PPRuNe Forums


The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th Jun 2014, 22:48   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,488
Perfect Example Of CASA Outrageaous Behaviour?

I refer to the letter sent to AOC holders regarding their employment of pilots with known colour blindness.

Reading between the lines, this is an open recommendation to an employer to terminate any pilot with a colour vision defect under threat of the loss of the AOC. Is this not outrageaous?

The offending text, well all of it is offensive.

Quote:
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
Are you there Minister Truss????

http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Colour%2...%20holders.pdf
Sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jun 2014, 23:42   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Queensland
Age: 33
Posts: 58
That does seem offensive and without seeing what advice has been given to pilots affected by this it seems insensitive and no doubt very disconcerting to those involved.

I acknowledge the fact that this letter is susupposedly designed to advise AOC holders of a change that may affect pilots that they employ but to couple it with the statement that Sunfish has quoted above is in my opinion threatening and insensitive.

My thoughts are with those that may be affected by the upcoming review.
Check_Thrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jun 2014, 23:46   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,304
wtf are employers supposed to do while their "cvd" employees hold valid medicals without being dragged in to fwa?
waren9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 04:22   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 65
CASA = gutless - if they are so concerned then issue an interim determination/order/directive. But to throw it back on an employer to potentially stand down an employee whose medical is still valid shows CASA up for what it is.


Have CASA sent employers the details of this latest research upon which they (employers) are encouraged to make an informed medical related decision but for which they would have no expertise. FFS, isn't that why we go to a DAME and have a Medical Branch in CASA.


I doubt ANY employer will take someone off-line for the reason Waren9 mentions.
dodo whirlygig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 05:14   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,541
Surely this is CASA giving the long finger to the Senate committee and Sen Fawcett in particular.

The trouble is I doubt the screaming skull cares. He's on the way out. Full package. Gov't super. There is nothing bad going to happen to him. He just has to weather a couple of weeks of name calling. Where else in life can you screw things up with immunity?
Old Akro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 05:27   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 105
See below thread for more of the saga:
The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

For those who haven't seen them, the full episodes of the Senator Fawcett's questioning is below. If it wasn't so serious, the performances would be laughable...

Senate Estimates - 18/11/13



Senate Estimates -24/02/14




Senate Estimates - 26/05/14
brissypilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 05:30   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 46
Posts: 163
I'm certain the Australian Human Rights Commission will be very interested in the latest CASA letter. I would be very interested to see if CASA could get away with such blatant discrimination.
Fruet Mich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 05:51   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 5
Of course CASA can get away with, it's all about "SAFTEY".

If only the whole industry got together and told CASA where to go, and started a new, industry led governing body, if that were to happen, what would CASA do, throw us all in gaol?

I know it won't happen, but I can dream of a world without CASA.

Last edited by AeroGirl; 6th Jun 2014 at 06:01.
AeroGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 06:20   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In Front of My PC
Posts: 185
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)
Bill Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 06:50   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 735
Angry Unhappy, Jan

Having been privy to the current chief medical dude's vendetta on this matter, this stinks!

The pilot concerned, like Bill Smith below, has an impeccable record of airline flying over a number of years which was going to be terminated by this bloke on a completely spurious, trumped up excuse.

It's a disgrace!!

G'day
Feather #3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 07:07   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 548
Discrimination, bullying and harassment?

Workplace Bullying

Have a read of Senator Xenophon's appendix to the senate report.

Interesting is there does not appear to be a strong safety case being put forward to support.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 07:42   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: brisbane,qld,australia
Posts: 245
Don't be so hard on CASA. Like their predecessors, Dept of Transport and the Dept of Civil Aviation, they are only just doing their job.
That is....making sure that when the fit hits the shan there is no doubt about who else is to blame !

Emeritus
emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 10:07   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,222
This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry.

Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual.

I've know poor sod's on CAsA's sh..t list to be pursued from one job to the next, all around Australia.

The contents of this letter doesn't surprise me, what does is the regulator has become so brazen that they think they can get away with it.

I'm with Creamie sue the bastards,take their house, kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly.

There is a rumour gobbles is frantically scrounging wood to construct tumbrils and Kharon has enrolled at Madam DeFarges knitting school, already turning out elephant sizes socks I'm told.

Last edited by thorn bird; 6th Jun 2014 at 10:18.
thorn bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 10:46   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South East Asia
Age: 50
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly.
Stay away from my dog.
framer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 11:20   #15 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Time to target the Minister

Dear oh dear, the Frankenstein truly has grown into a rabid frothing beast hasn't it? I can just see them all now - Dr Voodoo, Dr Pooh-Shan, Anustasi, Herr Skull and Terry all with their robust elongated middle fingers proudly in the air!
Make no mistake, these guys are fighting back like a cornered Gerbil at the Mardi Gras. They have lost their marbles completely. Their egos and pride are beyond comprehension and their consciences seared, devoid of anything.

