I understand,Bill Smith and agree. I've never had any issues with PAPI either. What I am saying is that PAPI has limitations and ICAO is aware of these (Iknow that we are in agreement here
).In fact, Annex 14 describes when PAPI is suitable for glide path reference and that's in close proximity to the aerodrome.
When CASA introduce the PAPI as the pivotal element of their argument they are clutching at straws; they are totally mis-representing its utility in operations. They are also wrong in saying that CAD should be the sole test to determine the ability of a pilot to discriminate between colours within the design parameters of ground based aids. If there are flaws in their argument (which there are) then they simply can't mount a safety case.
The feedback that I have heard in the industry is that the current Medical Section of CASA is regarded by DAMEs and specialists as being a pack of idiots. My own DAME is clear about this, he says they should be sent back to where they came from. A mate who is a specialist (also holds a CPL+IR) tells me that CASA frequently order tests on pilots that have no scientific validity within his field! CASA are ordering these tests to determine if a pilot can return to work after a medical issue. He says that these tests are ordered by the medical section after he has already been determined that the pilot is fit to return to flying. I emphasise: he states that the tests that they order have NO VALIDITY as a diagnostic tool in his field of speciality! I will be writing to Senator Fielding about shortly.