It is assumed that the CVD pilot cannot tell the difference between colours. As I understand it, many CVD pilots can recognise shade, brightness or contrast differences between different colours. Therefore the CVD pilot will still have some "non colour" visual cues.

Unlike his predecessors, Dr Navathe does not seem to have the respect of his peers and he seems to be an academic who does not believe something exists until he can read a paper on it. Can you imagine this nonsense or the spectacle of Dr Navanthe lecturing the Senate in the era of Dr Robert Liddell?

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/02/23/dr-liddell-speaks-out-for-australian-pilots/)

[Kharon]

CoftC #158- " Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim."

That is a notion troubling me; the lack of overt support evidence being provided. Perhaps, (call me paranoid) in the AAAT a claim of "my hands are tied" can be peddled. The UK and FAA certainly have got the 'supporting science' and if they make CAD the only acceptable norm, then all that remains is the ICAO defence and the 'no event' track record. That opens the door to the opposition. Anyone who can or has access the CAD research should have a chat with Doc. Pape: forewarned being forearmed and all that stuff.

"There are people flying in Australia who I know would not fly in other jurisdictions. And I think it is a worthwhile project to review colour vision deficiencies and to review the data we have. I just cannot fund it and it is not a high priority to me." Ain't that a shame, when it just may be of some high priority and interest to a hundred odd pilots that depend on a license, to earn a living.

The quote follows directly after the part below: - HERE-

Frustrated now :- I'll try later to get the 'vision' splendid, where the body language and temper were on display; Hansard just doesn't quite catch the petulance of the later morsel.

Right then – back to my knitting.

[triton140]

There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Professor Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.

Fixed! :ok:

If the DAS tells the Senate he is a Professor, he must be one! Adjunct Associate Professor at that!

According to the ANU:

In the area of civil aviation medicine, Dr Navathe is one of a group of regulators with a passionate belief in evidence based risk management as the cornerstone of regulatory aeromedical decision making. He has been involved in setting up the paradigms for evidence based decision making in New Zealand, and leads a team that is working towards them in Australia.

[outofwhack]

Oh did he say 'evidence-based'. He meant 'prejudice-based'. Tut spelling


Adjunct Professor as used in Australia is an honorary title bestowed upon a person to formally recognise that person's non-employment 'special relationship' with the university. Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

Nope - nowhere near the requirements of a true 'professor'. That requires a PHD with 3 years follow up specialization in the PHD subject. Perhaps he should declare that when he enters the room.

[mnehpets]

Could this be the 'new research' evidence we're looking for?
This is might be the "new research":

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

and pretty much the same research by the same authors in an FAA report:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/200911.pdf

Unlike the Qinetiq study, these two reports actually includes the results of controlled tests. However, the main goal of these papers is to show that the CAD test is a better test than ishihara etc for diagnosing ability to read a simulated PAPI. What's missing is evidence that the CAD test (or any other colour vision test) has a correlation to *flight safety*.

- S

[thorn bird]

Just listening to that man...sorry person..
What a cowardly assh..le he is!!

[LeadSled]

Unlike the Qinetiq study, these two reports actually includes the results of controlled tests. However, the main goal of these papers is to show that the CAD test is a better test than ishihara etc for diagnosing ability to read a simulated PAPI. What's missing is evidence that the CAD test (or any other colour vision test) has a correlation to *flight safety*.


Folks,
That's the whole point, CAD is a just new testing method, and a small group of people, so I am told by a colleague in the UK, a now retired UK CAA FOI ( or whatever they call them now), stand to make a lot of money if it is adopted as the ICAO recommended test.

Nobody has yet come come up with anything that invalidates the Denison finding, and, I am informally advised, Denison stands, CASA cannot simply walk away from it. But that hasn't stopped CASA, who probably feel that, with limitless cash, they will be able to see off any challengers, through to the High Court if necessary, having convinced the Minister it is a vital matter of air safety.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

SN # 29 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/541172-perfect-example-casa-outrageaous-behaviour-2.html#post8512428) – "The big issue here is that CASA are fighting with public money and the pilots have to fund this from there own wallet. Years ago an AAT case qualified for legal aid, what the hell happened to that? Its just not cricket, we need AIPA and the AFAP to come to step up and earn their keep, this is why we pay our fees."

I believe there is a case here for the full involvement of all the unions and operators. As I hear it, there are some 'silly' decisions, translating into additional 'testing', requiring thousands of personal dollars being invested in un required 'specialist' testing and advice, this affecting all tribes. If rumour is true, even with un-required testing, it is often a lottery as to whether or not 'official' medical approval is granted. This must create some havoc for scheduling, long term.

On the research side – (AAT cases and ATSB reports only) there is a noted increase (trend if you will) in aircrew (all flavours) becoming reluctant to admit there is anything medically wrong – at all. Add that to a natural reluctance to visit the 'vet' and you have some very real potential for self inflicted holes being made in that famous (non Beakerised) cheese.

Then, there is the invasive questionnaire, you know the one: fill in your name (multiple times), fill in your ARN (multiple times) address (multiple times), DOB (multiple times) etc. etc. etc. Then the signed confession. For example – dozing off in the afternoon. FFS we work shifts; early call out; back of the clock; late starts and late finishes. Fatigue is an acknowledged risk factor and as humans it's not always an easy matter to knock off, get to a hotel and drift off to sleep, especially after a 'rough' trip. So does the occasional nanny nap surprise anyone – of course not. To admit it puts you in a potential 'high risk' medical group; to deny it – the potential for prosecution exists. Same-same the odd beer or three; I am sure you have heard the cautionary tales. While I'm at it, why FFS, does anyone need to know who my bloody dentist is (don't give me that crispy critter identification BS).

Not 'politically' savvy enough to know, for sure, if capital 'U' union involvement and even company ('C') is a good idea or not: but, it's worth a thought. VIPA (bless 'em) have weighed in. So how about it boys. I hear the AFAP has made contribution to the CVD battle and applaud that; but I just wonder if 'all' the big hitters (engineers and all) made a show of solidarity how much it would help to redress a system which is now overtly seeking to lay aside 25 years of safe flight and engineering operations; on a whim, without a prayer.

Discuss -

Oh, BTW, I found the bit of the colour vision splendid I wanted – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/541172-perfect-example-casa-outrageaous-behaviour-2.html#post8513757) – the first 90 seconds give it to you.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Performance Based Regulation.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201184%20PBR%20online.pdf

Under this framework of managing risk looks like the CVD issue could be managed. Australian evidence certainly supports there not being an issue.

[outofwhack]

Fantastic .... With performance based regulation the UK Cvd pilots should have unrestricted medicals from tomorrow by virtue of the Australian data.:p
... And pigs get honorary PPLs.

I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.

[CoftC]

I thought I might provide a suggestion/example of a letter that could be passed onto work colleagues who might be willing to support CVD pilots in this matter by lobbying the Senators and local MPs also?
I would encourage if you use to modify and ad lib as desired.


What do you think? Feedback welcome...


----------------------------

The Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator David Fawcett
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Nick Xenophon
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Bill Heffernan
Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected] ([email protected])


Senator Glenn Sterle
Deputy Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected] ([email protected])


Your Local MP
Members and Senators - Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members)




______________________________


Re: CASA vs CVD Pilots

Dear __________ ,

As a professional colleague of Colour Vision Defective, yet capable pilots, I wish to show my support for CVD pilots and their ability to continue to safely operate aircraft within Australia and beyond.
I have personally flown with CVD pilots, and can attest that, from my experience, they have shown in practice to be equally safe and proficient in operating aircraft as colour normal pilots. They also undergo the same training & checking requirements as colour normal pilots, and have proven themselves in many operational situations which I have witnessed.

It is for this reason I write to you, asking that you would support the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, and Senator David Fawcett in their efforts to ensure fair and safe outcomes for pilots and the aviation industry as a whole.


It caused great concern to me, and many of my professional colleagues and their families, when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed their policies and procedures last week – without any industry consultation or notification - affecting the treatment of Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots.

It should be noted:
• CVD pilots have been operating safely in all levels of aviation in Australia for the past 25 years
• there has never been an accident attributed to Colour Vision Deficiency worldwide

However, CASA announced policy changes last week that will prevent many CVD pilots from having a career in Australia. This not only will affect a considerable number of current Airline pilots, but will also negatively affect many pilots serving regional and remote communities, including those providing valuable passenger and freight charter services, as well as life-saving aeromedical operations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

CASA have announced they are changing from operational testing to laboratory-derived Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) testing for pilots. The rationale for CASA’s change has not been explained, nor any supporting evidence provided. However, this new policy will deny new CVD pilots who cannot pass CAD testing, as CASA will not grant them a Class 1 Medical, unnecessarily precluding them from employment as a pilot in any form, regardless of the nature of the operation.

If this change in standard is extended to current pilots, many will lose their entire career, despite an impeccable safety record.

Australia has led the rest of the world in giving CVD pilots a fair go since the landmark “Denison” case in the AAT in 1989, allowing CVD pilots to conduct commercial operations and earn a living in aviation. The tireless work of colour vision expert, Dr Arthur Pape, has paved the way for Australian pilots to have fulfilling and safe careers in the industry. Dr Pape is also supporting the rights of CVD pilots in another upcoming AAT hearing in July of this year.

Over the last 25 years and tens of thousands of hours, CVD pilots have proven themselves to be equally safe in operating aircraft to colour normal pilots. Many competent and safe pilots fail the CAD test, but have proven by experience that they can accomplish the safe performance of duties and safely operate an aircraft. In fact, it is debatable if the new CAD test that CASA has suddenly introduced is sufficiently of an “operational nature” for the final level of testing as required by current law. Only 35% of CVD's pass the CAD test, eliminating many proven safe pilots.

The recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), released by Minister of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon. Warren Truss, found that major changes to were required to CASA in order to meet the future prosperity and sustainability of the aviation industry, and suggested that the industry had lost confidence in the regulator.

Consistent with these findings relating to the conduct of CASA, just last week CASA sent a letter to all Air Operators in Australia asking them to “consider whether it is safe to allow these (CVD) pilots to continue to exercise the privileges of their license”. Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim. This letter is extremely disappointing and distressing as it could jeopardize the employment of many long-serving and dedicated pilots and is completely unjustified.

Senator David Fawcett has been an outstanding and faithful ambassador for the rights of CVD pilots in Australia to continue to fly safely. I urge you to support him in bringing a fair outcome for the CVD pilots who have dedicated their lives to safe flying operations in Australia.

I also encourage you to support the Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, to ensure the appropriate changes are implemented within the regulator to ensure the continuing safety and prosperity of the aviation industry in Australia.
Yours faithfully,

[Creampuff]

It’s not a change in the standard.

It’s a change in CASA’s position on the safety efficacy of the standard.

The fundamental points that have to be made, over and over again, are that:

- The CV standard itself is based on ignorance and prejudice – it’s just a hangover from 19th century maritime navigation rules and infrastructure that have no practical application to 21st century aviation operations.

- The only evidence with probative value supports the conclusion that there is no difference in the competence or safety of pilots with colour vision defects compared with pilots without colour vision defects. There is no evidence with probative value to support any other conclusion.

- CASA should regulate on the basis of evidence rather than ignorance and prejudice.

[LeadSled]

I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.

outofwack,
Wonder no more, just a look at some of the other AAT cases in the last few years, CASA Avmed is quite capable of wold leading nonsense, without any outside pressure.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Well done the Federation – they have sent a very nicely worded, if pointed –letter (http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUploadFiles/122F062F201493A483A00PM.pdf)- to the powers that be.

Great to see support from industry groups, that's VIPA and AFAP standing behind, holding the jackets of those who will, with any luck deflate some ego's and pin some ears back.

One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.

[Sarcs]

Yes three cheers for the AFAP..:D:D

AFAP letter quote: "...The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith.

AOC holders and the pilots themselves are not privy to the "recent medical research" to which CASA refers in its letter nor are they medically qualified to make the assessment requested. If CASA wish to change the regulations regarding colour vision then CASA should follow the correct and established processes. CASA’s letter of 5 June 2014 is in our view an abuse of process.

We request that CASA formally retract the letter of 5 June 2014.
Please also be aware that we will be supporting any of our members who are unfairly discriminated against as a result of CASA’s letter..."

Wonder if they'll be sending further correspondence to the DAS after this letter sent to CVD pilots...:(:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_061314_010529_PM.jpg

Oh well I guess they're at least consistent...:ugh:

Kharon:One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Quote:

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.
:D:D

It is my understanding that NVG helo ops require two pilots, one with the NVGs on (PF) and the other monitoring (i.e. PNF). Much like in a multi-crew (IFR and at night) environment, except you effectively have one CVD pilot who is coupled with a non-CVD pilot.


Hmm...who was instrumental in Oz for getting NVGs approved for civil aviation use...:confused:...oh yes that's right Senator David Fawcett...:ok:


Bet you DF has many tomes of factual & statistical information of safe military NVG helo ops that could be quite useful in the upcoming AAT hearing...

...vs the PMO and his former colleague from the CAA NZ, where their main weapon of choice will be Dear Watson's research paper, here is a short appraisal of what that paper discovers:Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 2014, 85 (2): 148-59

Lack of international uniformity in assessing color vision deficiency in professional pilots.

Dougal B Watson

PMID: 24597159

INTRODUCTION: Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors. The medical standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) require that pilots have "the ability to perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties." The general wording of that color vision (CV) standard, coupled with the associated flexibility provisions, allows for different approaches to the assessment of color vision deficient (CVD) pilots.

METHODS: Data was gathered and analyzed regarding medical assessment practices applied by different countries to CVD pilots.

RESULTS: Data was obtained from 78 countries, representing 78% of the population and 92% of the aviation activity of the world. That data indicates wide variation in the medical assessment of CVD pilots. Countries use different tools and procedures for the testing of pilots, and also apply different result criteria to those tests. At one extreme an applicant making one error upon Ishihara 24-plate pseudoisochromatic plate (PIP) testing is declined a class 1 medical assessment, while at another extreme an applicant failing every color vision test required by the regulatory authority may be issued a medical assessment allowing commercial and airline copilot privileges.

CONCLUSIONS: The medical assessment of CVD applicants is not performed consistently across the world. Factors that favor uniformity have been inadequate to encourage countries toward consistent medical assessment outcomes. This data is not consistent with the highest practicable degree of uniformity in medical assessment outcomes, and encourages aeromedical tourism. For a summary of what is included in Watto's research paper refer to a recent FSF article Colour Vision GAP (pg 33 here (http://viewer.epageview.com/Viewer.aspx?docid=31f4b27c-cbc8-46b9-a389-a31d00a20595)).

IMO probably the most relevant paragraphs from that article, in regards to this sheer bloody minded attitude from the PMO/Fort Fumble, is this:Failure and Inconsistency
In five of the 78 states surveyed, applicants who fail all phases of tests offered still are granted medical certification with restrictions, usually in the form of prohibitions on airline flying or night operations, the report said.

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

Among the inconsistencies noted in the report were that some states did not comply with their own published assessment processes, either using a more liberal pass-fail threshold or applying different requirements for new applicants versus experienced pilots.

Some states evaluated color vision only as part of the first application for medical certification, some tested annually, and others conducted the test every few years.

