Not quite sure what you're on about here Kharon. I didn't bring up the issue of DAMEs being able to issue certificates. I didn't bring up the Hempel issue. I didn't go dredging through old threads to try to make a point or to "catch" somebody out. I've used no "sly syntax or deliberate word traps".
I'm no fan of the way CASA does some of its business, but if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence - not anecdote, not tantrums, not character assassination. What should have happened at the very beginning, when pilots with CVD were first permitted to fly, was a proper prospective study regarding the way that these individuals operated aircraft in all conditions. Unfortunately, it was not done. It was done from the start when the first trials of antidepressant medication in pilots were conducted. The data was collected and analysed, and the particular conditions under which this was appropriate were determined. It's public data, look it up.
Show me the real data and I will fight CASA to the end. But it's got to be data that addresses all of the uses of colour in aviation. Not just that the pilot can tell the difference between red and green, but that they can interpret displays every bit as quickly as colour normals. Not just that they've flown x thousand hours without crashing. A well designed study that addresses the conditions that are likely to be questioned in any appeal. In many cases, coulour is redundant, but redundancy in aviation is good. One does not argue for removal of redundant hydraulic, electrical or ignition systems. In other cases, colour is used to "cue" attention to other data. Are CVD pilots as quick at picking up this data, and if not, does it matter operationally? These are the questions that need to be answered, and the data is just not there.
Last edited by ausdoc; 3rd Jul 2014 at 07:11.