The focus of matters needs to shift, as I have stated in the past. Forget CAsA, they are untouchable and somewhat 'vampire-esq', the beast cannot be killed. It's time to get smart - Our focus should be directed solely at the Minister. You want to shake the apple cart? Then go after the main man. It is the Ministers department that is out of control, and he needs to be held accountable. Letters of no confidence and an explanation including copies of the aforementioned matter should be sent to every media outlet, ICAO, the UN, Human Rights commission, FWA and any and every legal firm that may be interested in acting on this matter. The Miniscule's name needs to be put up in neon lights, along with the equally incompetent PM, Sunnys beloved PMC, Pumpkin Head Mike, Infrastructure, the whole stinking lot of them. CAsA does what it does because the government sanctions it's activities, supports and fosters its methods. If the government and Minister didn't support it then they would cut it off at the knees. And they have not done that have they?

There needs to be strength in numbers boys and girls, and it is better to die on your feet than on your knees. CAsA are reminiscent of General George A Custer. This is the Australian battle of Little Bighorn and winner takes all. The IOS has been tolerant thus far, enduring endless amounts of crap, patiently enduring endless toothless inquiries etc, and trying to avoid all out civil disobedience towards these Canberra indoctrinated a#sholes. But the line in the sand has been crossed on this latest issue.

So there you go folks, smack bang after what has been touted by some as being Australia's most fundamental and astute reviews of its Aviation oversighting bodies, a report not even 48 hours cold, and CAsA respond by delivering one of the hardest, unjustifiable, immoral actions EVER!

TICK TOCK
004wercras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 21:20   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,057
Constant as the northern star.

Quote:
TB # 13-"This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry. Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual.
Oh, so true. The Bankstown Chronicles have a fine collection of anecdotal examples. Of course no one will sign a stat dec, not a signed memo, not even an unsigned note. Understandable of course; but a sad indictment. Somehow, I'd hoped through the Senate, a 'true to life' look at the almost unbelievable actions against individuals and operators taken by the big R FF outfit could happen. I am certain that if the Senate crew got (or made) the opportunity to 'hear' some of the cases, minds would be well and truly boggled. The two letters, one to the DAME and tuther to operators and pilots should cause a national outcry. These two letters make as clear, as empirical a testament to the standard operating practice and thinking of the Sleepy Hollow hit men as another hundred would.....

That aside, the thing intrigues me is the 'why do it'. Take the CVD kids case; on one side there is expert opinion, supported evidence and a sensible approach toward the issue by a crew that is probably prepared to sit down and have an adult discussion with a concerned regulator. Nope, none of that from the litigious Shambollic team; first muscles are flexed, then the bully boy tactics, then AAT, then the threats and now, the fangs are revealed. Idiot letters to DAME sighting evidence which is at best 'awkward' at worst 'dodgy', then thinly veiled threats to pilots and operators. I will never understand why the issues could not be resolved without CASA humiliating and insulting Australia, taking the Mickey out of the Senate, the Parliament and industry with impunity; and, why we just sit back and let them. Sad really, for a sovereign nation which prides itself on the ANZAC spirit, brags of its competitive approach and claims to support the underdog. I just wonder why then, all this vanishes the second a mongrel dog barks in a back alley. Selah.

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - Oi.

There is, by the by, a new colour vision test being developed – the Shambollic system. Very simple – you take a meaningless sentence and adopt it as "your" egocentric 'philosophical' dogma ("Wow, that's deep and meaningful", say the barely literate; "oh, how recherché) – and use it in two colours i.e. red and green at the end of each portentious (pretentious) missive despatched

Quote:
There are two statements about human beings that are true: that all human beings are alike, and that all are different. On those two facts all human wisdom is founded. Mark Van Doren-
Now depending on which part of the sentence you can, or can't read, your CVD may be assessed. You are supposed to say "I love the prose at the end of your wonderful letter, could you please give me all of it, so I may wallow in your superior intellect". WHAM - Gotchya – CVD - off to dole office you dreadful safety hazard.

Emphatic, n'est-ce pas? True Hubris.

Aye well – off to Madam D's house, lessons start at 0700 – sharp. It's quite technical this knit 2 purl 1 caper. The old besom uses red and green needles, so I keep stabbing sensitive areas with the one I can't see. But I have determined to master the art; in time.

004 – those flaming gerbils keep hiding in the elephants socks; it creates absolute bloody mayhem. Elephants are bad enough with mice – but the gerbils......(cracked me up).

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Jun 2014 at 21:42. Reason: Sorting the wed-bits from the wab-bits- nightmare.
Kharon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jun 2014, 23:35   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,541


Here we go again
Old Akro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jun 2014, 00:50   #18 (permalink)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia.
Posts: 3,685
Well, if I was a pilot with colour blindness the first thing I would do is triple my loss of licence insurance and then sit back and wait.