In addition, the report said, “some also accepted the [color vision] assessment of another state in lieu of their own, even when that other state’s CVD assessment protocols and outcomes were different to their own requirements.”
The battle lines are well and truly being drawn up...definitely MTF on this one..:ok:

[Creampuff]

It’s not often a paper fails by the second sentence: INTRODUCTION: Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors. …Horsesh*t.

But at least we have an insight into the intellectual rigour applied by the zealots on this frolic. Watson has committed cardinal sin #1: Begging the question. (In other words, he assumes that which is to be proved. In fact, and worse, he assumes that which has been disproved. :=)

[Sarcs]

Copied version of the FSF article 'Colour vision GAP'...

Color Vision GAP

By Linda Werfelman

A lack of uniformity in assessing pilots with color vision deficiency (CVD) is encouraging “aeromedical tourism,” with pilots seeking out aeromedical examiners in countries most likely to accept their particular deficiencies and issue medical certificates, according to a new study.1

The study was conducted by Dougal B. Watson, principal medical officer of the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority, and a report on its findings was published in the February issue of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.

The report concluded that “the medical assessment of CVD applicants is not performed consistently across the world. Factors that favor uniformity have been inadequate to encourage countries toward consistent medical assessment outcomes.”

This inconsistency does not conform to “the highest practicable degree of uniformity in medical assessment outcomes,” the report said.

Setting Standards CVD is an inability to see some shades of color — or, in some severe cases, an inability to see colors at all — that are seen by people with normal color vision (see “Explaining Color Vision Deficiency,” p. 36). Noting that, in aviation, color has an important role in cockpit instruments and displays, on charts “and throughout the external airborne and terrestrial environment,” the report added, “The ubiquity of color-coded information … has [led] to the importance of pilots and air traffic controllers being able to rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors.”

The report traced aviation standards for color vision to World War I, when the British Royal Flying Corps tested applicants’ color vision. “Great emphasis was laid upon perfect color vision because of the importance of picking out the color or markings of hostile machines, recognizing signal lights and judging the nature of landing grounds,” the report said, quoting from a history of aviation medicine in the Royal Air Force.2

Similar Requirements

Today, color vision standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specify that pilots must have “the ability to perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessaryfor the safe performance of duties.”3

However, the report said that the wording of the ICAO standard, as well as the flexibility given to ICAO member states in determining exactly how they will evaluate pilots’ color vision and how they will interpret the results, leads to “wide scope for variation in the examination and the assessment of applicants’ .”

The report added, “Wherever there is variation between countries in the interpretation and implementation of medical standards, there is also the potential for aeromedical tourism. Aeromedical tourism occurs when an applicant, faced with an unattractive medical assessment from one regulatory authority, seeks a more accommodating medical assessment from a different regulatory authority.”

The study examined information about 78 countries — all but one of them ICAO member states — representing 92 percent of world aviation activity and found that their national medical standards contained similar color vision requirements.

For example, in Canada, India, Pakistan, Singapore and South Africa, the requirement is for professional pilots to “perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties,” while in New Zealand, pilots must “have no deficit of colour vision to an extent that is of aeromedical significance.” European Joint Aviation Requirements call for pilots to “have normal perception of colours or be colour safe,” and U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations specify that pilots must “perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties.”

[COLOR=#000000]Different Methods

The study found that, in all jurisdictions, the color vision assessment process begins with a primary screening, and pilots who pass are not subject to further color vision assessment (Figure 1).

Those who fail the primary screening, however, follow different paths, depending on the requirements of the civil aviation authority in the country where they are seeking medical certification. In some countries, they are denied medical certification at that point, but in others, they undergo a secondary screening before completing the medical assessment process.

The secondary screening practices end in similarly divergent paths —those applicants who pass are issued a medical certificate, and those who fail are either denied certification, granted certification with specific conditions such as no night flight, or subjected to further investigation in the continuing assessment process.

Applicants who pass during the further-investigation phase are issued medical certification with conditions.

Those who fail either receive a medical certification with more restrictive conditions or their certification is denied.

The examination of the assessment processes found that, for pilots seeking a Class 1 medical certificate, all states began with a primary color vision screening. In 66 of the 78 member states, the primary screening consists of a single test; the remainder use two tests or more.

The report said that all but one of the states include at least one type of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plate test (Figure 2) in their primary screenings; for 88 percent, an Ishihara test was the only one in use.

The most commonly used Ishihara test involves the use of a set of 24 plates designed to assess color vision. The study found that, in 65 of the 75 states using that set, a single error on the first 15 plates results in failure.

Overall, in 74 of the 78 states, applicants who fail the primary screening are permitted to move on to a secondary screening or further investigation, the report said. In the other four states, failure on a primary screening results in denial of a medical certificate. (In one of these four states, however, the denial applies only to first-time applicants.)

The secondary screenings typically involve the use of optical lanterns and other devices designed to test color vision by asking applicants to identify the colors, but they may also involve flight tests. Sixty of the 74 states allow only one level of secondary screening, but 14 provide two or more levels, so that applicants who fail on their first attempt may undergo alternative tests.

The “further investigation” phase is used in two states, and in both, applicants who pass are restricted to daytime flights while those who fail are denied medical certification, the report said.

Failure and Inconsistency

In five of the 78 states surveyed, applicants who fail all phases of tests offered still are granted medical certification with restrictions, usually in the form of prohibitions on airline flying or night operations, the report said.

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

Among the inconsistencies noted in the report were that some states did not comply with their own published assessment processes, either using a more liberal pass-fail threshold or applying different requirements for new applicants versus experienced pilots.

Some states evaluated color vision only as part of the first application for medical certification, some tested annually, and others conducted the test every few years.

In addition, the report said, “some also accepted the assessment of another state in lieu of their own, even when that other state’s CVD assessment protocols and outcomes were different to their own requirements.”

[COLOR=#000000]‘Conceptually Sound’

The report said that, although the ICAO standard is “conceptually sound and relatively concise … [it] is not readily interpreted for practical use. It does not indicate which colors need to be perceived readily for safe aviation, or what degrees of measurable CVD [fail] to comply.”

The document noted that ICAO has acknowledged the difficulties of clarifying the international color vision standard and of providing more specific criteria for assessing CVD, stating in its Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine, “The question is where to draw the line.”4

While a single-step assessment would be easier to administer and less expensive, the report said, a two-step process with a second assessment for those who fail the first step would help reduce the number of false-positives. In this way, the report said, the structure of the CVD assessment system influences the outcome of assessments.

Earlier research found that it is not unusual for people with normal color vision to misread some plates in the 24-plate Ishihara test, the most common tool for assessing color vision.

Nevertheless, errors on three or more plates almost always indicate that the person being tested has CVD.

Instructions accompanying the 1985 version of the 24-plate CVD test say that the first 15 plates are used to determine whether color vision is either normal or defective, and, if 13 of the 15 plates are read correctly, color vision should be considered normal.

The report said that the states that set a higher threshold for passing (those requiring a perfect reading of all plates, or allowing only one error) were allowing more false-positive results — in which people with normal vision are identified as having CVD.

These states may hold “fundamentally different views of the purpose of… testing,” the report said.

The same conclusion applies to states with a lower threshold for errors (six or more incorrectly read plates), the report said, noting that their goal presumably is to ensure that no one with normal vision is incorrectly identified as having CVD.

“An argument that the different systems produce similar outcomes cannot be reasonably embraced,” the report said. “Two regulatory systems will not have remotely similar medical assessment outcomes when one declines an applicant who makes one error … and another allows unrestricted commercial and limited airline pilot privileges to an applicant unable to pass any CV test.”

ICAO provides no specific guidance on how member states should determine the pass-fail threshold, the report said. 

PS Disappointed that Australia doesn't get a mention...wonder why that is??:rolleyes:

[Bill Smith]

25 years of incident free flying by CVD's negates their whole argument!
They could do a whole new study working out how they got it so wrong!

[Kharon]

Sarcs. PS Disappointed that Australia doesn't get a mention...wonder why that is?

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

In one state, one with a 25 year track record. What a twisted, self serving, mealy mouthed small comment. How dismissive, how denigrating; it may go some way to explaining the despicable 'Faraway' letters; which join the 'wish I'd never wrote it' hall of fame along with the Wodger report, came to be.

I hope AIPA get wind of this and join VIPA and AFAP in calling for an immediate retraction and apology.

[Kharon]

For some reason (don't ask), it's a BRB tradition to host any darts challenge match on a 13 th, preferably a Friday. Anyway, the latest challenge to BRB supremacy came from a team of Englishmen, visiting firemen – (you know who you are).....One of their 'lads' is reputedly colour deficient, didn't seem to affect his ability to separate the green doubles from red trebles at will though and with some precision; mutterings of bollocks and 'ring-in' were heard often, at least during the first few rubbers.

Anyway, so much for the darts match, now to the mock funeral, held in the pubs' back yard. We buried, in effigy, with gravitas and solemnity the Australian reputation for courage, leadership, integrity and a fair go. We even borrowed a mouth organ for the last post...

Eulogy : After the commonwealth funded Dennison hearing, Australia led the world with a new benchmark for CVD pilots, courageously the medical guru's adopted the findings and a new era of hope for CVD pilots and wannabe's dawned. After 25 years we have stopped holding our collective breath and can, backed with empirical evidence support the Dennison findings. We could with a little courage, take the 'exercise' to the next logical level. But, instead of presenting the argument to the ICAO, instead of gathering the data, research and evidence and taking it to the grown ups for consideration, we regress. Australia was known as 'first rate' and could have won concessions, on credibility alone. A new star could have been born. Headline – "Australia clears the way for CVD pilots citing a 25 year safety study".

There was real, international kudos in that option. Do we take it, no; alas, what 'we' do try through very murky, devious, cowardly, unpalatable methods is to strip away those hard won concessions. Australia could have breathed hope for countless CVD, around the world by persuading ICAO that these CVD pilots have proven not to be a safety liability, but an asset.

The data is there, for example, deterioration or improvement over time could have been measured, new benchmarks set from refined analysis (for or against), hell there was probably a PhD in it for someone if done properly. The data may have proved or disproved the case: who knows. A quarter century worth of research important data left laying in the mud, alongside regulatory reform – makes you wonder don't it; just a bit.

ICAO could, (with suitable rump protection devices installed) have sanctioned an easement (for those who had the balls to try it) of CVD discrimination. Now that boys and girls, would be an achievement to be proud of.

The incontinent antics of the CASA in this latest embarrassing, cowardly, despicable actions make me ashamed. It's to be hoped our troops, sportsmen and business folks don't catch the same disease, be a hell of a mess. Can you imagine a – "Wallabies chicken out of match – competition too tough", - headline. Nah, it's too unnatural, for the true blue, ridgy didge to even think about.

Gold for Australia ?– NO. The cup of Dross and Shame is the prize for Australia in the Shambollic stakes. A.K.A. The race to the bottom.....

Flags at half mast on the houseboat, 'til morning tea. Muffins this morning I'm informed, must be, the elephants are lining up at the galley window.

Heigh ho.

[Sarcs]

Submission 100:
(http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/100_a_pape_28_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)
This submission is a personal submission in relation to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS)

Background:
I am a medical practitioner in General Practice in Geelong, Victoria. I hold an Australian Commercial Pilot Licence, a Multi-Engine Command Instrument Rating (MECIR) (not current), I am a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME) for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). , and in 1976 I started an examination of the ACPS that was driven by a conviction that the rationale then being given for the restrictions imposed on pilots with a CVD did not make sense. This work, after some twenty years of investigation and, led eventually to a challenge by myself in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) whereby I sought to have the restriction on night flying removed from my Private Pilot Licence (PPL). This appeal was successful.

In the months following the appeal outcome, it became clear that the Authority of that time (1987) was unwilling to pass on the success of my appeal to any other similarly affected pilots. This fact led to a second appeal, in which I was intimately involved, whereby the wider issues involved in the ACPS were to be examined by the AAT for all classes of CVD and all levels of Pilot Licencing. This appeal was conducted in the name of Hugh Jonathan Denison, but was in fact, and by mutual consent between the parties, a broad-ranging ‘Test Case’ for all CVD pilots. The appeal was won in 1989 by the appellant and the restriction on night flying was subsequently removed for all classes of CVD. It was agreed by the parties that the Denison AAT decision should be promoted internationally as the most comprehensive and thorough examination of all the evidence pertaining to the topic of the ACPS

Without labouring the point too much, with the rational support of Aviation Medical Directors Rob Liddell, Jeff Brock and Peter Wilkins, many pilots who had earlier been prohibited from flying a small aeroplane at night, now found themselves, after the Denison Decision, able to seek employment as First Officers and Captains in the major airlines of this country. I have no access to data held by CASA, but I estimate there are many hundreds of Australian and immigrant pilots who have forged unrestricted careers over the intervening 25 years since the Denison decision. Their safety record is, to the best of my knowledge, without blemish.

In the last 30 years I have addressed numerous national and international aviation medical meetings on the topic of the ACPS and the significance of the Australian experience in promoting a rational and evidence-based approach to not only colour perception regulations, but aviation medical standards in general.

However, in recent times, it has become apparent that not everyone is happy with this situation, and this is particularly so in the current medical staff of the Office of Aviation Medical in CASA. Some see the state of affairs that has existed for a quarter of a century in this country as a weakness and in breach of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). The current Principal Medical Officer (PMO), Dr Pooshan Navathe, has made his opinion quite clear in a recent statement of evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and has set about unilaterally dismantling the privileges that CVD pilots have enjoyed, as I have said, for a quarter of a century. There are instances where pilots who had been earlier assessed as competent and safe notwithstanding their CVD status, and who had amassed many tens of thousands of hours of “safe performance of duties”, have in the last few months had restriction re-imposed that they had not suffered for decades. This unilateral development flies in the face of a complete absence of any reported safety issues throughout their careers.

What appears to have triggered this frantic and senseless behaviour is that a pilot who has NOT been afforded a completely unrestricted medical certificate as a consequence of his performance on some of the residual colour vision testing regimens, has lodged an appeal with the AAT whereby he is seeking to have those remaining restrictions removed. The appeal should have been a simple matter of evaluating the practical relevance of a device called the control tower signal gun, which employs coloured lights to convey, ostensibly, directions between the tower and an aircraft with a known radio failure. The basis of the appeal was to be that the control tower signal gun is never used in Regular Public Transport operations, and that in the extremely improbable event of a total radio failure, communications should be established using modern cell phone or satellite phone technology. Many pilots even with severe forms of CVD have passed the Control Tower Signal Gun Test, and as a result have been passed as “meeting the standard”. There are captains in each of our major airlines who owe their careers to the passing of this test.

There are two matters I wish to raise in regard to this appeal and to the measures taken by Dr Navathe in the interval since the appeal was lodged. The first is that the appeal in question legitimately sought to have an independent adjudication of a matter that CASA was unable to resolve, namely the relevance of the particular test being employed to differentiate between those who might be classed as “Safe” and those who should be considered “Unsafe” in respect of their CVD status. On the basis of the reasons for the appeal, the AAT allowed basiclly three days of hearing. However, Dr Navathe is turning this particular appeal process into a ‘de-facto’ appeal against the earlier Pape and Denison AAT decisions, with the stated aim of making Australia once again a strict and literal adherent the ACPS. His aim is to align Australian practice with that of New Zealand, a jurisdiction that has punitive restrictions in place for all but the mildest of CVD aircrew. My understanding is that Dr Navathe played a significant role in bringing about the New Zealand version of the ACPS. He intends to call many overseas witness in his endeavour to reverse the Australian implementation, which in my opinion is already fully compliant with the ICAO SARPs.

