The following is my prediction of what’s going on with the Australian Colour Vision Assessment (ACVA) and why.
What CASR says
It is first necessary to understand what the CASRs say about the way in which a candidate must demonstrate compliance with the colour perception criterion in the class 1 and class 2 medical standards. I’ll quote the provisions relevant to the class 1 standard, but the provisions are effectively identical for the class 2 standard.
The criteria for the class 1 medical standard are in table 67.150. Item 1.39 of that table is the ‘colour perception’ criterion. That item says:
Can readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant licence.
Note: For how to demonstrate this, see subregulation 67.150(6).
This is what CASR 67.150(6) says:
(6) A person must demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion in item 1.39 of table 67.150 by:
(a) in daylight, or artificial light of similar luminosity, readily identifying a series pseudo‑isochromatic plates of the Ishihara 24‑plate type, making no more than 2 errors; or
(b) for somebody who makes more than 2 errors in a test mentioned in paragraph (a), readily identifying aviation coloured lights displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour‑perception lantern, making:
(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or
(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of lights; or
(c) for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.
The plain words of CASR 67.150(6) are quite simple.
If a candidate gets a tick in the (a) box – the ‘first tier’ test – the candidate has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception criterion in the standard.
If a candidate gets a cross in the (a) box but a tick in (b) box – the ‘second tier’ test – the candidate has still demonstrated compliance with the colour perception criterion in the standard.
If a candidate gets a cross in the (a) box and a cross in the (b) box but a tick in the (c) box – the ‘third tier’ text – the candidate has still demonstrated compliance with the colour perception criterion in the standard.
As we’ll see, that plain meaning of those words is inconvenient to the CVD zealots and, therefore, the CVD zealots have been busily trying to create a structure to subvert and avoid that plain meaning. But first we need to understand what happened during the brief period of enlightenment after the Operational Colour Vision Assessment (OCVA) – championed by the NZ CAA in the face the CVD zealots – was implemented in Australia.
The brief period of enlightenment in Australia – the OCVA
The implementation of the OCVA in Australia brought an end to the crusade led by CVD zealot Navathe. He spearheaded the crusade which included letters sent to air operators about the presence of the unclean, dangerous CVD crew in their workforce. He also introduced the ‘CAD test’ as a purported test simulating an operational situation.
(I say ‘purported’ because – despite the sophistry I’ve read in various items of CASA correspondence – no court has ever found the CAD to be a validly determined ‘third tier’ test. Only zealots blinded by their noble cause could characterise the CAD as a test simulating an operational situation. For those not blinded by prejudice, the CAD test merely confirms what is already known about the candidate and simulates no operational situation known to pilots. And – hardly surprisingly, given the lack of corporate governance in CASA – my recent FOI request for access to the current document of determination of the CAD as a ‘third tier’ test by a delegate of the power to do that produced no document of determination by a delegate of the CAD as a ‘third tier’ test. The zealots are above all that pesky accountability stuff.)
Then the OCVA was implemented as a ‘third tier’ test. Enlightenment! (In fact, it was just a shift to compliance with the existing law, in the face of the wailing and gnashing of CVD zealot teeth.)
During the period of enlightenment:
- Candidates could choose to undergo the OCVA instead of the CAD. They of course usually chose the OCVA because it’s productive flying rather than an expensive test that reveals something the candidate already knows.
- Candidates who passed the OCVA were issued ‘clean’ medical certificates so far as colour vision was concerned. That is, after all, the consequence of having demonstrated compliance with the colour perception criterion in accordance with the law.
A return to the dark ages, again
Sadly, a change of personnel in CASA led to an opportunity for the CVD zealots to regroup and recommence their crusade. The recommencement was justified on the pretext of some concocted ‘new’ evidence of the dire consequences of CVD and the inadequacy of the OCVA.
Dr Manderson and Dr Hochberg said around 18 months ago that “it is determined that additional investment and leadership is now required to refine this assessment tool [the OCVA], and strengthen the OCVA as a reliable, defensible, and effective colour vision assessment for aviation, including in international jurisdictions”. Makes you feel safer already, doesn’t it, knowing these self-appointed leaders are going to refine and strengthen the OCVA?
Everyone was under the impression that the ‘refined and strengthened OCVA’ would supersede the original OCVA as a ‘third tier’ test. That’s exactly what people were told by CASA, after all. And it’s actually the only option accommodated by a thing called ‘the law’.
The zealots then set up a little echo chamber of people - whose identities and business interests have not been disclosed under FOI – to ‘refine and strengthen’ the OCVA. At some point along the way the name changed to the Australian Colour Vision Assessment (ACVA) presumably to recognise the selfless leadership of the CASA zealots and the invitees to its echo chamber.
But then the zealots had a Hotel Sierra Mike. They realised that if the ACVA were a ‘third tier’ test, there would be unacceptable outcomes for the zealots:
- Candidates could choose to do the ACVA instead of the CAD. That would deprive the zealots of CAD data to analysis and discuss in their echo chamber, and the administrators of the CAD would be deprived of income.
- Candidates who pass the ACVA would have demonstrated compliance with the colour perception criterion and therefore be entitled to a ‘clean’ medical certificate so far as colour perception goes.
That is anathema to the zealots! In their world, candidates with CVD must be outed, labelled and restricted. There are no other alternatives in their religion.
So what are the zealots trying to do, and have been discovered doing, so as to subvert and avoid the plain words of CASR? They’ve decided that they will try to ‘policy’ their way around the law.
I’ve seen it in black and white in recent CASA correspondence: “It is … Avmed policy that before consideration can be given to accepting an OCVA style test conducted in an aircraft, a recognised third level test – such as the CAD test – must have been undertaken and the results provided to Avmed.”
Brilliant! They’ve conjured up a non-existent ‘fourth tier’ for the ACVA. That way:
- The candidates have failed to demonstrate compliance with the colour vision criterion because they’ve failed the CAD (and the first and second tier tests).
- The providers of the CAD test continue to get income from administering it.
- The zealots continue to get data from the CAD test to feed their echo chamber.
- The candidates then become the plaything of AvMed’s “endorsements” (restrictions) and the ACVA becomes another data-gathering exercise and a means by which AvMed will decide how much the victims will be restricted.
(By they way: They also conjured up a ‘second tier’ test that isn’t actually in the regulations: The ‘Optec 900’. It will be interesting to find out who makes money out of administering that test and whether they were invited to participate in the echo chamber.)
This all fits within my definition of corruption. Public officials going out of their way to subvert and avoid the law, in pursuit of their noble cause. Opaque processes, undisclosed participants and misleading information propagated along the way. And the interests of pilots and aspiring pilots – and the hundreds of thousands of people with CVD in Australia - be damned.
I expect the zealots will now blame the likes of Senator Fawcett and the CVDPA for further delays in the unveiling of the ‘refined and strengthened’ masterpiece the ACVA, for having had the temerity – the utter gall – to expect public officials to be transparent in and accountable for their activities.
It’s now a test of Ms Spence and the CASA Board. Will they rally around and support the zealots? Or will they require the law to be administered in accordance with its plain terms?
By the way: I do not have CVD.