It's good to see and very right that the 'unions' have taken a position on this; well done. It's fairly easy for them to 'get it', they understand the core issues. Pleased to find the 'media' are taking an interest, I managed to listen to the Pape radio interviews from yesterday and pretty much knowing what Arthur was talking about, I 'listened' to the interviewer; it's clear they don't 'get it'. From a lay perspective the issue must seem as arse about and complex to them, as it is clear cut to 'us'.
For example, Joe Public would not know that if a CVD 'Co-pilot' is flying the sector, the decisions and management of the flight (to all intents and purposes) are made by the CVD pilot; just the same as being Captain. The issue is that CASA say the CVD cannot be 'captain', despite passing all the required 'flight tests' etc. Simply because of a deficiency, identified in a test to establish that there is, indeed a different perception of how colours i.e. red and green are 'seen'. This doesn't mean they can't see them, they just see them differently.
For Joe, the issue is simple one, is this safe? I wonder how many grateful passengers, safely delivered to destination would have known, guessed or cared that the pilot who just nursed a sick beast, through a stormy sky to a soft landing on schedule at dark o'clock, had a little trouble differentiating some shades of colours from others. Joe can relax – the CVD tribe all over the world have been operating very safely, for many years; in Australia for a quarter century.
So despite an impeccable 'safety' track record, and demonstrating that they [CVD] can safely perform their duties, any time, anywhere, in all conditions, thousands of times they can 'act' as captain, but cannot 'be' a captain. Now for some strange reason, CASA intend to challenge a 25 year old tenet, which has served industry well. The fury is generated not by the notion, although unpalatable; but by the default methodology they have elected to use to regress rather than move forward. This despite a clear ICAO guideline, scientific data, a commonwealth funded joint 'hearing' and a 25 year safety record.
“The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.” (ICAO Convention Annex 1 – Chapter 6.2.4.2).
5) Australia presently has the most modern, scientifically proven, liberal applications. This has been the result of two successful legal challenges to the implementation of the ACPS. [Refers - Pape v CAA (1987). Denison v CAA (1989)]. A summary of the AAT findings and comparison to ICAO CV standard was published in (article) the Journal of Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine, 2011.
6) The authority decided that the Pape ruling could only apply to the appellant alone. This arbitrary ruling denied other CVD pilots the right to fly at night; and, by extension, the ability to pursue careers in aviation was denied.
7) By mutual agreement between the concerned parties, the Commonwealth funded, second test case 'Denison' was to be wide ranging. The scope of evidence widened to include all forms of CVD through all levels of professional pilot medical certification. The case ran for 35 days and examined every conceivable use of colour in aviation. To this date, it remains the largest, independent, in depth analysis and examination of aviation colour vision standards in the world.
8) Since the Denison decision, Australian CVD pilots have been free to progress to all levels of professional flying including international airline operations. Before Pape and Denison, many pilots would have even been restricted in their approval to fly even a light aircraft at night.
9) Since the Denison ruling, CVD pilots have consistently demonstrated the ability necessary for the safe performance of duties through regular, rigorous flight and simulator assessments
.
My bold.