The second, is that the net result of this litigious approach by CASA is that there has been a huge cost blow-out for both the CASA and for the pilot who has lodged this appeal. It is estimated that CASA is likely to spend at least $600,000 on this appeal, and that the candidate’s costs are likely to be in the order of $3-400,000. This situation is nothing short of ludicrous. There is no safety case to support this approach by CASA, and is seen by many in the industry as outright bullying of the candidate.

In summary, Australia, as a direct consequence of the AAT appeals quoted, and in compliance with undertakings made by the Authority in the second AAT (Denison), as well as with the active support and involvement of three earlier Directors of Aviation Medicine, has led the world in bringing about a far more rational approach to the issue of the ACPS. The current legal manoeuvrings of the Office of Aviation Medicine are unjustified, extremely expensive and without any safety case to support them.

I make this submission in good faith and conscience. I am willing to provide further evidence if that is deemed necessary.

Dr Arthur Pape


Dr Robert Liddell - Submission 69
(http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/069_r_liddell_24_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)
vs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nNRmyKh1sU

[thorn bird]

Kharon Quote!


"hell there was probably a PhD in it for someone if done properly"


Jeez Kharon the head doctor could even get a REAL professorship!!


Had some dealings with a Chinese gentleman, a jeweler way back when, profoundly colour blind, yet I would trust his judgment on the quality and colour of a diamond or the fire in an opal, I think the whole CAsA argument is fallacious.

[Bill Smith]

Another enlightening article

Latest News | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/category/latest-news/)

To all the CVD's that have had and are having their careers due to the relentless drive of Dr A Pape and other medical professionals that were forward thinking at the time. To all the non CVD's that know that this is Bull*#@t. I know its a new concept but help out your fellow pilots.

Get on board and put your money where your mouth is. The threat of the powers to be over running the upcoming AAT case with legal fee's is very real. If the case is found in favour of "The New Science" it will just empower them.

http://www.cvdpa.com/your-support/donate

[Kharon]

BS –"If the case is found in favour of "The New Science" it will just empower them."

True dat Bill, this is not simply a matter of a few being hammered out of existence. It reflects the current ethos – on a whim or subjective opinion, your career may be ended. Be afraid kids, be very afraid......The Boogie man may have departed the fix, but his minions remain and they will seek pay-back, unless there is an end to unlimited power being in the hands of an unprincipled few.

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!’
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear.

[Kharon]

Dear John.

Whilst the well being and future of CVD pilots is not a priority to you, it is important you robustly grasp the concept that perhaps, just maybe, it is of some importance (germane even) to them; given their need to put bread on the table and beer in the fridge.

The Shambollic system for the embuggerance of a minority group has the potential to get out of hand; what if the press or the Caucus got onto it? I hope you prevented young Faraway from sending those letters out, because if one of those ever leaked out the jig will be up. You see, once the real world grasps, through the CVD matter how you have been running the show, all hell is going to break loose. Because as we both know, once they get the idea that you and the boys have been systematically embuggering peoples lives, all semblance of credibility flies out of the window and into the ****ter.

It would be tragic if the public ever found out about the Quadrio or James aberrations, not to mention 'the other ones', those on the dole. There are just too many to comfortably cover up. So be a good chap and at least consider the consequences of a backlash, if this ever gets out.

L&K Gobbledock.

Clothing Advisor to the Empoorer.

[Sarcs]

Dear John

Was just doing am SOP 1 (i.e. pprune trolling) and had the following pass across my desktop.

CASA crackdown threatens to ground colour blind pilots (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/casa-crackdown-threatens-to-ground-colour-blind-pilots-20140617-3abkg.html#ixzz34vo5TDy3)


Hundreds of colour blind pilots have been put on notice they could be grounded as air safety authorities consider tightening medical requirements for the vision impaired.


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to 500 aviation licence holders, including 124 commercial pilots working for Virgin, regional airlines and freight companies, warning them it is reviewing new research into ''colour vision deficiency''.


In a separate letter, CASA has asked 900 companies that employ Australian pilots to consider their position on vision impairment.


''I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator's Certificate who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA's further determination of the matter,'' wrote CASA's Industry Permissions manager Peter Fereday on June 5.


Colour blind pilots have been able to co-pilot some passenger planes in Australia for the past 25 years since two landmark cases in the 1980s at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.


Dr Arthur Pape, a pilot who brought one case said there was ''not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that pilots have made so much as a scratch on an aeroplane as a result of colour vision impairment'' in that time. ''Those pilots have been impeccable,'' he said.


Pilots must still complete a ''signal gun control tower test'' to distinguish between red and green lights in the case of radio failure even though the modern protocol is to call in on a mobile phone in that event.
CASA has written to pilots who failed colour perception requirements as part of their class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.


A group representing Virgin pilots, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association, is fighting CASA on the issue and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has already responded to the regulator's letter.


''The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith,'' it wrote.


CASA said the latest medical research was a paper written by Dougal B Watson, principal medical officer at New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority which compared regulatory regimes across the world.


Liberal senator David Fawcett, a former flying instructor and test pilot, has questioned whether the research CASA is relying on is even relevant, saying the regulator was ''undermining the careers'' of hundreds of pilots.
He has written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, responsible for CASA, urging a full evidence-based study based on 25 years of accident-free flying.

The trouble is it seems to be in some sort of code as I can only read the fourth paragraph and the last paragraph.


Could you possibly get your Bored lacky to decipher as I think it means we maybe in trouble.


L&Ks

PG

:E

[papakurapilot]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, this new evidence that CASA (Pooshan) is bringing to the table is conducted by his former boss at the NZCAA. How is this not a conflict of interest, especially when he was recommended to the CASA job by him?

[CoftC]

Now that we 'colour blind' are 'vision impaired', do we get to park in the disabled parking??::rolleyes:

Not only have we been 'allowed to co-pilot some aeroplanes', we have also been able to fly sometimes life saving critical missions, single-pilot in all weather and night in high performance aircraft, amongst many other things, safely for the last 25 years!!

[Sarcs]

FF comes out fighting...:yuk::yuk::yuk:

Colour blind pilots will not be grounded in Australia following study: CASA (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/colour-blind-pilots-licences-reviewed-by-casa/5531906)

Posted 26 minutes ago

Australia's flight regulator has rejected suggestions that it is planning to ground pilots with colour vision deficiency, commonly referred to as colour blindness.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) wrote to about 500 aviation licence holders and 900 employers of pilots on June 5 advising that the authority would be reviewing new research into colour vision deficiency.

In the letter CASA's industry permissions manager Peter Fereday encouraged operators to "consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges" under current regulations, and whether safety adjustments were needed "pending CASA's further determination of the matter".

Today, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the changes would be years in the making.

"There's certainly nothing for any Australian pilot who has colour vision issues to be concerned about," Mr Gibson said.

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."

Colour vision deficiency pilots have been able to fly in Australia for more than two decades.

Mr Gibson said any changes to regulation in Australia would be subject to extensive consultation.

"If there is any change to the way that colour vision issues are approached in Australia, there'll be full consultation with pilots and the aviation industry, they'll get a chance to put their views forward, and that will take place over many months, possibly even into years," he said.

But Dr Arthur Pape, an aviation medical examiner, who is also a pilot with colour vision deficiency, said he was concerned by the review's ramifications for pilots.

"We've had reassurances from CASA before and these recent letters they've sent out... do not indicate that we have nothing to worry about," Dr Pape said.

"They are very aggressive and they are not based in evidence.

"[I'm not concerned] necessarily that pilots could be grounded, but certainly their careers could be negatively impacted and their jobs become untenable."

About 400 colour blind pilots in Australia

The new research, conducted by New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority principal medical officer Dougal B. Watson, looked at how 78 countries assess colour vision deficient pilots.

The study found that while the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) required that pilots have "the ability to perceive readily those colours... necessary for the safe performance of duties", there was great variation across the aviation world as to how standards were applied.

Mr Watson found the inconsistency could encourage "'aero medical tourism" where prospective pilots sought to sit their medical assessments in countries most likely to allow them to fly.

In Australia, Dr Pape won a landmark cases at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia in 1987 and 1989, when he challenged Department of Aviation restrictions on him flying at night.

"Those tribunal hearings constituted the most comprehensive impartial review of the aviation colour perception standard ever conducted anywhere in the world," he said.

"Since 1989 we've had a significant number, perhaps hundreds of commercial pilots who have had careers with senior airlines and regional airlines, and their performance has been no less safe than pilots with normal colour vision."

According to CASA, out of 36,000 Australian pilots, about 400 have colour vision deficiency and of those, 140 flew commercial operations.

"In general the approach we take in Australia is to try to let as many people be pilots as possible, taking into account medical conditions and any effect they may have on safety," Mr Gibson said.

"We certainly put safety first, but we don't try to restrict people unless it's absolutely necessary and that's the approach we're taking to colour vision issues."

According to the authority's website, Australia was more flexible than other countries to colour deficiency disorder.
"Australia is more flexible in its approach than other countries in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where a fail is recorded and a medical certificate can be issued if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility."
Applicants who do not pass the Ishihara test could still be offered a certificate "restricted to day Visual Flight Rules (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg1-high.pdf) only".


Hands up who believes the PG spin-meister??:rolleyes:

[papakurapilot]

Call him the spin master or the Janitor cleaning up after the god awful mess the PMO has made of this whole situation!:ugh:

[Kharon]

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."

Sure it is: which is why CASA are bringing, at public expense a 12 man (all good and true – we wonder) jury from overseas, to assist them in the tribunal hearing against one, lone pilot, fighting to progress his career despite a CV deficiency; which according to CASA PMO, prevents this – "it's a safety issue" they bleat in unison. Mind you, this adversarial, combative stance is taken without a shred of credible, scientific evidence, new or old, to the contrary being 'published'. Perhaps someone could explain that magazine articles and seminar discussion papers with tricky photographs, just don't cut the mustard, in the publish or perish world of academia.

This farce is to be prosecuted despite not only this pilots faultless safety record, but that of many other CVD pilots, accumulated over thousands of flight hours, in all weather conditions, day and night over the past 25 years. All without a single accident proven to be to CVD related...The hearing, by the by, will cost an estimated AUD $1,000,000 ish, all up.

"If there is any change to the way that colour vision issues are approached in Australia, there'll be full consultation with pilots and the aviation industry, they'll get a chance to put their views forward, and that will take place over many months, possibly even into years," he said.

Mr Gibson said any changes to regulation in Australia would be subject to extensive consultation.

So, everyone reading here was "consulted" before the decision to clandestinely institute the 'new' Shambollic system through the AAT hearing against O'Brien?. Really – Fawcett is onto the game, so beware the night vision expert.

Were the Faraway letters considered as 'the consultation'?; that's not what some legal advice says....The letters to Operators (employers) and pilots were an abhorrence which typified the CASA method of 'managing' industry objections. You don't have to believe me – just read the submissions to the Truss review, the story is there in black, white and plain English. (PC for the CVD perhaps).

Doc. A. Pape - "They are very aggressive and they are not based in evidence. "[I'm not concerned] necessarily that pilots could be grounded, but certainly their careers could be negatively impacted and their jobs become untenable.

The fact is, the very litigious, aggressive medical department is out of touch with reality; bloated with arrogance, running on whim and selective, subjective opinion. Once again, the story is there in the submissions to the Minister Truss ordered Forsyth review. Think on, would that review have been called if this was all hat and no cattle. The review is embarrassing – not least of all to the minister, who, to his credit is standing behind the essential 37 recommendations, of which a large proportion are sheeted home to the CASA.

Good to see the CASA smoke and mirrors machine still operates; it should, the amount of money it costs the public purse. But if this load of old tosh and bollocks is the best it can generate – time for an overhaul methinks.

Selah.

(Senate at 1600 – maybe 1700 (+/-) for the WLR. GW&WP.

[Arthur Pape]

Let's not forget what the implications are for future pilots with CVD. While current CVD pilots may indeed be shielded by some sort of "grand father" clause, this will not be the case for young kids starting their aviation careers henceforth. I suggest that if there is a safety case to be made now (which I refute totally) then the logical line should be that all CVD pilots should be stood down, past, present and future. One rule, no exceptions. The New Zealand CAA did away with practical assessments some years ago and instigated the most draconian implementation of the ACPS, but had a "grandfather" clause. The name Dougall Watson keeps cropping up in the NZ story). So in NZ, there are professional airline pilots who would fail the CAD if they had to sit it today, but who nevertheless are spared the embarrassment (mainly to the CAA NZ) of being stood down. One of my main aims is to restore accessibility to aviation careers for the young future applicants whose prospects Pooshan has already flushed down the toilet.

[Pearly White]

Sarcs The trouble is it seems to be in some sort of code as I can only read the fourth paragraph and the last paragraphHow do you know it's the fourth paragraph, then?

[ozblackbox]

CoftC Location: Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 8

Now that we 'colour blind' are 'vision impaired', do we get to park in the disabled parking??:

Not only have we been 'allowed to co-pilot some aeroplanes', we have also been able to fly sometimes life saving critical missions, single-pilot in all weather and night in high performance aircraft, amongst many other things, safely for the last 25 years!!

Totally agree.

Nearly 23 years in aviation and I am CVD - Protanope (red, green deficient). 13 years of instructing, most as Muti Engine Grade 1 including AMSA approved pilot in a Tier 1 Search & Rescue unit. 2.5 years as an FO on jet transport category aircraft - night freight. 7 years single pilot aeromedical flying with 3 years on EFIS. CAR 217 CASA approved Supervisory Pilot.

Maybe I should prep my wheelchair! Apparently I am an "inherent risk to the safety of aviation" according to the CASA PMO.

[Bill Smith]

We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering.

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges.
Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

[/url]http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/Letter_zps19d4439a.jpg[/URL]

[Ultralights]

http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/Other/SmugShots/i-hwZvQHL/0/L/casablind-L.jpg

[CoftC]

"According to CASA, out of 36,000 Australian pilots, about 400 have colour vision deficiency and of those, 140 flew commercial operations."

If 8% of males are CVD, not so sure about the accuracy of the above statement?

[KittyKatKaper]

From #190, "Applicants who do not pass the Ishihara test could still be offered a certificate "restricted to day Visual Flight Rules only"."
Is that a new restriction ??

I am confused, because from CASA in their " Medical Certification frequently asked questions" there is the following ;
"Can I get a medical if I am colour blind?
Not if you are going to be an ATC or fly ATPL. OK if going commercial or PPL."

So how the heck can you fly IFR with a 'day 'Visual Flight Rules only' restriction from #190 ?

[Sunfish]

Every one of these lying bastards needs to be fired right now.

My post reposted from elsewhere .

The disgusting, hateful, ridiculous thing about this letter is that it does something no competent regulator should ever do. As such the letter is a final damning document that leaves no doubt in my mind that CASA needs major drastic surgery - and fast, or else anyone within that organisation that values their reputation is going to have to leave to avoid being besmirched with the same **** that covers this letter.