This strikes me as far more cynical than it seems. If companies can be persuaded to fire or request resignation of such affected pilots then it stays a matter between the company and the pilot (and then the tribunal), on the other hand, if CASA issue new legislation that bars pilots with colour blindness, it is a whole new ball game.


Now we are in the area of compensation from CASA, loss of licence insurance from the insurers, who will, sure as night becomes day, having paid out, sue CASA for radically changing the risk and exposing the underwriters. Next, the pilots themselves will form a group and bring a class action against CASA for their loss of employment through no fault of their own.


So much easier if the companies let these pilots go 'voluntarily' before the legislation becomes law, so much less expensive than having to pay compensation etc.!


The letter quoted above is nothing to do with safety and all about money.
parabellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jun 2014, 01:13   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 1,806
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demand that all public servants with CVD be removed from their jobs.
They're a national threat - they could easily screw up a major project because of their inability to differentiate important colours in PP projections.

What about dyslexics?? A bigger threat than anything. Dyslexic LAME's frighten the bejeesus out of me. Tightening a crucial fastener to 84Nm instead of 48Nm??

Where are the recorded major incidents/fatalities that can be sheeted directly home to a CVD pilot? Proof, please, CASA.
If CASA want to move on this; definitive, provable incident figures have to be produced to back up the proposed change/s.

I'd be more concerned about hidden heart disease posing a real danger to the operation of aircraft, than I would ever be concerned about CVD.
The medical techniques for finding narrowed arteries are still very limited. We all know people who have lied in medicals.

Media releases: 13 January 2005 - Pilot incapacitation led to fatal aircraft accident at Mareeba

People suffering from CVD adjust to their deficiencies as well as one-eyed people.
One-eyed people aren't banned from holding a pilots licence, they can pass with a medical waiver in the U.S. Wiley Post is a classic example.
Post wasn't killed by his lack of eyesight, he was killed by his ignorance of aeronautical engineering design!
onetrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jun 2014, 02:34   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
A Perfect Storm.

From ProAviation...
Quote:
Colour vision deficient pilots see redLeave a reply



While the topic of aberrant regulatory conduct dominates the nation’s aviation dialogue, we’re wondering whether a letter from CASA to all employers of pilots might represent a practical joke, an early example of a scorched earth strategy, or an act of rebellion against the ASRR’s erudite recommendations.


We’d speculate that such a bizarre missive could hardly have originated from the aviation medics, who would be well aware that when you want to quote medical research convincingly in support of a position, you need to provide a reference to the relevant original medical research papers that present the evidence referred to. (We’ve requested that reference from CASA and are still awaiting a response.)


It also seems unlikely that the letter got the nod from CASA’s legal office, because it seems to be asking AOC holders and/or pilots to make decisions which CASA’s not prepared to make itself.


No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.” But what on earth it hopes to achieve is difficult to discern. It tells employers that “the possibility exists that your pilot’s CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued,” and then it goes on to tell their employers to make decisions they are not equipped to make because CASA simply hasn’t told them what the hell it’s on about and it doesn’t tell them what the problem is and what it considers is an “appropriate” course to take.


Here’s the letter which all AOC holders received on June 5. We follow it with a commentary by Dr Arthur Pape, who is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading expert on the issue of colour vision deficiency (CVD).
If you’re bewildered by the letter, you’ll find Dr Pape’s analysis enlightening by comparison, and indicative of a clear way forward for any responsible medical official seeking to develop intelligent and effective policies on this not-so-complex issue.

5 June 2014
Dear AOC holder,
Colour Vision Deficiency
I am writing to inform you of actions the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has taken in relation to pilots with a recognised colour vision deficiency (CVD) in the light of recent medical research involving the assessment of CVD, and the possible implications of these developments for affected pilots and the operators who employ them.


A number of pilots have taken their medical certificates issued subject to a limiting condition because they do not meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception specified in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). You may employ one or more pilots whose medical certificates are subject to such a condition.


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, and the possibility exists that your pilots CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the 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.


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.


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.


For more information visit CASA’s website at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_91593.
For further details, please contact Dr Pooshan Navathe, principal medical officer, on 131757.


Yours sincerely,

Peter Fereday
Executive Manager, Industry Permissions



Enlightenment from Dr Arthur Pape
The Aviation Colour Perception Standard[i] (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:
Assumption 1
There is extensive use of colour-coded information in the aviation environment.
Assumption 2
The “safe performance of duties” in the aviation environment is dependent on “the ability to perceive readily those colours necessary etc etc……..”.
Assumption 3
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.


Discussion
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
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.


Result: Assumption 3 is also problematic.
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 also 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 [A pilot with CVD] 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.
Sarcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1