I could write pages, but I’ll highlight just two examples which are emblematic of CASA’s lack of corporate integrity.
The first example is
the contemptuous answers to the Senate’s questions on notice.
For those who haven’t delved into the detail, the background is that AvMed has been left to do whatever it likes, whenever it likes, despite the constraints and requirements of the law. The ‘DAME Handbook’ is used by AvMed as its compendium of bright ideas to achieve its noble cause. Just put it in the ‘DAME Handbook’ and bingo! The Handbook says it, so it must be a requirement. (To this day, the Handbook contains stuff that CASA has
admitted is unlawful, but CASA leaves it in the Handbook because most of the people upon whom the unlawful action is inflicted are too scared and poor to challenge CASA. There’s some corporate integrity for ya..)
The AvMed zealots, who’ve been allowed to resume their crusade against CVD, simply put a bunch of stuff in the ‘DAME Handbook’ that implemented their preferred outcome. When questioned at Estimates, Ms Spence and Mr Marcelja claimed that the information on CASA’s website was inaccurate and not consistent with CASA policy, which policy they continue to say has not been settled.
Senator Fawcett asked these questions, among others, on notice after the most recent Estimates hearings:
1. Mr Marcelja indicated that the information on the CASA website did not reflect the intended policy.
a. Who has a role in authorising changes to the CASA website?
b. Does CASA have a policy or approved process for ensuring due diligence is applied to check for alignment with approved policy before changes are made?
c. If the answer to b. is YES, why wasn’t this process followed?
2. Ms Spence also indicated that the information was inaccurate.
a. Who drafted the information which was published on the website?
b. What steps have been / will be taken to ensure that individual employees are aware of their responsibility to curtail their personal views and support the agreed corporate policy position?
Very simple questions. In effect: Who did this and why were they allowed to do it?
Here are the non-answers:
Mr Marcelja and Ms Spence indicated that if information on the CASA website suggested that somebody who had passed the operational test would have a ‘co-pilot’ restriction applied, that this was not consistent with CASA policy.
A review of the website identified the Designated Aviation Medical Examiner handbook was published with some information about colour vision tests. The handbook was intended to give advance notice of impending changes. As the final policy is not yet settled, it has been removed and stronger processes have been implemented to ensure updates to the handbook are appropriately reviewed and approved.
Here’s the paradigm problem exposed by those answers: CASA is confident it will get away with them. CASA is confident that the Senate will do nothing substantial to get to the truth.
And that, folks, is why we’re in the aviation regulatory and safety messes we’re in. Parliament just watches as the monster it created goes about doing whatever damage it chooses to do, leaving individual victims to fight for themselves.
The second example out of many is that
the CAD has been disappeared as a ‘third tier’ test.
For those who aren’t ‘up to speed’, here are the very simple CVD provisions of the class 1 medical standard in Part 67. (The class 2 medical standard has equivalent provisions).
Colour perception
1.39 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).
…
[67.150](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 of 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.
Each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is described in the vernacular as a ‘tier’ or ‘level’ of test.
When Navathe was let loose to wage the crusade previous to this one, he inflicted the ‘CAD’ as a purported third tier test on CVD victims, even though the CAD does not simulate an operational situation in terms of para (c) of regulation 67.150(6). Even the designer of the CAD admits that it does not simulate an operational situation.
Many careers and career aspirations were destroyed by the CAD. The main reason it survived is the usual, practical one: In order to challenge its validity, a victim would have to endure the stress and cost of a Federal Court action. CASA’s decisions as to what test/s to determine as a ‘third tier’ test are not reviewable by the AAT.
Fortunately, some enlightened people in CASA followed the enlightened people in the NZ, and introduced the OCVA as a third tier test. Unfortunately, a change of people and opinions in CASA resulted in the OCVA being dumped, on the pretext of new evidence. CVDPA was told CASA was working on ‘strengthening’ the OCVA when CASA was doing nothing of the sort – or at least the AvMed zealots who ‘run’ the DAME Handbook and CVD testing requirements were doing nothing of the sort. Therefore, the CAD became their weapon of choice again.
I made an FOI request for the instrument evidencing the determination of the CAD for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c). The result? Nothing. CASA cannot produce any evidence to show that the expensive test used by the zealots to destroy careers and career aspirations has been determined by anyone with the power of determination for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c). There’s some more good governance for ya!
It may be pure coincidence that, in the wake of the meeting last month at which CVDPA indicated that it was organising a Federal Court challenge to the validity of the determination of the CAD, Ms Spence wrote to CVDPA and said, among other things:
No test is currently being applied as a ‘third tier’ test under 67.150(6)(c)
I should have learnt the lesson, long ago, that CASA will never cease to amaze with the many and varied ways in which it can pervert the regulatory regime.
CASA has one job in relation to CVD.
Just one, simple job: To determine a test, or some tests, that simulate an operational situation in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c) (and CASR 67.155(6)(c) for class 2).
One job.
But CASA hasn’t stuffed that job up. No, it’s worse than a stuff up.
The zealots just don’t want to do the job, because the outcome of a validly determined ‘third tier’ test doesn’t suit their prejudice. (CVDPA will now have to organise a Federal Court application for a thing called a ‘writ of mandamus’, which is an order from the Court telling CASA to do its job under CASR 67.150(6)(c) (as well as a declaration that no reasonable person could determine the CAD because it does not simulate an operational situation).
The current situation is
worse for CVD pilots than when CASA pretended the CAD was a valid third tier test. I’m looking at a letter from CASA to a CVD victim, dated 3 January 2024, which letter says this among other things:
The result of your Farnsworth Lantern test shows you failed this test and thus you do not meet the current medical standard for a Class 1 certificate.
CASA requires the following information to continue the assessment of your medical certificate.
A report of further colour vision testing with the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis [CAD] test.
There it is, in black and white, in a letter sent this year.
The zealots have already decided that the recipient of that letter fails to meet the medical standard because the recipient failed Farnsworth. That law about third tier tests is silly and inconvenient. But let’s add insult to injury: Make the victim undergo the expense of the CAD anyway because… we can.
That's one of the reasons for CVDPA's current recommendations.
Our only hope is that the OCVA is restored as a third tier test the passing of which will result in a ‘clean’ medical certificate so far as colour vision is concerned. That’s what happened during the brief period of enlightenment. But when judged by what they are doing rather than what they are saying, I wouldn’t be betting folding money – much less a career – on CASA doing that any time soon. I would be ecstatic to be proved wrong.