And what is the damning thing CASA has done that no regulator should ever do??

It has, by its own calculated and deliberate action, created more uncertainty.

Furthermore, since then it has done nothing to remove that uncertainty, which totally damns it in the eyes of anyone connected with competent public administration.

Make no mistake, the purpose of regulation is to remove as much uncertainty as possible from the conduct of human affairs and the last thing any regulator should do is increase it by its own actions, as CASA continues to do today and why it cannot be trusted to wield any of the powers it purports to have.

It is a disgrace, the letter proves it. Please Minister, take an axe to CASA starting right at the top, followed by the author of this letter and anyone connected with its creation or approval.

If ever there was concrete evidence for increasing the levels of uncertainty, ,Peter Gibson provides it:

Today, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the changes would be years in the making.

"There's certainly nothing for any Australian pilot who has colour vision issues to be concerned about," Mr Gibson said.

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."


CASA is deliberately and in a calculated manner spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the minds of colour blind pilots. their employers and potential pilots. This is just plain wrong and nasty **** on so many levels I don't know where to start. It can have absolutely no positive effect on safety levels, in fact if it leads to stress among pilots it willl have the reverse effect.

I have nothing but contempt for the arseholes who constructed this scheme.

To put that another way; even if there is new convincing, indisputable evidence that color blindness is a safety hazard in some aviation related circumstance, then you don't promulgate this fact this way. You present the information as fact, determine the preferred response to it and make a rule.

Furthermore, unless this shyte is stopped in its tracks right now, there will be other assaults on a variety of health conditions, the most obvious next one up is Sleep Apnoea. CASA will require anyone with a BMI over a certain level (ie: Fat) to spend $3000 - $4000 on a sleep test and specialist advice. Readers are invited to list further health issues that could attract attention, There is no end to this mess if it starts.

[Freewheel]

Since ar$e/elbow confusion appears to be a mandatory requirement for employment at CAsA, perhaps we can start there?:*

[T28D]

I have nothing but contempt for the arseholes who constructed this scheme.


There is only one constructee , Pooshan !!!!!!!!!!!

[Sarcs]

Colour-blind pilot challenges licence restrictions (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/colour-blind-pilot-challenges-licence-restrictions)




By Greg Dyett

Source World News Radio
19 Jun 2014 - 1:12 PM UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
A pilot with colour vision deficiency is challenging restrictions on his licence which he says are discriminatory.

First Officer John O'Brien is preparing to challenge the restrictions in a hearing in Brisbane next month.

He's been unable to pass what's known as the control tower signal gun test.

The test is based around the scenario of when red and green lights are used by the control tower when radio contact is lost.

It's considered outdated by some in the aviation sector because pilots can use their mobile phone to communicate with the control tower if radio contact fails.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to pilots, airlines and freight companies warning them that it's considering tightening the medical requirements for pilots with colour vision deficiency.

Dr Arthur Pape from the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association told Greg Dyett, CASA's crackdown could be related to the pending court hearing.
(Click on the audio tab above to hear the full interview)

[Kharon]

It's good to see and very right that the 'unions' have taken a position on this; well done. It's fairly easy for them to 'get it', they understand the core issues. Pleased to find the 'media' are taking an interest, I managed to listen to the Pape radio interviews from yesterday and pretty much knowing what Arthur was talking about, I 'listened' to the interviewer; it's clear they don't 'get it'. From a lay perspective the issue must seem as arse about and complex to them, as it is clear cut to 'us'.

For example, Joe Public would not know that if a CVD 'Co-pilot' is flying the sector, the decisions and management of the flight (to all intents and purposes) are made by the CVD pilot; just the same as being Captain. The issue is that CASA say the CVD cannot be 'captain', despite passing all the required 'flight tests' etc. Simply because of a deficiency, identified in a test to establish that there is, indeed a different perception of how colours i.e. red and green are 'seen'. This doesn't mean they can't see them, they just see them differently.

For Joe, the issue is simple one, is this safe? I wonder how many grateful passengers, safely delivered to destination would have known, guessed or cared that the pilot who just nursed a sick beast, through a stormy sky to a soft landing on schedule at dark o'clock, had a little trouble differentiating some shades of colours from others. Joe can relax – the CVD tribe all over the world have been operating very safely, for many years; in Australia for a quarter century.

So despite an impeccable 'safety' track record, and demonstrating that they [CVD] can safely perform their duties, any time, anywhere, in all conditions, thousands of times they can 'act' as captain, but cannot 'be' a captain. Now for some strange reason, CASA intend to challenge a 25 year old tenet, which has served industry well. The fury is generated not by the notion, although unpalatable; but by the default methodology they have elected to use to regress rather than move forward. This despite a clear ICAO guideline, scientific data, a commonwealth funded joint 'hearing' and a 25 year safety record.

“The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.” (ICAO Convention Annex 1 – Chapter 6.2.4.2).

5) Australia presently has the most modern, scientifically proven, liberal applications. This has been the result of two successful legal challenges to the implementation of the ACPS. [Refers - Pape v CAA (1987). Denison v CAA (1989)]. A summary of the AAT findings and comparison to ICAO CV standard was published in (article) the Journal of Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine, 2011.

6) The authority decided that the Pape ruling could only apply to the appellant alone. This arbitrary ruling denied other CVD pilots the right to fly at night; and, by extension, the ability to pursue careers in aviation was denied.

7) By mutual agreement between the concerned parties, the Commonwealth funded, second test case 'Denison' was to be wide ranging. The scope of evidence widened to include all forms of CVD through all levels of professional pilot medical certification. The case ran for 35 days and examined every conceivable use of colour in aviation. To this date, it remains the largest, independent, in depth analysis and examination of aviation colour vision standards in the world.

8) Since the Denison decision, Australian CVD pilots have been free to progress to all levels of professional flying including international airline operations. Before Pape and Denison, many pilots would have even been restricted in their approval to fly even a light aircraft at night.

9) Since the Denison ruling, CVD pilots have consistently demonstrated the ability necessary for the safe performance of duties through regular, rigorous flight and simulator assessments.

My bold.

[Frank Arouet]

It would appear that CasA are shirking any hint at adherence to the recommendations, namely recommendation 30 below, which is self explanatory and contradictory given the letter previously posted, Extract below.
The action taken by CasA provides that the applicant must pay to prove his stated previously satisfactory condition and clearly moves the burden of proof from the regulator to the pilot and fails to give the DAME the recommended freedoms to exercise his/her ability to renew aviation medical certificates. If the DAME recommends the pilot be further assessed it is his responsibility, not CasA’s.


No doubt these will become "renew by CASA only" medicals and the AVMED Branch continue unabated and unshackled as before.


Is this the first Nigerian in the woodpile?
　


" QUOTE" 30. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination. "QUOTE’


"QUOTE" At the resent time, CASA is aware that CAD testing in Australia is only offered by Dr Elizabeth Livingstone, Designated Aviation Opthalmologist at the Livingstone Eye Clinic in Sydney (61-2) 9362-5820. Please note appointments are necessaryand there will be a fee charged. Any expense incurred will be your responsibility. "QUOTE"

[brissypilot]

Vision row: CASA clears the air (The Australian) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/vision-row-casa-clears-the-air/story-e6frg95x-1226960392977#)

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is attempting to hose down a potential row over colour-vision deficient pilots, saying it is not about to ground anyone and is not necessarily moving to change its rules.

The regulator found itself under fire after it wrote to pilots and air operator certificate (AOC) holders about the issue.

In the letter to AOC holders, CASA said recent medical research had indicated the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than initially thought.

It raised the possibility that some pilots could be more severely affected, from a safety point of view, than was believed to be the case when their medical certificates were issued.

“CASA is reviewing the situation and will consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken on the basis of that review, at which time affected medical certificate holders will be notified accordingly,’’ the regulator wrote.

“In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.’’

The letter raised the ire of pilots and resulted in the issue being raised during a recent Senate estimates committee.

Pilots with colour-vision deficiencies have been able to work as co-pilots for 25 years following breakthrough appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and critics of the CASA move say there is no evidence to suggest this has caused any safety problems.

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association attacked any move to introduce new rules as discrim­inatory and said it would fail to ­deliver improved safety.

VIPA was worried that Class 1 pilots with CVD would have to inform their employers about their condition and might be forced to undergo future testing.

It said this could jeopardise the careers of hundreds of commercial pilots across the country even though they had flown thousands of hours without incident.

CASA estimates the issue affects about 400 pilots, including 140 commercial pilots. It said this week it had not grounded any ­pilots with colour-vision issues and had not yet decided to make changes to the rules.
“CASA is considering a range of international research in relation to colour vision — this is prudent and responsible action by the safety regulator in response to the evolving medical understanding of colour vision issues in aviation, which includes the development of a new computer based test,’’ spokesman Peter Gibson said.

“If any change is proposed to the colour vision rules there will be full consultation with the aviation industry — this is a comprehensive and lengthy process.’’

Mr Gibson said CASA wrote to the pilots and operators to make them aware of the international research.

“CASA is not suggesting CVD pilots cannot fly or that airlines or other operators should ground them — we are simply asking that pilots and operators consider if there are any safety issues in relation to current operations.”

And two days ago...

Colour blind pilots will not be grounded in Australia following study: CASA (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/colour-blind-pilots-licences-reviewed-by-casa/5531906)

Today, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the changes would be years in the making.

"There's certainly nothing for any Australian pilot who has colour vision issues to be concerned about," Mr Gibson said.

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."

How does Mr Gibson explain Bill Smith's letter (http://www.pprune.org/8526959-post197.html)? :=

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges.
Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

Or how about the extra restrictions they imposed on O'Brien's medical earlier this year before he had even got to the AAT? :=

Or how about the new restrictions on their own website? :=

Medical certification frequently asked questions (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593)

How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?

CASA has reviewed the application of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 – which covers the medical certification of pilots - as it relates to pilots with colour vision deficiency (CVD).

Initial issue of class 1 medicals
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Initial issue of class 2 medicals
If the Ishihara test is failed, a certificate will be offered restricted to day VFR only. If the applicant wants this restriction removed, they must pass one of the tests as per Part 67.

Class 1 medical renewals
No immediate change. CASA will write to affected class 1 medical holders and the major airlines advising them to consider the impact their CVD may have on their flying, and such other obligations as they may have to inform their employer of a condition which may affect their ability to safely perform their duties. CVD Class 1 pilots may need to undergo a CAD test in the future.

Mr Gibson, the above statement makes it clear that CASA has already reviewed the CVD policies and there was no consultation with the industry. While the "regulations" themselves may not have changed, the testing processes and the colour vision waivers that have existed since 1989 definitely have.

If the three levels of CVD testing are failed, new Class 1 applicants will be denied certification. Class 2 applicants will be restricted to Day VFR only. This has not been the case for over 25 years!

If Bill Smith's letter is anything to go by, it is only a matter of time before existing medical holders receive the same treatment.

CASA's statements to the media are nothing but pure spin and lies and someone needs to be held accountable.... Where's the "Adjunct Associate Professor" been this week? :=

It would seem that the only "pending review" that CASA is waiting on is the outcome of the O'Brien AAT case. If that is the case, then it should be funded as a test case accordingly, just like Denison in 1989.

[Sunfish]

Brissy, the circumlocutions used by CASA lead me to ask the one final question which goes to the heart of the problems of CASA - trust, uncertainty and all the rest.

Could I be forgiven for believing that any communication, written or spoken, from CASA cannot be relied upon?

To put that another way, could I be forgiven for wondering if every CASA communication is a lie?

This is why I said that anyone who values their reputation who works for CASA is going to have to consider whether their reputation can survive employment by CASA.

The entire colour blindness matter needs to be immediately vacated by CASA. Not to do so brings the entire organisation into disrepute, if it wasn't in disrepute already.

[Anthill]

Kahren, Arthur and Sunfish, ya blood's worth bottling!

So, we have (at least) 400 cvd pilots in Australia. Let's just assume that each of these pilots has flown an average of 5,000 hrs in commercial operations ( I have flown 14,000+ on a professional ticket). This means that there has been at least 400x5,000 hrs flown, in Australia alone, by cvd pilots. That there has been NOT One incident or accident attributed to cvd over this statistically significant period means that ther is NO 'safety case'.

This is 2 frickin' MILLION flying hours in Oz alone! Consider also the number of cvd pilots in the rest of the world and you get an idea of the incredible statistical weight of evidence that says that these pustules of filth in CASA are totally wrong.

We have the example of the John McC in Senate estimates bleating on about "safety cases" and some singular obscure accident ina B727 which did not attribute the cause to cvd anyway. Then, they cite some "medical research" as backing their case. Really? In fact, the research actually deals with the diversity of cvd treatment across a variety of administrations and does NOT even make a judgement regarding safety issues and cvd.

Clearly, these clowns are full of sh!t. An argument such as theirs would be totally torn to shreds in a year 11 Engish class. Do they SERIOUSLY think that Senator Fawcett and rest rest of the thinking community would not see right through this. The truth is that the fraternity of DAMEs have no confidence in the current regime. The beauty of this is that these d!ckheads have pretty much signed their career death warrants. :p

[thorn bird]

The thought crossed my mind...how many accidents in the past 25 years can be attributed to Non colour deficient pilots?....compared to accidents that can be attributed to colour deficient pilots?...


answer Lots and lots...and Non !!


Therefore using CAsA and the skulls oft stated policy of safety management
should it not be the case that you MUST be colour deficient before you can gain a pilots licence????

[Creampuff]

[T]he research actually deals with the diversity of cvd treatment across a variety of administrations and does NOT even make a judgement regarding safety issues and cvd.Actually, the research does make a judgment, in the form of the premise asserted at the start of the paper:INTRODUCTION: Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors. …The premise is false.

This point is critically important: The premise is false.

The attack must be on that premise (and the intellectual dishonesty apparent in the failure to test the validity of the basic premise). If you focus your energy on the efficacy of the different tests to confirm the existence and severity of colour deficiencies, you are falling into the trap of implicitly affirming the validity of the basic premise.

It's no different from a paper that says:INTRODUCTION: Gravity is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately sense the exact level of 'g' forces on their aircraft ...

[Arthur Pape]

Hot off the press: ABC's 7.30 Report Queensland tonight:
Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446)

[brissypilot]

Well done to the ABC Qld 7.30 Report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446) :ok:

A great story featuring interviews with Senator Fawcett, John O'Brien, Dr Rob Liddell & VIPA Executive Director Simon O'Hara. :D

See www.cvdpa.com (http://www.cvdpa.com/) for a full summary of all the recent developments!

iGJFFObtYiA

[gerry111]

"And no one was available from CAsA to comment on camera."

Possibly too busy on a Friday afternoon sending out nastygrams? :yuk:

[Kharon]

Top marks ABC Queensland; and nicely done boys.

The Creampuff nutshell. As usual, Creamy on song and bang on target.
The premise is false.

This point is critically important:

The - premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise)- is false.

The attack must be on that premise (and the intellectual dishonesty apparent in the failure to test the validity of the basic premise). If you focus your energy on the efficacy of the different tests to confirm the existence and severity of colour deficiencies, you are falling into the trap of implicitly affirming the validity of the basic premise.

n) a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

v) base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
The ICAO nutshell.

