For me this is a case of “long time listener, first time caller” and my first post on PPruNe after many years lurking in the shadows, I am now driven to action having watched CASA’s performance (and that’s exactly what it was…a performance) at Senate Estimates.
I felt it time for me to offer a critical review, so if you will indulge me for just a moment, my movie review would go something along the lines of:
“
A masterclass in manipulation. Whilst appearing to make logical arguments, the chief protagonists expertly distort reality, creating a false narrative that is so believable, that even critical minds would be forgiven for believing elements of fiction. The viewer is at times unsure whether to laugh or cry. Sophistry in its purest form. 4 stars”
So amateur movie review out of the way…let’s dive deeper.
Sophistry - what even is that?
Other than a word I’ve found myself with increasing frequency this year, sophistry is defined as:
“
the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people”
In this instance, deceive people that:
- There is a single, golden international medical standard to which we are inextricably bound
- CVD pilots do not and cannot meet ‘medical’ standards
- The OCVA was so badly broken that it needed to be redone from the ground-up
- Noone has been disadvantaged by the 18month delay (and putative medical certificate restrictions)
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s break it down.
The Legislative Contest – Air Law 101
I’m not a lawyer, and short of a few subjects at university many years ago have no legal training, however this should really be a refresher for anyone who has done CPL Air Law.
In Australia, our standards (Medical, Flight Crew Licencing, Maintenance, General Operating & Flight Rules) are defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR). This legislation is what the regulator (CASA) enforces.
For the purposes of this discussion – Part 67 (Medical Standards) is the most relevant. It is the Standard to which all Australian medicals are issued.
Ok, fine I hear you say…what’s the big deal about all of that? Well it’s important background to the first fallacy masquerading as truth, and that is…..
The myth of the “International Medical Standard”
ICAO as an international organisation, sets out the high-level standards for member states to review, refine and implement in their own jurisdictions. As a sovereign nation – Australia has adopted and codified the ICAO standards, as they apply to aviation in this country, and it is this which has found its way into the CASRs.
Whatever ICAO may include and amend from time to time in their standard – is not legally binding or enforceable in its own right, or relevant when it comes to making decisions in the Australian context. The only thing that is relevant is the content of the CASR’s that are enshrined in Australian law.
Which means…wait for it…
every ICAO member state has implemented these standards and recommended practices differently. In fact, this is
normal. Each member state is required to publish a document stating where and how they differ from the ICAO standard ore recommended practice. It’s so normal that there is an established process for it!
In fact, there are
19 different annexes which cover
209 pages of differences to the ICAO standards and what is implemented in Australia that are published and buried in the AIP.
Annex 1 is the relevant one here – as covers personnel licensing (including medical standards). As of the time of this post there are
26 pages of differences in that Annex alone, with
86 individual references to differences in the medical standards.
So…with almost half a reem of paper worth of differences to the ICAO standard….how’s that inviolable “international standard” holding up? It's OK... We're not done talking about 'standards' just yet!
The false narrative that there is a “Medical Standard” and a “Practical Standard”.
I really like this one, if you can’t beat them…create a new club of your own. In this case, create a narrative that there are two different types of standard by defining a new type of standard, that way you can decide how it gets treated…despite what the CASR says!
Andreas Marceljaj: Because you don’t meet the medical standard, a medical standard that is internationally accepted, but you’ve proven that you’re safe – we will grant you a medical certificate. So we can’t say that you’ve met a standard, but we can say that you’re safe to fly, and those conditions will be applied depending on how you’ve gone.
Let’s look at how AVMED are positioning this. A blanket assertion that pilots with CVD do not meet the standard despite there being 3 tiers of testing defined with a pass of
any of these tiers meeting the standard for a ‘clean’ medical issue, and trying to limit “Medical” to clinical testing only:
Dr Kate Manderson: They (pilots with CVD) don’t meet the standard, but now we can in very detail and very safely effectively and consistently assess whether or not the way they meet the standard presents a hazard to safe air navigation.
This is a clear attempt to create a concept of two ‘standards’, so that additional restrictions can be placed on pilots with CVD, who would otherwise pass a practical, flight-based assessment of their colour vision.
Fact Check: There is only
ONE medical standard, and that is the one defined in Part 67 of the CASR.
OCVA flight test consistency – a Trojan Horse of a problem
Let’s firstly look at the problems with the OCVA test as described by AVMED:
Dr Kate Manderson: So we had some difficulties where the forms and the flights were not being conducted consistently, to a consistent standard across the board. Where someone may have one kind of flight or assessment with one assessor and a completely different one with somebody else.
Ok, that’s the problem statement. So let’s look at how this has been addressed in an appropriate and proportionate manner:
- Immediately stop accepting the OCVA test
- Instruct examiners to longer offer it (long after ceasing to accept it)
- Completely redesign the entire test from the ground up (remove night component, map reading, cockpit instrumentation, terrain identification, powerline and hazard identification) to make it solely about the recognition of PAPI lights by day.
- Spend 18 months trying to find a way to position the test outside the existing legislative structure in the CASRs.
Imagine that there were inconsistencies found with the way that other flight tests were being conducted. Maybe an element of a CPL test with subjective assessments of airmanship, or possibly some inconsistency in IPC’s after Part 91 came out and changed a few things such as aid requirements. Would CASA do something similar to address it? Or would send out clarifications to examiners, along with updating training?
This isn’t a big task, especially when you take into consideration that that there were
only ever 28 examiners trained and accredited by AVMED to complete OCVA testing. It becomes an even easier task when you take into account that only
8 examiners have ever conducted these flight tests. I’ve managed bigger WhatsApp groups than that!
From the outside looking in, this really looks like the hijacking of a convenient issue, to drive another agenda that was the complete redesign of the operational flight test. In no other cases would consistency issue with a flight test be handled in such a way.
Bending of the truth – understating the real impact on people’s lives
The final, and perhaps most insidious bending of the truth has to be one of the final statements made by AVMED:
Dr. Kate Manderson: There have been no refusals or cancellations for colour vision deficiency.
I’m sure this statement is 100% factually correct. However we must look carefully at the wording here, as there are many things CASA can do to destroy a career or livelihood, or even dreams of aspiring pilots without cancelling or refusing to issue a medical. And the obvious one is conditions.
CASA could technically issue a medical subject to the condition that the pilot could only ever operate on the 31st day of every month, where that day fell on a Tuesday, and only whilst wearing pink polka dot Oodie. Now fashion crimes aside, that would limit you to flying 2 days this year - but would not be considered a cancellation or refusal.
Issuing a medical with restrictions such as “DAY VFR ONLY”, “ONLY VALID AS OR WITH A COPILOT WHO HAS NO CVD” or “NO PASSENGERS AT NIGHT” severely limits and restricts pilots with, and AVMED have been quietly busying themselves with adding these restrictions to pilots with CVD and existing medicals as and when they can. I personally know at least one in this circumstance right now.
Final thoughts and disclosures
It appears clear that CASA are ramping up the fight (again) on pilots with CVD, and doing so in a way which is not just intellectually, but also morally dishonest.
From the construction of arguments trying to divorce what the actual medical standards are and what officials in CASA would rather they be, to using ‘consistency issues’ in a test administration by a group of 8 examiners as rationale to completely redesign it from the ground up, It is becomingly clear that personally desired outcomes are being put ahead of due process, and transparency.
Disclosure: I am a pilot with CVD.