Missing aileron
The news is not good in the short term, but lots of work is being done behind the scenes to restore the OCVA as a – hopefully
the – third tier test. The following is based upon what CASA has been doing rather than what it’s been saying.
Is there any way around doing the CAD test?
At the moment, there is no way of doing the ACVA
instead of the CAD
as a third tier test, because the zealots have a ‘policy’ of not taking into consideration the results of the ACVA until the candidate has failed the CAD and, therefore, the candidate has already been assessed by the zealots as not meeting the colour perception criterion.
I live in Brisbane and can't afford to go to Sydney or Melbourne to do the test; however, the ACVA is offered in Brisbane, and I would much prefer to do that.
I know this won’t help much, but you confirm an important point I made in recent correspondence.
As background to what I’m about to say, CASA recently sent the CVDPA a document described as an outline of “the process taken to review the CASA operational colour vision assessment (OCVA) and develop a proposal for a replacement.” One of the very telling parts of that document is under the heading “Validation and Future Work” at page 19, with my italics added:
It would be ideal, prior to making the ACVA available for use, to validate its performance by building up a data set of test results flown with colour normal pilots and colour vision deficient pilots. Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of Phase I of this project.
If the ACVA is made available for use, this validation work could be included in the evaluation of the test at some point in the future. Of most use would be the ability to compare applicant CAD results with their ACVA test results. A large enough data set would allow determination at what CAD score an applicant is certain to fail the ACVA. The ideal outcome from this work would allow the ACVA (an expensive and time-consuming test) to be retired as a known pass/fail threshold using a lab-based test would have been determined.
It's worth reading all that quoted text twice and the italicised text a third time. The suggestion is that the ACVA results data will eventually be used as a validation and justification for using CAD results alone! That is not ‘strengthening’ the OCVA. That’s putting whitewash over a test that does not simulate an operational situation in accordance with the ‘third tier’ test provision in the law.
And I cannot help but point out what I assume is the unintended irony in the author’s comment about the ACVA being “an expensive and time-consuming test” as if the CAD – available at only two locations in Australia at around $500 a pop on top of travel time and expenses - isn’t expensive and time consuming. That kind of comment is the understandable product of a process in which those whose interests are directly affected have been completely ignored. If one were to ask the guinea pigs in this experiment – e.g. you, Missing aileron - what they would prefer as a ‘third tier’ test: the time and expense of an OCVA or the time and expense of the CAD; the entirely predictable outcome will
not be overwhelming support for the CAD. Indeed, that has already been proven during the brief period of enlightenment during which CASA treated the OCVA as a ‘third tier’ test.
You go on to say:
The optometrist who did my lantern test said, "There's no point doing the CAD; you're just going to fail it."
And that demonstrates how the zealots have perverted the legislated process for demonstration of compliance with the colour perception criterion in the legislated medical standard. Instead of the third tier test being a simulated operational situation the results of which test demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with the colour perception criterion, the third tier test imposed by the zealots is a diagnostic test used to assess compliance with their personal interpretation of chapter 6 of Annex 1 of the ICAO Convention.
Also, is there any way CASA will issue a restricted Class 1 if the applicant cannot afford to go and do these other tests? Will they consider issuing a Class 1 with the night flight restrictions for someone if they have completed the Ishihara and the lantern test?
I’d suggest that you write to CASA and ask. If the zealots were left to their own devices, I’d anticipate that the answer would be a categorical NO! But there has been and continues to be a flurry of activity in the wake of the exposure of the fact that the zealots had no intention of ‘strengthening’ the OCVA as a ‘third tier’ test.
Additionally, what are the requirements around maintenance of the lantern test equipment, and can anything be done to improve the standard of the test? I did it at QUT here in Brisbane, and the machine didn't work until it got a solid thump, and then the white was more of a brownish-yellow rather than the white light I was expecting. The lights also were flickering as if the bulbs were close to failure, or the power source was being interrupted.
In my opinion, any professional purporting to administer a test the results of which can be used to ‘make or break’ someone’s career is under a duty to ensure the equipment used in the test has been maintained (and calibrated if necessary) and is functioning properly during the test. I’d be asking the QUT whether it is satisfied the equipment has been maintained (and calibrated if necessary) and is functioning properly. Is there any other administrator of the test within practicable reach?
All of that said:
The best outcome for you and every other pilot and aspiring pilot with CVD would be the restoration of the OCVA as a – hopefully the – third tier test. So please write to all your Senators and your MHR and explain what you’re being put through, and support the CVDPA in its endeavours in your interests.