“The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.” (ICAO Convention Annex 1 – Chapter 6.2.4.2).

The CASA Scientific approach nutshell.

RO - [the] new "paperwork reducing" annual 8 page medical questionnaire that has most AMEs in this country and others rolling their eyes in disgust and dismay.

Have YOU had any "funny turns"?

The 35 day Denison hearing covered the CVD issue comprehensively; there is little to further discuss except the 25 year safety record. Even that is not really cause for another expensive, time consuming 're-hash'. There are much more serious medical issues for the minister to be concerned with, the evidence is contained within the submissions to and conclusions drawn within the Forsyth report. CASA Avmed is a basket case, the butt of DAME jokes and about as much use as a chocolate fire guard; this we could live with. But a short study of the Hempel fatal accident clearly defines the rampant incompetence, a willingness to shade facts as, where and when required. This is not the purpose of medical ADMINISTRATION. Neither is it 'their' job to question and re examine every medical certificate extended; either the DAME are to be trusted or they are not.

Someone may know how many countries do not have the additional filtering and subjective judgement of fitness to fly system which is inflicted on Australia. In the USA for example – the medical examiner simply checks the candidate and signs off the certificate – done and dusted. I expect there is a layer of administration to 'rule' on disputes, but by and large, the examiner is trusted to know whether a pilot is fit or not.

The Forsyth review identifies problems in each and every CASA department, not least of all with Avmed. The entire CASA system from board to clerical is dysfunctional, moribund and at least morally corrupt. This edifice as it stands costs an enormous amount to sustain and has not provided one single, tangible 'safety' outcome. Apart from wasting millions, destroying business, allowing travesties like Hempel, persecuting the likes of Reddish and Quadrio, shutting down operations like Barrier and Polar; they also have the brass to 'flip the bird' at the Senate, ignore Forsyth and will, without doubt, treat the Truss efforts with thinly veiled contempt.

Save the public purse from the O'Brien (CVD) matter, that can be dealt with without another 35 day 'hearing'; Minister, if you are serious about reform, open an inquiry and learn the sad truth of why your aviation industry is the object of scorn, ridicule and sympathy, in equal amounts, from it's peers.

To shove a wet noodle up a tigers arse one needs determination, fortitude, a bloody big stick and balls; big ones. Turn the Senate team loose minister, let them run a real inquiry. Grand-mama always said "it's better to take the lid off than have the pot boil over".

Saturday mixed metaphors, sure – but why not.

Selah.

[Sarcs]

Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446)

Hundreds of pilots with colour vision deficiency fear they could be grounded by CASA as a Queensland pilot mounts a legal challenge to restrictions on his licence.
Maria Hatzakis
Source: 7.30 Queensland (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/qld) | Duration: 7min 34sec
Topics: eyes (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/eyes), air-transport (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/air-transport), brisbane-4000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/brisbane-4000)
Transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446#)


MATT WORDSWORTH: Our love of flying seems to know no bounds with passenger numbers expected to reach record levels again at Brisbane airport this year. But commercial pilots who are colour blind fear they could be grounded due to their condition. The civil aviation safety authority has written to them and their employers warning that it's considering new research into the safety of flying with a colour vision deficiency. While CASA says existing pilots have no immediate cause for concern Unions say the authority's already tightened flying restrictions for new pilots. The furore comes as a Queensland commercial pilot prepares for a legal challenge next month to have restrictions on his licence removed. Maria Hatzakis reports.


(FOOTAGE OF PILOTS GETTING READY TO TAKE OFF)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Some 36,000 pilots are licensed to fly in Australia about 400 of those are colour blind. There's been debate for decades over whether, a pilot who can't tell the difference between some colours can still fly safely.


DAVID FAWCETT, LIBERAL SENATOR: There are two schools of thought. There are some people who because of the theory that says the ability to distinguish red and green is important have always maintained that you must not allow somebody with a colour vision deficiency to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN, PILOT: Even when it comes to driving a car for example, there's colours everywhere and it's the same with aviation as well but there's not one instance in aviation where it's critical to actually be able to name colours that you see.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN PLANE ON RUNWAY)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Pilots with a colour deficiency have been able to co-pilot commercial planes and fly recreationally in Australia for the past 25 years but they're banned from captaining a multi-crew commercial plane. Queensland pilot John O'Brien believes that's unfair. He's launched a legal challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to force the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to remove restrictions on his licence.


JOHN O'BRIEN: At the moment because of my current colour vision restrictions, it prevents me from becoming a captain so, even though I've now flown as a first officer for over 2000 hours in, for the past four years and along with the advice and recommendations of all the colleagues that I fly with, my medical restrictions still prevent me from doing that.


MARIA HATZAKIS: But as next month's hearing approached CASA tightened regulations for new pilots making it harder for those with colour vision deficiency to fly.


(FOOTAGE OF LETTER FROM CASA)


MARIA HATZAKIS: It also wrote to existing colour blind pilots and their employers, warning them it's considering new research and may need to take action.


SIMON O'HARA, VIRGIN INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSN.: We have been approached by members, who have received these letters, they're very disturbed by these developments, and this has come out of the blue for them so they've contacted this office in quite an agitated state.


JOHN O'BRIEN: People are I think certainly upset they're scared, about what their future is now in aviation. I know quite a few guys who are in exactly the same situation as myself they've been flying for many thousands of hours over many many years and now they got this prospect of having their careers ended, all on the opinions of a few individuals within CASA.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA says it will be presenting expert medical advice at the Tribunal hearing next month which supports its position and while it hasn't grounded any pilots it's trying to keep them and their employers informed. Unions are worried.


SIMON O'HARA: And they refer to medical evidence, we haven't seen that, they haven't engaged with us to talk us through or provide us with articles relating to what they rely upon in so far as that medical evidence.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN COCKPIT)


SIMON O'HARA: These pilots have to undergo rigorous check and line training, they've flown thousands of hours, there's no evidence that they are any different to any other pilot and we view this very seriously.


MARIA HATZAKIS: The Australian Federation of Air pilots believes it's unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies to consider their pilots' fitness to fly. Qantas and Virgin are considering the letters while REX Airlines says it's very concerned.


GRAPHIC:
and is "not capable" and "in no way qualified to make any assessment" of the research.


ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.


ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.


MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.


ROB LIDDELL: I would have thought it's a beautiful opportunity to conduct research. Keep these people employed follow them through very closely so we might be able to tell the rest of the world ultimately that there appears to be no reason why a colour defective pilot can't fly safely.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA maintains any further changes would be a long way off. But that hasn't settled the nerves of those who've been seeking even more freedom to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN: When I first applied at the AAT it was really an attempt to be able to progress my career. So they're actually turning it into a fight of not just the ability to progress my career but now just the ability to even maintain my career as it stands.


MATT WORDSWORTH: And no-one from CASA was available to comment on camera.:ugh:

Not like Peter to be lost for words??:E

[Arthur Pape]

Hi Folks. I'm posting the following on behalf of a pilot who wants to remain anonymous, for fear of retribution by CASA. It is a letter the pilot has sent to three senators. I know it has all been said before, but it warrants repeating.
Cheers,
A.P.







June 20 2014





RE: UNILATERAL DETRIMENTAL ACTION BY CASA AGAINST SELECTED PILOT GROUP





My name is XXXX. I am a professional pilot of 40 plus years standing and 17,000 accident free flying hours; bar one successfully mitigated helicopter engine failure in 1979. Flying has always been my passion and my life. I currently work in an overseas environment although I always maintain my Australian licences.





In 1970 when I took my first aviation medical it was quite a shock to be classified as colour vision abnormal as there had been no previous indication of any detrimental effect on my life thus far. However, this medical assessment had a significant impact on me in many ways for the rest of my life.





Despite a sense of discrimination and imposition thereafter on behalf of the aviation regulator, I, like many other similarly assessed pilots, persisted in the pursuit of a (somewhat limited) rewarding career.





Within that pursuit I have obtained Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) qualifications in both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft capacities, as well as Instrument Ratings (IR) for both categories of aircraft. I have also flown both fixed wing and helicopters at night under Night Visual Metrological Conditions (NVMC) rules, (a capability brought about by the successful case of Denison vs CASA in the 1980’s). There has never been an adverse circumstance from this undertaking; i.e. night flying.





I also hold an Australian Airline Transport Pilot Licence Helicopter (ATPLH) which is the licence required for regular public transport but it is endorsed such that I cannot exercise the privileges of that licence. This is a strange imposition because although I am considered safe and capable of flying a helicopter by myself under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) at night I am further considered unsafe to fly at night in a multi crew environment most likely conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), a style of flight requiring little or no visual reference to the outside world. So it seems I am safer by myself at night than with another equally competent pilot??





Recently I received what appears to be a generic letter from CASA which seems to infer that Australian operators have been advised that anybody classified as colour vision abnormal under their employ has literally overnight become clearly unsafe and their future operational capacity as a safe pilot should be reassessed. How is this suddenly possible? How can a government body spread such apparently slanderous innuendo?





In my mind this communication appears tantamount to a legally unfair and possibly slanderous besmirchment of many safe pilots and would possibly be the ruination of many successfully proven long standing careers. This is an area beyond my capacity but it does seem that legal or at least administrative or political scrutiny toward CASA is warranted on this matter.





To that end I would like to bring to your attention the activities of the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) under the determined stewardship of Doctor Arthur Pape, (although I personally detest the term ‘defective’.) Dr Pape has at his disposal a significant amount of records in respect of the issues discussed in this letter.





As CASA is about to unilaterally destroy the careers, livelihoods and lives of many people, ostensibly on an unfounded whim, and without apparent recourse on behalf of the targeted professionals; I implore you to liaise with Dr Pape and the CVDPA in pursuit of this matter. The CVDPA may be reviewed at their website www.cvdpa.com (http://www.cvdpa.com/). Dr Pape may be contacted directly at [email protected] ([email protected])








In appreciation of your positive response,





Captain XXXX


ATPLH, CPLA, B. Aviation; Certified Aviation Safety Auditor.

[Sarcs]

Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14033077794337&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=caeb1703-1c4d-48ae-a65c-92d290f057b2&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpacific-general-aviation-questions%2F527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-11.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2014-06-20%2Fqueensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour%2F5540446&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpacific-general-aviation-questions-91%2F&title=The%20Empire%20Strikes%20Back!%20on%20Colour%20Defecti ve%20Pilots%20-%20Page%2011%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=Queensland%20pilot%20challenges%20CASA%20over%20colour%2 0blindness%20restrictions)

Hundreds of pilots with colour vision deficiency fear they could be grounded by CASA as a Queensland pilot mounts a legal challenge to restrictions on his licence.
Maria Hatzakis
Source: 7.30 Queensland (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/qld) | Duration: 7min 34sec
Topics: eyes (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/eyes), air-transport (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/air-transport), brisbane-4000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/brisbane-4000)
Transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446#)


MATT WORDSWORTH: Our love of flying seems to know no bounds with passenger numbers expected to reach record levels again at Brisbane airport this year. But commercial pilots who are colour blind fear they could be grounded due to their condition. The civil aviation safety authority has written to them and their employers warning that it's considering new research into the safety of flying with a colour vision deficiency. While CASA says existing pilots have no immediate cause for concern Unions say the authority's already tightened flying restrictions for new pilots. The furore comes as a Queensland commercial pilot prepares for a legal challenge next month to have restrictions on his licence removed. Maria Hatzakis reports.


(FOOTAGE OF PILOTS GETTING READY TO TAKE OFF)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Some 36,000 pilots are licensed to fly in Australia about 400 of those are colour blind. There's been debate for decades over whether, a pilot who can't tell the difference between some colours can still fly safely.


DAVID FAWCETT, LIBERAL SENATOR: There are two schools of thought. There are some people who because of the theory that says the ability to distinguish red and green is important have always maintained that you must not allow somebody with a colour vision deficiency to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN, PILOT: Even when it comes to driving a car for example, there's colours everywhere and it's the same with aviation as well but there's not one instance in aviation where it's critical to actually be able to name colours that you see.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN PLANE ON RUNWAY)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Pilots with a colour deficiency have been able to co-pilot commercial planes and fly recreationally in Australia for the past 25 years but they're banned from captaining a multi-crew commercial plane. Queensland pilot John O'Brien believes that's unfair. He's launched a legal challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to force the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to remove restrictions on his licence.


JOHN O'BRIEN: At the moment because of my current colour vision restrictions, it prevents me from becoming a captain so, even though I've now flown as a first officer for over 2000 hours in, for the past four years and along with the advice and recommendations of all the colleagues that I fly with, my medical restrictions still prevent me from doing that.


MARIA HATZAKIS: But as next month's hearing approached CASA tightened regulations for new pilots making it harder for those with colour vision deficiency to fly.


(FOOTAGE OF LETTER FROM CASA)


MARIA HATZAKIS: It also wrote to existing colour blind pilots and their employers, warning them it's considering new research and may need to take action.


SIMON O'HARA, VIRGIN INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSN.: We have been approached by members, who have received these letters, they're very disturbed by these developments, and this has come out of the blue for them so they've contacted this office in quite an agitated state.


JOHN O'BRIEN: People are I think certainly upset they're scared, about what their future is now in aviation. I know quite a few guys who are in exactly the same situation as myself they've been flying for many thousands of hours over many many years and now they got this prospect of having their careers ended, all on the opinions of a few individuals within CASA.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA says it will be presenting expert medical advice at the Tribunal hearing next month which supports its position and while it hasn't grounded any pilots it's trying to keep them and their employers informed. Unions are worried.


SIMON O'HARA: And they refer to medical evidence, we haven't seen that, they haven't engaged with us to talk us through or provide us with articles relating to what they rely upon in so far as that medical evidence.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN COCKPIT)


SIMON O'HARA: These pilots have to undergo rigorous check and line training, they've flown thousands of hours, there's no evidence that they are any different to any other pilot and we view this very seriously.


MARIA HATZAKIS: The Australian Federation of Air pilots believes it's unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies to consider their pilots' fitness to fly. Qantas and Virgin are considering the letters while REX Airlines says it's very concerned.


GRAPHIC:
and is "not capable" and "in no way qualified to make any assessment" of the research.


ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.


ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.


MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.


ROB LIDDELL: I would have thought it's a beautiful opportunity to conduct research. Keep these people employed follow them through very closely so we might be able to tell the rest of the world ultimately that there appears to be no reason why a colour defective pilot can't fly safely.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA maintains any further changes would be a long way off. But that hasn't settled the nerves of those who've been seeking even more freedom to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN: When I first applied at the AAT it was really an attempt to be able to progress my career. So they're actually turning it into a fight of not just the ability to progress my career but now just the ability to even maintain my career as it stands.


MATT WORDSWORTH: And no-one from CASA was available to comment on camera.:ugh:

Not like Peter to be lost for words??:E

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

[Kharon]

Please consider the following, sent to a local MP...

June 20 2014

RE: UNILATERAL DETRIMENTAL ACTION BY CASA AGAINST SELECTED PILOT GROUP.

My name is XXXX. I am a professional pilot of 40 plus years standing and 17,000 accident free flying hours; bar one successfully mitigated helicopter engine failure in 1979. Flying has always been my passion and my life. I currently work in an overseas environment although I always maintain my Australian licences.

