Creampuff –"I'm doing as much as I can (making submissions and writing letters) to express support for CVD pilots and abject disappointment at the regulator's actions."
Hear, hear. Well done that man..
As CP suggests, 'we', the ills of society (IOS) should do what we can; if you decide to weigh in and send a letter to your local member, do not hesitate to copy (plagiarise) some of the very good work done in the TAAF, AIPA, AFAP or VIPA letters. A letter to not only support the CVD tribe, but the TAAAF suggested strategy is better. There are many good reasons for you to do so and it only requires 20 minutes to draft a half decent letter and email it. Here's one reason:-
The latest letter to Bill Smith very neatly displays one of the most despicable lines of attack CASA will use. It has been used numerous times and is a proven winner; essentially it goes like this. Bill, at next medical requiring an 'eye' test fails to meet the latest CVD standard; or, maybe even without a 'test', his show cause will be worded to declare him a 'danger to navigation', because of his CVD, by CASA 'expert' opinion and given a show cause; just like that. Unbelievable you all shout; no says I; true dat and very provable.
No; don't laugh – there are no 'guidelines' or constraints on this 'being a danger' line getting trotted out, as and when required along with the infamous Not a Fit and Proper. All that it needs is someone to sign the letter. They don't have to prove or justify making this statement, just an opinion passed into 'fact' and produced as evidence. Honourable men made the provision in law, but in the hands of the less honourable it becomes a lethal weapon, which can be and is used with complete impunity...
I could find at least ten prime examples and as many again which would serve to illustrate; some are extraordinary. There's one I've seen, from the PMO as it happens, which would rock you, although the gent concerned would not thank me for making it public. So just take my word for it when I say you can very easily be declared a 'danger' and given a show cause. This means that you have to prove your 'innocence' in an AAAT hearing.
"CASA declare you a danger Mr. Smith, what say you?.
"No I'm not, I've a 20 year accident and incident free history, so I'm safe as houses".
"Sorry, the expert from the government safety authority says you are not, my hands are tied, I uphold the administrative decision; off to the dole queue for you, my dangerous friend".
The AAT are 'administrative' : must 'stand in the shoes of the regulator' and are not concerned with the niceties of evidence. Some of the most outrageous fairy tales ever told have been spun, polished and embellished through the AAT system. Mind you, in their (AAT) defence I notice lately that the 'Members', particularly in WA are onto the CASA game and seem to be getting a little tired of it.
Pragmatically the odds are in favour of Bill not being 'declared' and the AAT would probably stand by the previous findings; but who knows. The Shambollic system is extraordinarily litigious, dangerous and just at the moment, desperate enough to try it on. Your loss of time and money, your inconvenience and misery, don't trouble them at all. The fact that while the wretched process drags on your life is a living hell; or, that living with an axe over your head spoils quality time at home and is, of itself, creating a danger to navigation through a tired, irritable, distracted pilot being on the job, just don't signify..-
Here- for an example of a stress related mishap.
It would be a fairly simple matter to copy, paste and CC a copy of the AIPA, AFAP, VIPA letters and TAAAF statement to your local member; perhaps adding a sentence of support for the stance taken by the industry associations who care.
So do what you can, where you can if not for the CVD tribe, then for yourself. I'll let Creamy do the closing remarks.
Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.
Selah.