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). 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 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.”

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."

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.
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

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.

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

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a layman—understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

The issue I would like to touch on tonight though is about a small group of people in the aviation environment. One of the characteristics of a plural liberal democracy such as we have here in Australia is that we respect and look after the rights of minorities. Amongst the pilot population in Australia—the estimates vary, but it is well over 30,000—there is a small group, numbering in their hundreds, potentially around 400, who have a colour vision deficiency. For many years—in fact going right back, I think the first publication that dealt with this was in 1926. People made the assumption, as they looked at aircraft deriving from the days of sailing ships and steamships where they had red and green lights for navigation lights, that if a pilot could not discriminate colours, then he was not safe to fly by night. And since 1926, that document has formed bodies of thought that have flowed through into regulation.

The current ICAO—the international organisation that looks after aviation—document recognises that, to use climate change terms, the science is not settled. They are not actually sure what difference a colour vision deficiency makes to an individual's ability to safely pilot an aircraft by day or by night. Despite that, regulators around the world have tended to err on the side of safety and say, 'We won't let people fly by night unless they pass one of a number of tests'. What that has meant is that for around nine per cent of the male population around the world, those who would aspire to be pilots or even air traffic controllers, are often denied that opportunity.

That changed here in Australia about 25 years ago. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal there was a case that has become known as the Denison case where a colour-vision-deficient pilot took the regulator to the tribunal saying: 'This is unfair. I can demonstrate that I'm competent to fly.' The Commonwealth, because of the degree of interest, funded the applicant as well as the defence, through the then CAA, and so you had a test case where both parties brought in lots of experts. At the end of it, the judgement was made that in fact pilots who had a colour vision deficiency should be able to demonstrate their competence and be licensed to fly. The only condition that was put on that was that they could not captain high-capacity airline aircraft.

As a result of that, Australia is unique in the world in that we now have some 25 years of experience of people with a colour vision deficiency who have been flying, and they have been flying everything from light aircraft by day through to regional type airliners; single pilot, for example overnight freight or the Royal Flying Doctor Service, through to co-pilot roles, particularly in regional type aircraft. We also have—because a number of the principal medical officers within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have sought to facilitate people with a colour vision deficiency to fly and have implemented things like practical flight tests for people to demonstrate their competence—some people now captaining large capacity aircraft and they have been doing so quite safely for a number of years and in some cases have well over 10,000 hours of flying. That says that, despite the theory, much of which has its origins in that 1926 document, practice shows that people with a colour vision deficiency can operate aircraft safely.

There are four key areas that people raise concerns about. One is to do with the tower. If you lose your radio and there is a control tower, you have to look for the red, green or flashing lights to tell you whether you can land, take off et cetera. People are concerned that if you cannot distinguish the lights then you would not be able to land safely. Again that was probably valid in 1926, but the reality is that on the top of the approach plates that I and other pilots use when we fly is the phone number for the tower. It says, 'If you lose radio contact, phone the tower.' The headset I use, like many others, has a bluetooth connection for a phone so you can quite safely, if you need to, have a redundant system that is specified in the publications to call the tower. So I think that argument is somewhat outdated.

There is also the argument that, with the advent of EFIS screens or glass cockpits, the increased use of colour means that you must be able to distinguish the colours in order to be able to operate safely. One pilot recently underwent a test in a simulator with a CASA flying operations inspector. He specifically asked to be tested on all the night sequences information from the cockpit and he was assessed as being quite safe to operate. In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit.

There is also concern about traffic and whether you will see the position lights on aircraft. The reality is that many aircraft now have bright white strobe lights for collision avoidance. The interesting part is that the aircraft that most these people have been able to fly over the 25 years are aircraft that do not have automated systems to support the pilot. The one type of aircraft they are not generally allowed to fly in Australia—your larger airlines—has things like white strobes; predominately flies in controlled airspace where air traffic control provides a degree of separation; and has traffic collision avoidance systems, TCASs, that give automated warnings of proximity to other aircraft. So there appears again, both in practice and just conceptually, to be a problem with the restriction that has been placed on people there.