In 1970 when I took my first aviation medical it was quite a shock to be classified as colour vision abnormal as there had been no previous indication of any detrimental effect on my life thus far. However, this medical assessment had a significant impact on me in many ways for the rest of my life.

Despite a sense of discrimination and imposition thereafter on behalf of the aviation regulator, I, like many other similarly assessed pilots, persisted in the pursuit of a (somewhat limited) rewarding career.

Within that pursuit I have obtained Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) qualifications in both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft capacities, as well as Instrument Ratings (IR) for both categories of aircraft. I have also flown both fixed wing and helicopters at night under Night Visual Metrological Conditions (NVMC) rules, (a capability brought about by the successful case of Denison vs CASA in the 1980’s). There has never been an adverse circumstance from this undertaking; i.e. night flying.

I also hold an Australian Airline Transport Pilot Licence Helicopter (ATPLH) which is the licence required for regular public transport but it is endorsed such that I cannot exercise the privileges of that licence. This is a strange imposition because although I am considered safe and capable of flying a helicopter by myself under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) at night I am further considered unsafe to fly at night in a multi crew environment most likely conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), a style of flight requiring little or no visual reference to the outside world. So it seems I am safer by myself at night than with another equally competent pilot??

Recently I received what appears to be a generic letter from CASA which seems to infer that Australian operators have been advised that anybody classified as colour vision abnormal under their employ has literally overnight become clearly unsafe and their future operational capacity as a safe pilot should be reassessed. How is this suddenly possible? How can a government body spread such apparently slanderous innuendo?

In my mind this communication appears tantamount to a legally unfair and possibly slanderous besmirchment of many safe pilots and would possibly be the ruination of many successfully proven long standing careers. This is an area beyond my capacity but it does seem that legal or at least administrative or political scrutiny toward CASA is warranted on this matter.

To that end I would like to bring to your attention the activities of the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) under the determined stewardship of Doctor Arthur Pape, (although I personally detest the term ‘defective’.) Dr Pape has at his disposal a significant amount of records in respect of the issues discussed in this letter.

As CASA is about to unilaterally destroy the careers, livelihoods and lives of many people, ostensibly on an unfounded whim, and without apparent recourse on behalf of the targeted professionals; I implore you to liaise with Dr Pape and the CVDPA in pursuit of this matter. The CVDPA may be reviewed at their website Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com). Dr Pape may be contacted directly at [email protected]

In appreciation of your positive response,

Captain XXXX

ATPLH, CPLA, B. Aviation; Certified Aviation Safety Auditor.

The Australian relaxation of CVD restrictions has a 25 year safety history to support the case. This (IMO) is important to fellow aviators – internationally. Properly presented to ICAO, a light could have been shone into many lives, based against sound case evidence for relaxation of the restrictions placed on CVD pilots. The Australian authority proposes to regress 25 years rather than accept, embrace and celebrate the substantive facts and present those to the world. There's a lot more at stake than 300 Australian pilots who may be affected to the degree where careers are ended.

more here – The Empire strikes back (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.htm) -

Selah.

[004wercras]

In regards to the ABC report, well done Johnno, well done. It takes balls to go on TV, take a stand against CAsA and maintain your dignity. The IOS welcomes you with open wings. (Just watch your back though as Fort Fumble won't we so pleased :=)

A further acknowledgment of appreciation is owed to the ABC for being interested in this issue, and to Senator Fawcett who really is a man of integrity. His suggestion that the Commonwealth fund the AAT appeal is totally warranted and it should be accepted, F/O Obrien is an innocent man and should not have to be subjected to the CAsA technique of running you out of money and to the wall. A further thank-you is also owed to Dr Liddell.

The IOS remain in favour of the termination of any CAsA signatory who took part in this current issue including the authoring of that infamous letter (which should be used rather liberally as toilet paper immediately). The DAS trio, Ferreday, Herr Pooshan and Flying Fiend need to go, now!! Mr Truss you are sitting atop a ticking time bomb and your thumbs still remain firmly embedded up your asshole. You need to take action, dispose of these CAsA incompetents as well as their support mechanism - the Board and Mr MrDak. It is only a matter of time until all aviators unite and make your political existence untenable and a living hell. The choice is yours Warren.

TICK TOCK

[j3pipercub]

Well I think that statement is as simple and uneducated as you are.

[Bill Smith]

All-Female Aircrews (http://www.crm-devel.org/maillist/summary/allfem.htm)

Here is another example of our forward thinking PMO

Just to clarify I in no way agree with his position. I was told by a female college the other day that as more female pilots come into the industry they were going to rename the "cockpit" the "box office".

[thorn bird]

ERRR?? what makes you think they cant???

[Fruet Mich]

25 years of safe CVD aviating proves they don't have a problem recognising green red lights. Not one known incident or accident. So rest easy mate, your CVD captain will still keep a cool head while you're filling your little undies in an emergency. The CVD aviators are colour deficient, not colour blind airsupport. You are untitled to your own uneducated opinion though. It's does sound a little like you are quite the amateur with statements like that, either that or a representative from CAsA itself trolling on a real aviators forum.

[Frank Arouet]

Do all, (or any), of the major towers in Aust have red green white signal lights? Curious that's all.

[dubbleyew eight]

I am told in a phone conversation just now that the CAsA working group and industry representatives working on the wording of the new legislation have no awareness that any of this CVD rubbish is occurring.

I was gobsmacked.

[Kharon]

Bill - If I were in public office, I would be very careful of my word selection when it came to matters pertaining to, or dealing with 'the ladies'. It would be a grave error to underestimate the determination, intelligence and horsepower they can muster; both overt, as in politics and covert, as in opinions exchanged over breakfast. A man in public office needs to make certain that the Canberra 'ladies groups' do not discover a mile wide misogynistic streak or genuinely chauvinistic attitude in dealing with the fair sex. They would tear him apart, so lets keep that our little secret.

W8 – What you are witnessing is history happening. If you care to time line the whole CVD project you can see where and how the home team got beaten. Check back through Hansard – pay attention to Fawcett v CASA on CVD. Someone dropped a bollock, a team mate was run out and the very next batsman – caught behind for duck; top order collapse. Bloody good wicket keeper is Fawcett, especially when Xenophon is bowling.

But the really interesting stuff was happening below the surface, the CVD tribe as individuals are easy to pick off, one at a time - see Bill Smith – this was all to be a clandestine operation; smooth and easy, without the need to consult either industry or science; just an ego soothing rule change, providing a big tambourine to bang at medico gab fests.

It is also worth having a peep back at timing in relation to the release of the Forsyth recommendations. It's tedious, but the picture which emerges is fascinating. Once you have your time line – read the CASA response......

Only my opinion of course, but I can't see how the university can continue to support blatant misuse of title and privileges; nor how the minister can continue to support or tolerate the fatally flawed, discredited Avmed edifice.

Two hopes for the IOS; that the new DAS is a man of vision and common sense; and, the minister grows a pair. Both easily dashed hopes, so pray to whichever of the gods suits you best that the new CASA is not gifted to one of the existing 'groomed' goons.

Toot toot

[PAIN_NET]

As requested – for those inserted in time lines and background research.

From Estimates. CVD 1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMGsnncKAs&feature=youtu.be)

Estimates CVD 2.

P7. a.k.a. TOM..

[Frank Arouet]

Did the CAsA purge on CVD pilots happen just to spit in the eye of the Forsyth review. Or was it a previously determined change to the rules to neuter any AAT decisions with contemporary as opposed to historic "facts" on the table?


It wouldn't be the first time the rules have been changed to suit the situation. If you look carefully at the Fawcett video he seems to support this notion by suggesting the AAT CVD matter be funded from "Public Interest and Test Case" scheme" money. (Watch from about 6:25 onward ABC 7:30 report).


http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-11.html


Whatever the answer, CAsA's actions are harsh and unconscionable and proof that they will do what they do until somebody stops them in their tracks. If you can't cut off their wasteful access to the taxpayers purse at least try to fund your action with those same funds which are available through the above scheme. This has the effect of leveling the uneven theatre of battle and gives rise to a permanent decision one way or the other. 50/50 odds are the best one could hope for in cases like this.


I understand "The Public Interest and Test Case Scheme is funded via The Attorney General. These funds will get matters to the High Court if necessary. A lot of significant High Court decisions come from actions like these including many with varying terms of access including Aboriginal Land Titles and Discriminatory conduct. See link below.


The only problem, (that will show itself if there is any merit to the suggestion), is that Governments don't usually back two horses in the same race if they have a predetermined view that suits their agenda.


Commonwealth public interest and test cases | Attorney-General's Department (http://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Legalaidprograms/Commonwealthlegalfinancialassistance/Pages/Commonwealthpublicinterestandtestcases.aspx)

[Sarcs]

Although you miss the umms, oohs and ahhs, here is the relevant section in Hansard...:rolleyes:Mr McCormick : I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.

Mr Rule : There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Two? Ten? Fifteen?

Mr Rule : I am not across the precise number that would be—

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Would I be wrong if I said 12?

Mr Rule : I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) That would be good, but you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?

Mr Rule : Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.

Mr Rule : We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) But would it be a reasonable expectation that it would be at least another $43,500 on top of what you have already spent, if not significantly more?

Mr Rule : It would not be out of the realms of possibility to accumulate another $40,000 in costs, no.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) A very understated remark, Mr Rule, but thank you. Could I ask Mr McCormick or Mr Rule: in terms of whether or not you move ahead with this, my understanding is that you have an obligation, like any other Commonwealth department, to be a model litigant. As I look at this, there are about eight criteria to being a model litigant, and I see CASA is not performing particularly well on about five of them. Can I ask what the response has been to Mr O'Brien's request to reach a settlement before the hearing?

Mr Rule : A mediation was conducted in the early part of last year, which was ultimately unsuccessful. I was not aware of any other proposal to—

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) A letter from his lawyers written in, I think, February this year?

Mr Rule : I was not aware of the specific details of that proposal.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) So you are planning to spend probably more than $100,000 and you are not aware of an opportunity to reach a settlement before the AAT hearing.

Mr Rule : I think that at different points along the way Mr O'Brien has suggested that he would be prepared to resolve the matter, but always on the basis that he have access to the privileges of his airline transport pilot licence. That, of course, has been the major sticking point from CASA's perspective, and the reason why those negotiations have not been successful.

Mr McCormick : I think we only have the legal costs as a total legal cost, but if you wish to give us on notice the specific areas in which you think we are not being a model litigant, then we will look at exactly what we have said in the past. As Mr Rule has said, my understanding is that up until now, there has not been any indication that Mr O'Brien wishes to retreat from the position of holding an ATP— Who shot JR? Certainly writes better than he talks, kind of reminds me of a scene at a cocktail party where the Old man says...


"Come up here son and meet the good Senator...(whisper).. and stop playing pocket billiards while ogling the cocktail waitress (hired-help)..."


MTF..:E

[Sunfish]

You want research? I'll show you research! Cop this CASA!

look up "misplaced salience" - over use of colour in human machine interfaces.


More recent guidelines stress the use of low contrast gray backgrounds and limited use of color.

http://www.marinetech.org/files/marine/files/Curriculum/IROV/Module13/gruhnhmidesignreviewed-110722135448-phpapp02.pdf

check the references - it may be that CVD actually improves situational awareness by filtering out unnecessary colour detail (misplaced salience)

[thorn bird]

Sunny as I said previously, given the accident free statistics of CVD pilots perhaps it should be a prerequisite that all pilots should be CVD afflicted.

[Arthur Pape]

Thanks Sunfish.

I remind all that in no way would we suggest that the use of colour in present-day (or for that matter, old-day) cockpit display technology needs any modification to accommodate the CVD pilot. We have data on the most severe CVD types operating completely safely in the most modern of aircraft types (the entire Boeing and Airbus fleet). I stress this to counter the often stated (at aeromedical meetings) unreasonableness of suggestions that the advantages to colour vision normal participants of colour in the cockpit display environment should be diminished to facilitate the use of such displays by CVD individuals.

That said, the same logic doesn't apply to the "most critical" instances of colour usage in the aviation environment external to the aircraft: the PAPI. I refer the reader here to our published paper http://www.cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/Pape%20and%20Crassini%20The%20Puzzle%20JASAM%202013.pdf
in which we describe the hazards of using colour coding in VASIS displays, as illustrated by the 2002 crash of FedEx Flight 1478 at Tallahassee Florida.
PAPI is a disaster that has without any doubt been implicated in at least one crash, and is likely to be so implicated in future crashes, and next time there won't be a CVD pilot on the flight deck to 'carry the can'. A major source of information in compiling our analysis of the FedEx crash came from a paper by Clark and Gordon, research scientist at the Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Department of Defence, Melbourne, Australia: "The Hazards of Colour Coding in Visual Approach Slope Indicators".


Australian pilots, almost without exception, bemoan the introduction of PAPI to replace the T-VASIS, an approach aid that was essentially 'shape coded' and which had huge SAFETY advantages over the PAPI. The Clark and Gordon conclusions were echoed and amplified by USA research on behalf of the FAA which provided laboratory confirmation of the reversal of red PAPI signals to 'Pink-white'. Clark and Gordon described this phenomenon as "Fail unsafe" and many airline pilots I have interviewed on this topic have confirmed they too have observed the reversal of the signals generated by the PAPI under conditions of low temperatures and high humidity, the presence of thin mist and/or sea spray (often reported in relation to Denpasar, Bali). In the end, PAPI won the competition on the basis of cost and convenience (in maintenance), but SAFETY was the loser. So much for science!

[Kharon]

Sunny, CTR and Arthur - not fair. You cannot use 'proper data' or scientific research to justify your arguments. The very notion is outrageous; facts are forbidden and logic firmly barred. So knock it off will you....What are you boys thinking....

Sharpens pencil- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -starts again.
The Australian & International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss over CASA’s handling of the Debate over colour vision deficiency CVD affected pilots.

Good to see; the AIPA have weighed into the debate and seem to think the CVD issue important enough to send a letter directly to Minister Truss; - Phelan – Proaviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/22/aipa-enters-the-colour-vision-debate/)– has published a short article which gives the gist of that important letter. We should note the AIPA has now provided the CVD debate, Senate and Forsyth with valuable, balanced, intelligent, positive views on matters aeronautical. AIPA should be congratulated on and complimented for their efforts on behalf of their members and industry. Well done...

Despite the opinion consigning a topic of some international significance to the GA board, clearly the AIPA, AFAP and VIPA believe it to be an important issue which affects their members.

Despite the opinion consigning a topic of some international significance to the GA board; why is a situation which could, potentially, have earned the credit impoverished regulator a gold star for leading the way, being diminished?; dismissed as merely a GA only topic. Surely it's not to hide the regulators abysmal, regressive, degrading, embarrassing approach to the "subject"; is it? Nah.....

So, whereas Pprune may not think it significant; not a worthy topic for the ANZP board, a "sticky" and possibly an opinion counter; airline pilots, their representative associations, and others who frequent Pprune do. I find it moderately passing strange that discussion of the topic could even be rumoured to be 'passively suppressed'. But, as we all know, rumours are not always true; but they may well be....

Scrubba # 111 –"The outrage is predominantly being committed against commercial pilots and I suspect that this forum is not the first port of call for those pilots. Importantly, I also suspect that the legion of non-pilots that use PPRuNe as something of a barometer for aviation politics in Australia would not come here as a first or only window either. (my bold)."

Don't hold your breath Scrubba – some of us seem to think it internationally important, some clearly don't. Aye well; it is, after all, only an opinion based web site, although it seems freely expressing an opinion through a pawky sense of humour is actively discouraged.

[Pawky] - Having or showing a sardonic sense of humour: [Sardonic] - grimly mocking or cynical.

"Converting all your sounds of woe into Hey, nonny, nonny."

- Here (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/muchado/page_80.html)-

[Sarcs]

Hear, hear AIPA! :D

The PP (ProAviation) Senate Estimates quote on poohtube:

The McCormick (DAS) view on CVD pilots - Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - YouTube

Every little bit helps, if you see one of these lob into your inbox please pass it on...:ok:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_062314_073003_AM.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJFFObtYiA&app

[bilbert]

What's the problem?. CVD pilots can always get a job requiring NVG's! It's all green. Oh and wearing of tinted glasses must be immediately banned from the cockpit as they 'could' affect colour perception. An offence of strict liability of course.

[VR-HFX]

Sarcs

Interesting video. Sen Fawcett almost managed to get the "Skull" to go supersonic. One more pointed question would probably have done it. For those of you that haven't seen him go through the sound barrier, it is worth waiting for.

[Kharon]

Anticipation of an event is always more fun than reality; the thrill of the chase more exciting than the kill. Anyway – would you flog a dead horse?. I loved the bit at last estimates:-

"This is to be your last estimates" – "Yes". End of conversation; says it all really.

Toot toot.

[aroa]

CVD issue got a good airing with Dr Arthur Pape this am.

Very well stated by the good Dr. :ok::ok:

Great pity many of the other CAsA buggery acts eg J.Quadrio dont get an airing as well

[004wercras]

Interesting video. Sen Fawcett almost managed to get the "Skull" to go supersonic. One more pointed question would probably have done it. For those of you that haven't seen him go through the sound barrier, it is worth waiting for.Agreed!!! Watching the Skull blow his foofer valve is one of those little treats that life provides on occasions :ok: It is frightening, amusing, and in a perverted sort of way addictive to watch!
There will only ever be 1 screaming skull.

[Bill Smith]

Well after a rather direct complaint to ICC and a rather speedy reply, I might add, CASA has returned my ATPL privileges apologising for the "Imposition". However, I am under no illusion that they will have another crack at me further down the track pending the "New Research".
The PMO must be under a little pressure judging by the way he signed off the letter. Take a look at the way the letter was signed off

The interesting thing it in the second paragraph.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/Letter_zps4b93643a.png (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/Letter_zps4b93643a.png.html)

[Dora-9]

Watching the Skull blow his foofer valve is one of those little treats that life provides on occasions :ok: It is frightening, amusing, and in a perverted sort of way addictive to watch!
There will only ever be 1 screaming skull. Aggreed 004!

In my time in Cathay I never saw a Skull eruption, but I sure as hell heard one!

With the introduction of the B777-300, the HK CAD took fright at the length of the thing and decreed that all converting B777-200 captains must undergo type-specific taxying training. They wanted the yoke painted bright red too, to remind you that you were in a -300 (in case you missed the u/c cameras etc). My "training", along with 5 others, took place early one morning, comprising a clockwise loop of Kai Tak's tarmac, and anti-clockwise loop follwed by a 180 degree turn on the end of the runway, all timed before the aerodrome opened at 0600. It was conducted by Skull - in my 6 years in Cathay I'd never laid eyes on the man, although I'd heard of him (who hadn't?) and I have to say that I was mightily impressed. It could so easily have degenerated into a Monty Python farce; he was calm, cool and very professional.

The eruption, when it came, was after we'd shut down at the end of the session. I was busy exploring the -300's cabin, standing in the rear galley (about as far from the flight deck as you can get) when I was overwhelmed by an avalanche of noise - an awful deafening screaming tirade, never to be forgotten. It was everything 004 described, and more. Apparently some hapless engineer had just come into the cockpit to inform Skull that the mainwheel tyres had been badly scrubbed (all those sharp turns).

Subsequently I had a few more dealings with the man; he was always calm and professional (but then I never had occasion to disaggree with him). He also struck me as being very, very intellegent - it would be sheer folly to underestimate him...

[Kharon]

Bill old son; I'd read that letter again, have another little think and start building a defence. Forked tongue and snake oil make for an evil combination, but when Voodoo is invoked, the most mundane and conciliatory phrases, take on an evil life of their own. In many ways this latest is scarier than the original in that it sets up a 'show cause', reverse onus submission, based on you 'endangering the safety of navigation'. You will need to prove you are not.

Beware grasshopper – Baron La Croix is hunting...

[brissypilot]

Bill Smith, a very interesting letter (http://www.pprune.org/8536163-post242.html). Leaves more questions than answers!

For those who missed it, ABC News Breakfast interviewed Dr Arthur Pape this morning.

Will colour blind pilots be grounded? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/will-colour-blind-pilots-be-grounded/5548492)

-4m3yc0TSXI

AIPA's letter has also been released publicly through the CVDPA and delivers a stinging criticism of the way CASA have handled this entire matter.

AIPA Letter to Minister Truss (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/AIPA-to-Truss.pdf)

Dear Minister Truss,

CASA Handling of Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) Debate

As you are aware, Australia has one of the most enlightened policy positions in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD). Our policy position followed on from the Pape (1987) and Denison (1989) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and has been vindicated by many years and thousands of hours of safe flight by pilots with CVD. However, CASA has now embarked on a set of tactics to unwind that position.

Normally, I would express the concerns of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) directly with the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, before raising the issue with you. However, it is clear to me from watching Senate Estimates that Mr McCormick is determined to press ahead with his strategy to unwind the Australian CVD policy position, regardless of both the empirical safety evidence and the unnecessary damage that will ensue to the livelihoods of a significant number of Australia’s professional aviators.

The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.

In effect, CASA has implied without evidence that the affected pilots and their employers are accepting an unnecessary risk if they continue to operate. Despite years of incident-free operations conducted on the basis of medical certification given by CASA, some operators might now feel compelled to restrict the livelihoods of their employees, simply because CASA may decide that those operators’ risk management or operational judgement is somehow deficient, thus placing their business at risk of some future regulatory action. AIPA is concerned that, should employees’ livelihoods be adversely affected as a consequence of this implied threat, CASA will not be a party to any Fair Work proceedings and will thus escape any judicial scrutiny, despite their lack of courage or justification to act directly against the medical certification already issued.

I appreciate that you would not normally intervene in matters directly affecting safety. However, AIPA does not believe that there is any evidence to suggest a safety issue in Australia’s current CVD policy – in fact, quite the opposite – and that the approach adopted by CASA is a procedural abuse that must be immediately rescinded, with the protagonists sanctioned appropriately.

In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the AAT to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).

As you know, AIPA is necessarily a champion of procedural fairness and judicial review. We are concerned generally about the industry wide view that CASA will not embrace the Government’s Model Litigant policy and that CASA is now using the AAT and the Federal Court processes to financially overwhelm industry applicants seeking independent redress. While AIPA is not in a position to truly assess the validity of that industry view, we do note the lack of positive evidence in the public arena to offset that perspective. The evidence in Senate Estimates of the CASA financial planning for the O’Brien CVD review in the AAT does not help allay any concerns that industry participants may have about the AAT moving further and further beyond the financial reach of many people to seek review of administrative decisions.

Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry.

Yours sincerely,

Nathan Safe
President
Australian & International Pilots Association

:D:D:D

The other letters from VIPA and AFAP are also available here:
http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support

[Sarcs]

Here is a reasonable caricature of Herr Skull building up a head of steam...:E

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Skullsteamingup.jpg

Something I dare say will have happened a number of times over the past week, when anyone dares to utter the letters CVD (http://eepurl.com/Xp5-z) in the presence of Herr Skull.
Heard a rumour that the DAS (STBR) has gone out on extended stress leave and is currently sitting on some isolated beach resort with a PMO direction of absolutely no access to PEDs or the internet...:(

Which is probably a good thing after reading brissypilot's post...:E

[Creampuff]

Extracts from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them, by David H. Freedman (bolding added):[C]an any medical-research studies be trusted?

That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies … is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.
…

He first stumbled on the sorts of problems plaguing the field, he explains, as a young physician-researcher in the early 1990s at Harvard. At the time, he was interested in diagnosing rare diseases, for which a lack of case data can leave doctors with little to go on other than intuition and rules of thumb. But he noticed that doctors seemed to proceed in much the same manner even when it came to cancer, heart disease, and other common ailments. Where were the hard data that would back up their treatment decisions? There was plenty of published research, but much of it was remarkably unscientific, based largely on observations of a small number of cases. A new “evidence-based medicine” movement was just starting to gather force, and Ioannidis decided to throw himself into it, working first with prominent researchers at Tufts University and then taking positions at Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. He was unusually well armed: he had been a math prodigy of near-celebrity status in high school in Greece, and had followed his parents, who were both physician-researchers, into medicine. Now he’d have a chance to combine math and medicine by applying rigorous statistical analysis to what seemed a surprisingly sloppy field. “I assumed that everything we physicians did was basically right, but now I was going to help verify it,” he says. “All we’d have to do was systematically review the evidence, trust what it told us, and then everything would be perfect.”

It didn’t turn out that way. In poring over medical journals, he was struck by how many findings of all types were refuted by later findings. Of course, medical-science “never minds” are hardly secret. And they sometimes make headlines, as when in recent years large studies or growing consensuses of researchers concluded that mammograms, colonoscopies, and PSA tests are far less useful cancer-detection tools than we had been told; or when widely prescribed antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil were revealed to be no more effective than a placebo for most cases of depression; or when we learned that staying out of the sun entirely can actually increase cancer risks; or when we were told that the advice to drink lots of water during intense exercise was potentially fatal; or when, last April, we were informed that taking fish oil, exercising, and doing puzzles doesn’t really help fend off Alzheimer’s disease, as long claimed. Peer-reviewed studies have come to opposite conclusions on whether using cell phones can cause brain cancer, whether sleeping more than eight hours a night is healthful or dangerous, whether taking aspirin every day is more likely to save your life or cut it short, and whether routine angioplasty works better than pills to unclog heart arteries.

But beyond the headlines, Ioannidis was shocked at the range and reach of the reversals he was seeing in everyday medical research. “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.

This array suggested a bigger, underlying dysfunction, and Ioannidis thought he knew what it was. “The studies were biased,” he says. “Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there.” Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them. We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. “At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” says Ioannidis. “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”

Perhaps only a minority of researchers were succumbing to this bias, but their distorted findings were having an outsize effect on published research. To get funding and tenured positions, and often merely to stay afloat, researchers have to get their work published in well-regarded journals, where rejection rates can climb above 90 percent. Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously. Imagine, though, that five different research teams test an interesting theory that’s making the rounds, and four of the groups correctly prove the idea false, while the one less cautious group incorrectly “proves” it true through some combination of error, fluke, and clever selection of data. Guess whose findings your doctor ends up reading about in the journal, and you end up hearing about on the evening news? Researchers can sometimes win attention by refuting a prominent finding, which can help to at least raise doubts about results, but in general it is far more rewarding to add a new insight or exciting-sounding twist to existing research than to retest its basic premises—after all, simply re-proving someone else’s results is unlikely to get you published, and attempting to undermine the work of respected colleagues can have ugly professional repercussions.
…

He chose to publish one paper, fittingly, in the online journal PLoS Medicine, which is committed to running any methodologically sound article without regard to how “interesting” the results may be. In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.
…

Most journal editors don’t even claim to protect against the problems that plague these studies. University and government research overseers rarely step in to directly enforce research quality, and when they do, the science community goes ballistic over the outside interference. The ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly retest each other’s results—except they don’t. Only the most prominent findings are likely to be put to the test, because there’s likely to be publication payoff in firming up the proof, or contradicting it.

But even for medicine’s most influential studies, the evidence sometimes remains surprisingly narrow. Of those 45 super-cited studies that Ioannidis focused on, 11 had never been retested. Perhaps worse, Ioannidis found that even when a research error is outed, it typically persists for years or even decades. He looked at three prominent health studies from the 1980s and 1990s that were each later soundly refuted, and discovered that researchers continued to cite the original results as correct more often than as flawed—in one case for at least 12 years after the results were discredited.
…

To say that Ioannidis’s work has been embraced would be an understatement. His PLoS Medicine paper is the most downloaded in the journal’s history, and it’s not even Ioannidis’s most-cited work—that would be a paper he published in Nature Genetics on the problems with gene-link studies. Other researchers are eager to work with him: he has published papers with 1,328 different co-authors at 538 institutions in 43 countries, he says. Last year he received, by his estimate, invitations to speak at 1,000 conferences and institutions around the world, and he was accepting an average of about five invitations a month until a case last year of excessive-travel-induced vertigo led him to cut back. Even so, in the weeks before I visited him he had addressed an AIDS conference in San Francisco, the European Society for Clinical Investigation, Harvard’s School of Public Health, and the medical schools at Stanford and Tufts.
…

We could solve much of the wrongness problem, Ioannidis says, if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that.

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”Hmmmm, I wonder why these bits jumped out at me….

“Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them.”

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,”

“Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously.”

“[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science ...”

“[A]ssuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time.”

“Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.”

QED PMO.

[triton140]

Interesting stuff Creampuff, as one who has worked in the medical research field for over 50 years both at the bench and latterly as a venture capitalist it hardly surprises me unfortunately :(

One of the failings of science is the unwillingness to let go of a flawed theory despite overwhelming evidence that it is wrong - witness how long it took us to acknowledge that the earth was not the centre of the universe, or in more recent times to accept that ulcers could be cured with cheap antibiotics instead of being "controlled" on a lifetime of expensive meds.

The problem with CVD and CAsA's stance is that there is not one skerrick of evidence in any of the literature to support them!:rolleyes: Nothing. To the contrary, the available evidence runs counter to their approach!

CAsA - putting AUTHORITY before safety

[Creampuff]

Hear! Hear! triton140. :ok:

Pilot colour vision standards are merely a relic of an historical coincidence.

[YPJT]

I just received this response from my local member of parliament:

Thank you for your email.

I have contacted the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon. Warren Truss, on your behalf to investigate this issue further.

I will contact you as soon as possible once I receive a response.

Yours sincerely



On its own would probably not achieve much but if enough did it and the minister was bombarded with submissions from various MPs then it just might make him do something.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

from the AIPA letter

The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.

How many times is bullying now being mentioned. Sen X was very clear in his appendix to the Senate report. This could be the way to join all the issues together.

[thorn bird]

"it sets up a 'show cause', reverse onus submission"


Bill, Kharon is dead right, that letter is about the most evil, cynical, cheap shot sleight of hand you could get, for goodness sake, what sewer did these people crawl out of? and why does the minister tolerate them?


It should be the biggest flag waving in the face of the minister.


Warren..."CAsA IS CORRUPT OLD MATE"


How much confirmation do you need!!