The last area is the PAPI, the precision approach path indicator, which is a glide slope indicator that is positioned next to a runway for pilots to use at night. Because it relies on a combination of red and white lights there is a concern that certain kinds of colour-vision-deficient pilots would not be able to interpret those lights. Again, the confound for that theory is that over 25 years hundreds of pilots have flown thousands of approaches at night using PAPIs quite safely, which says that either the PAPI itself has additional cueing, such as the intensity of the lights, or, more probably, there are enough redundant cues in the surrounding environment that the pilot can land safely. That is backed up by the fact that CASA will provide an exemption if the PAPI is unserviceable: you can still fly your aircraft and land it. That says that the PAPI is a nice thing to have but it is clearly not essential for landing an aircraft.

For this minority group of pilots there has been a change in CASA's view. They have decided to review the safety of these people flying aircraft. They have written to the individual pilots and to employers saying that research, which they have not published, has shown that these pilots may be unsafe. But they have not clarified what that is. The history over the last 25 years shows that that is not the case. Previous principal medical officers in CASA have shown a willingness to support pilots. I am concerned that the attitudes of a few within the regulator may be putting at risk this group, albeit a minority group. In our democracy we look after the rights of minorities. There is an injustice being done to this group. I will be working with the government to fund either another test case or research to make sure that this group receives the justice that the last 25 years have shown that they are due.

In June 2014, the Aviation Medicine Branch (AvMed) of CASA made radical changes to its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). Policies that had been in place for over twenty years and which had flowed from two landmark rulings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were suddenly and without notice abandoned, the new policies involving draconian restrictions the likes of which had not been seen in Australia for over half a century. In line with these new policies a number of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots, upon renewing their medical certificates, found they faced restrictions that made participation in professional aviation a practical impossibility. In addition, the new policies effectively closed off all pathways to a professional piloting career for new applicants with CVD.

The changes in the policies governing the implementation the ACPS were justified by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) in the following statement he made in a letter to all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs): “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.” The letter to DAMEs was repeated in similar letters to CVD pilots and to all Australian AOC holders (the pilots’ employers), both containing the same claim as to “recent medical research”. This claim is not supported by any published evidence of unsafe performance by pilots with a CVD condition. Indeed, all the available evidence from both Australia and the USA is that the performance of CVD pilots is as safe as that of other pilots who do not have such a CVD condition. At the very least, there is no evidence of unsafe performance by any CVD pilots as a consequence of their CVD condition.

The reversal of policies that were based on the findings of the two AAT decisions is a serious matter, and even more so when seen in the light of a twenty five year period of incident and accident-free performance at all levels, private and professional, by CVD pilots since those landmark decisions were handed down. These hearings are widely recognised, even today, as the most comprehensive and impartial examination of all aspects of the ACPS, that has ever been conducted in any place and at any time.

Not only do the changes in these policies amount to a denial of the AAT findings of 25 years ago, they are even more bizarre and baffling when it is realised that a new appeal by a CVD pilot had already been lodged before the AAT and was due for a hearing in July 2014. Preparation and documentation by both parties of the evidence for that hearing were well advanced when CASA dropped this bombshell.

The trio of CASA’s letters to DAMEs, CVD pilots and AOC holders have been widely condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying. As well, the taking away and then the re-instatement of “privileges”, within a span of mere days, of a number of CVD professional pilots has led to widespread industry outrage. Were it not so serious, it is quite farcical, and further exacerbates the broad lack of trust in CASA within the industry.

We petition Minister Truss to:

1. Direct CASA to immediately retract the letters sent to DAMEs, AOC holders and CVD pilots and appropriately sanction those responsible for these letters.

2. Direct CASA to immediately reverse the recent changes in policy that threaten the careers of hundreds of pilots and severely restrict new CVD pilots from being able to enter the aviation industry.

3. In the event that CASA is allowed to continue pursuing this matter through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that public funding be made available so that once again, a fair, thorough and unbiased re-test of the established tenet can be presented.

4. To fund a study into the practical relevance of the aviation colour perception standard and its scientific basis so that Australia can continue to lead the rest of the world on this issue, as we have done for the past 25 years.