You may not be in a position to ignore it for much longer!!! and forget about saying you haven't been warned, think of the risks you take of doing nothing..a smoking hole now... and Warren old mate you are screwed...Wanna see how close? there are posts on this sight for you to ponder.
As others have said Tick Tock

[Frank Arouet]

Bill. I would also lend support to Kharons interpretation of that letter. This is exactly the reversal of the burden of proof Senator George Brandis' wants people to highlight. A show cause notice puts that burden on you.


On a separate matter relating to the new DAS, one has to ask if he will also be selected from "the Cathay Club"?

[Creampuff]

I'll be folding money she won't be. :ok:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

25th Jun 2014, 19:51 #255 (permalink)
Creampuff

Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 2,349
I'll be folding money she won't be.



Would this person just need to add a C to her current dept initials? Perhaps head of ASA and CASA or just a move to CASA?

Need a break from Cathay maybe the next one.

[004wercras]

On a separate matter relating to the new DAS, one has to ask if he will also be selected from "the Cathay Club"?My money is still on a particular 'QF person' taking the reigns. Time will tell. And if I am correct it will herald the end of the CX era and herald a new QF era at the asylum! Then again, Byron was ex DJ and didn't really populate the place full of fun loving DJ people, so who knows. One thing is for certain - the incoming DAS will be inheriting an incredibly well polished turd, so buyer beware! The new DAS will be inheriting a dysfunctional clusterf#ck of an organisation, an organisation that has alienated itself and pissed off most of industry, an organisation that is filled with bigots, bullies, psychopaths and sociopaths, an organisation that lies and deceives, an organisation that will STILL be entrenched and managed by a long term calculative, manipulative, unaccountable Iron Ring. Aargh yes, good luck to the new DAS :ok:

[LeadSled]

004,
I can fit two ex-QF names to that description, both "available", in my opinion, god help Australian aviation, at any level, if either of them wind up with the job.

Personally, they are both "good blokes", I know them well, professionally and personally, but both are , in my opinion, supremely unqualified for the job that has to be done, if anything is going to change at CASA.

As a matter of interest, have a look at the selection criteria, and the ASRR suggested criteria, neither of the two I am thinking of, is within a bull's roar.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

The TAAAF web site is worth a visit – anyway, but the very sensible suggestions – HERE (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/aviation-associations-support-most-of-forsyth-report) – are 'doable' right away. Perhaps we should get in behind this and push. It makes good sense, is factually and corporately correct, would put the brakes on the Shambollic ambitions, give Truss an escape path and allow due process to take it's slow, steady course.

The TAAAF has asked the Minister to immediately reconstitute the CASA Board in accordance with the principles outlined in the report.

It has also asked that the Minister not extend the term of the current CASA Director of Aviation Safety beyond the current extension to August 31.

And it wants the immediate establishment of the Aviation Industry Consultative Council as per Coalition policy.

[triton140]

They make an excellent point - the old Board should have no part whatsoever in the appointment of a new DAS.

[Kharon]

Creampuff –"I'm doing as much as I can (making submissions and writing letters) to express support for CVD pilots and abject disappointment at the regulator's actions."

Hear, hear. Well done that man..

As CP suggests, 'we', the ills of society (IOS) should do what we can; if you decide to weigh in and send a letter to your local member, do not hesitate to copy (plagiarise) some of the very good work done in the TAAF, AIPA, AFAP or VIPA letters. A letter to not only support the CVD tribe, but the TAAAF suggested strategy is better. There are many good reasons for you to do so and it only requires 20 minutes to draft a half decent letter and email it. Here's one reason:-

The latest letter to Bill Smith very neatly displays one of the most despicable lines of attack CASA will use. It has been used numerous times and is a proven winner; essentially it goes like this. Bill, at next medical requiring an 'eye' test fails to meet the latest CVD standard; or, maybe even without a 'test', his show cause will be worded to declare him a 'danger to navigation', because of his CVD, by CASA 'expert' opinion and given a show cause; just like that. Unbelievable you all shout; no says I; true dat and very provable.

No; don't laugh – there are no 'guidelines' or constraints on this 'being a danger' line getting trotted out, as and when required along with the infamous Not a Fit and Proper. All that it needs is someone to sign the letter. They don't have to prove or justify making this statement, just an opinion passed into 'fact' and produced as evidence. Honourable men made the provision in law, but in the hands of the less honourable it becomes a lethal weapon, which can be and is used with complete impunity...

I could find at least ten prime examples and as many again which would serve to illustrate; some are extraordinary. There's one I've seen, from the PMO as it happens, which would rock you, although the gent concerned would not thank me for making it public. So just take my word for it when I say you can very easily be declared a 'danger' and given a show cause. This means that you have to prove your 'innocence' in an AAAT hearing.

"CASA declare you a danger Mr. Smith, what say you?.

"No I'm not, I've a 20 year accident and incident free history, so I'm safe as houses".

"Sorry, the expert from the government safety authority says you are not, my hands are tied, I uphold the administrative decision; off to the dole queue for you, my dangerous friend".

The AAT are 'administrative' : must 'stand in the shoes of the regulator' and are not concerned with the niceties of evidence. Some of the most outrageous fairy tales ever told have been spun, polished and embellished through the AAT system. Mind you, in their (AAT) defence I notice lately that the 'Members', particularly in WA are onto the CASA game and seem to be getting a little tired of it.

Pragmatically the odds are in favour of Bill not being 'declared' and the AAT would probably stand by the previous findings; but who knows. The Shambollic system is extraordinarily litigious, dangerous and just at the moment, desperate enough to try it on. Your loss of time and money, your inconvenience and misery, don't trouble them at all. The fact that while the wretched process drags on your life is a living hell; or, that living with an axe over your head spoils quality time at home and is, of itself, creating a danger to navigation through a tired, irritable, distracted pilot being on the job, just don't signify..- Here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/10202445/Stressed-pilot-made-unsafe-foggy-landing)- for an example of a stress related mishap.

It would be a fairly simple matter to copy, paste and CC a copy of the AIPA, AFAP, VIPA letters and TAAAF statement to your local member; perhaps adding a sentence of support for the stance taken by the industry associations who care.

So do what you can, where you can if not for the CVD tribe, then for yourself. I'll let Creamy do the closing remarks.

Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.

Selah.

[185skywagon]

I passed the CVD letter to AOC holders, on to Sen. Mason(Qld). I am told by his office, that he is seeking a briefing from Sen. Fawcett.
cheers,

[Sarcs]

The Kharon post & Creamy quote (below) should be very carefully read in combination with Bill’s latest PMO correspondence by all CASA medical certificate holders, which includes ATC, aircrew (backenders) and anyone dependent on a valid MC as a condition of their employment.

CP (my bold)Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.IMO there is no question that while the current (DAS sanctioned) PMO remains in position he will continue to hold this ‘beyond all sensible reason’ approach to CVD pilots. Why? He is merely following his former colleague, mentor and ex-pat (bloody traitor) Watto’s approach to the issue (link for NZed CAA Notice of Proposed General Directions Impaired Colour Vision GD/VIS/01/2013.1 of [DATE] 2013 (http://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/gd_colour_vision.pdf)):

Class 1
(c) assess the applicant for a class 1 medical certificate as having a colour
vision deficiency that is of aeromedical significance, or
(d) assess the applicant for a class 1 medical certificate as having a colour
vision deficiency that is not of aeromedical significance only if the medical
certificate that is issued is endorsed with the following restrictions —
(i) Not valid for air operations carrying passengers; and
(ii) Not valid for night flying; and
(iii) Not valid for flight under Instrument Flight Rules; and
(iv) Not valid for flight in the vicinity of a controlled aerodrome unless the
aircraft is in radio contact with aerodrome control; and

Class 2
(e) assess the applicant for a class 2 medical certificate as having a colour
vision deficiency that is of aeromedical significance, or
(f) assess the applicant for a class 2 medical certificate as having a colour
vision deficiency that is not of aeromedical significance only if the medical
certificate that is issued is endorsed with the following restrictions —
(i) Not valid for night flying; and
(ii) Not valid for flight under Instrument Flight Rules; and
(iii) Not valid for flight in the vicinity of a controlled aerodrome unless the
aircraft is in radio contact with aerodrome control;

However, as Creamy & Kharon highlight, it will not stop at CVD if the PMO has his way and is not replaced ASAP.

Referring to the meeting minutes of the NZed CAA ACMLG (THE AVIATION COMMUNITY MEDICAL LIAISON GROUP - 11 March 2014 (https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/acmlg/ACMLG_Minutes_2014-03-11.pdf)), you will see several references to CVD, example: GENERAL DIRECTIONS COLOUR VISION DEFICIENCY – Appendix II
Dougal discussed his handout. It was taking a long time for the consultation to conclude due to the GD extension periods. Dougal had written a paper in the Blue Journal (the Official Journal of the Aerospace Medical Association) which looks at variation and disposition throughout the world. Colour vision deficiency can be caused by injury, congenital disease or surgery. The wide
range of deficiencies result in different outcomes making it a complex issue. Colour vision issues may not need to come through AMC and therefore could be handled by the Medical Examiner. There is also a reference to AOPA and their ASRR submission:Medical Application Fee
AOPA members wondered why has OMCS been dropped? Why are we paying for things outside certification? AOPA were not successful in their appeal to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel. They thought a statute had been breached. The Group feels that we will lose pilots and lose aeroclubs due to the high CAA medical fee. Pilots shouldn’t be paying for the bigger picture.However one of the more interesting discussions was on the avmed issue of Sleep Apnoea: Assessing against the standard of aeromedical significance. In the example of OSA (obstructive Sleep Apnoea) this does mean more screening or using CV risk to go down that path. As yet, no decision has been made (CASA has a different approach). It was agreed that we need to ensure a fatigue risk management system is in place, easy to diagnose, easy to treat. There are a significant number of OSA cases seen and once diagnosed and treated the buy in is excellent.

This is due to the transformation of their life post treatment. Once diagnosed it is usually an effective fix.

The Group discussed the difficulty in screening everybody with a BMI of 30, 32 or 40. Is there a problem with people falling asleep in the aircraft?

The Group proposed a Collection of data to support OSA being of aeromedical significant based on accident statistics.

Dougal suggested that analyzing in this way is problematic because the OSA may not be the sole reason for an accident. This correlates with the road statistics and co morbidity conditions.

Claude concluded that scoring systems could be an option eg; neck circumference, present symptoms, etc. Presently this is not in any guidelines and it would require consistency.

Tim advised that at Emirates, any pilot with a BMI over 35 is grounded (based on 75% risk of OSA). Benchmark of normal BMI is around 25.
Now I would suggest that there is a high probability that OSA will be the next aeromed issue that Associate Prof Shambolic will be banging on and on about, with Dear Watson providing the lead for future pineappling of all pilots.

While on my Dear Watson, and in regards to Creamy’s post #247 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-13.html#post8536236), apparently in 2010 Watto won the Boothby-Edwards Award… ‘for outstanding research and/or clinical practice directed at the promotion of health and prevention of disease in professional airline pilots’.

Which you can read all about on pdf page 6-7 of the Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine ( Vol. 81, No. 7 July 2010) (http://www.asma.org/getmedia/1a4c6e5b-c613-47a5-96e0-57d7cf16fe7b/july2010_news)journal. However I want to focus on just one paragraph in the rather large list of achievements of our Dear Watson:Other areas he has addressed include in-flight medical events in long-haul flying (a major concern for Air New Zealand) and considerations related to age- or individually determined criteria for retirement of airline pilots, where he marshaled arguments against the arbitrary “age 60” rule then extant in the U.S. Q/ If Dear Watson was so outspoken in the argument against the old ICAO “age 60 rule”, I wonder if he was then also instrumental in putting in place the onerous, costly, over the top, medical recertification that all professional pilots now must subject themselves to if they wish to continue in their profession beyond age 60??

{Comment: I would suggest that, much like Bill’s letter, every time an over 60 ATPL/CPL pilot signs his/her recertified medical they are also effectively green lighting a possible future FF SCN enforcement action.}

Note with passing interest…that our ‘dearly beloved’ STBR DAS also claims to have been involved in the beyond age 60 rule...

"..Mr McCormick : I appreciate what you are saying. As I said we can move forward with the science and with what we know—in other words, empirical and the other types of evidence we can gather. As far as doing that now and why we have not gone and done it, it is because we are looking at a very small number of pilots compared with the population of pilots in Australia. It comes down to resources. I cannot fund a study into colour vision deficiencies moving forward. As for increasing the age to 65, many countries in the world are involved in that. I was involved in that outside of Australia. In fact the interesting thing, just as an aside, is that one of the few countries that opposed it was an African country, where they pointed out that with the age of 60 for a commercial pilot now, their average life expectancy was 58, so what was the point of putting it up to 65. So there has been a great deal of discussion around the world about age. I agree that when it comes to treating depression—and Professor Navathe may wish to add more—we have done very well. There are people flying in Australia who I know would not fly in other jurisdictions. And I think it is a worthwhile project to review colour vision deficiencies and to review the data we have. I just cannot fund it and it is not a high priority to me..."

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - CVD Part 3 - YouTube

So take heed of what Creamy & Kharon are forewarning, because these sociopath, Mephistophelian, Messiah syndrome, bureaucrats will not stop at CVD, it is simply not in their nature…:ugh::ugh:

MTF…:ok:


Addendum

Good timing CVDPA...:D:D: Further Enlightenment (http://cvdpa.com/news/further-enlightenment)

And excellent (on behalf of) submission PAIN..:D:D:D: Professional Aviators Investigative Network. Supplementary submission-2.Prepared for CVDPA.
(http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/P1_CVDPA.pdf)

[Creampuff]

Choccy frog to whoever’s the first to nominate the authors of the paper that says this in the Conclusion: … Despite the growth and acceptance of evidence-based practice throughout most fields of medicine, we still find ourselves routinely using the lowest level of evidence (expert opinion, unsupported by a systematic review) for regulatory aeromedical decisions. Such decisions are often not based on the explicit acceptance of any particular level of aeromedical risk. ...

A cornerstone of a successful future for regulatory aviation medicine is consistent decision making by Licensing Authorities using high-level evidence. …

The existence of a colour vision standard inherited from 19th century marine navigation and collision avoidance rules is not “high level evidence” of the efficacy of that standard when applied to pilots in the 21st century. Facts like the actual safety record of hundreds of CVD pilots over decades and tens of thousands of hours do count as “high level evidence”.

[Creampuff]

Another choccy frog to whoever’s the first to correctly guess the missing words from this extract from an ATSB report:It is readily apparent from this data set that the majority of in-flight medical and incapacitation events in Australian civil pilots for the study period were due to […guess what…], most commonly associated with […guess what…].

[Frank Arouet]

Hemorrhoids/ Ar$eholes?

[Creampuff]

I think they were well down the list, Frank.... :}

[Sarcs]

'Gastro' & 'food poisoning'

And the quote was derived from this research paper...

Pilot Incapacitation:Analysis of Medical Conditions Affecting Pilots Involved in Accidents and Incidents1 January 1975 to 31 March 2006 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/29965/b20060170.pdf)

:ok:

Don't give the PMO anymore ideas Creamy, he'll have all pilots being fed from sanitized IV tubes next..:E

[Creampuff]

Choccy frog for the missing words, but you still have to name the authors of the paper. One of the authors is going to be eating his words... :E

[Arthur Pape]

OK I give up Cream, let me in on the Author riddle. I can see only D. Newman.
Tell us!