Creamy:
It is clear to me that Associate Professor Navathe is a zealot on a medical mission, untroubled by mere trivialities like the law.
I would also suggest that the PMO is not much of a scholar of history, well at least not beyond the last decade or two...
In recent years many on here have been extremely critical of AOPAA and some merely see them as simply a handmaiden of the big 'R' regulator, a facilitator of regulatory pineapples. However with the recent AOPAA correspondence to the miniscule & the PMO maybe there are signs that the worm is turning...
At the same time it should come as no great surprise that AOPAA are taking such a strong (belated) stand on CVD..
Despite the rumoured inner turmoil & subsequent waning membership, AOPAA have had a long and fondly remembered history of fighting for the aviation underdog and AOPAA (unlike the PMO) truly respect their history and their collective achievements of the past.
From CVDPA
'History of the Challenge':
Support for my stand grew and CVD pilots from all over Australia started to contact me, telling me of their experiences, their successes and their frustrations. Meetings were held. Pilots and organisations, in particular Australian AOPA, got behind me in the push to rid us of this irrational standard. Donations were made, politicians were lobbied.
AP's campaign back in the '80s was just such a moment in time that many older members (including Arthur of course)...
AOPA articles
Dr Arthur Pape is a former Vice-President of the
Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
AOPA offered huge support through the Administrative Appeals Tribunals challenges of the late 1980’s and still supports the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association today.
The following series of thirteen articles written by Dr Pape were published in the AOPA magazine during the late 1980’s to keep members informed of the progress of the challenge.
...will never forget especially when after 28 days of hearings the
Denison v CAA decision was handed down...
For the benefit of the PMO...
...some quotes from AP & the Denison AAT
WIN!
So the Denison case came to court. By the direction of the Tribunal, and with agreement of the parties, the case was conducted as a ‘Test Case’ with the scope of evidence to include all types of colour vision defects (not just Denison’s) and all levels of professional aircraft piloting. The case took up 35 days of hearings. Not a thread of evidence was left unexplored. I have no doubt that the conduct of the AAT’s examination of all the evidence available at the time pertaining to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard, was then, and remains to this day, the most comprehensive examination ever conducted of the topic anywhere in the world.
Of interest is the fact that on the final day of submissions, all parties agreed that the hearing had been thorough, unbiased and exhaustive. The Authority’s legal team indicated to the Chairman of the Tribunal that whatever the outcome, the Authority intended to promote the result on the international stage; such was their satisfaction with the encounter.
What happened next?
WE WON THE CASE!
In October 1987 we carried out a review of a similar decision that had been made in respect of Dr A. M. Pape, but only in respect of his private pilot licence. We understand that there are a considerable number of other pilots with defective colour vision who have requested the granting of licences which do not contain a condition prohibiting their piloting aircraft at night. For that reason the respondent indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case. Mr Rose, therefore, informed the Tribunal that the respondent intended to present its case in a manner which would encompass not only the applicant's situation but also broader issues relating generally to defective colour vision. At the request of the respondent the Attorney-General granted legal aid to the applicant to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by the respondent presenting his case in that manner. The matters which we have to consider in these proceedings have consequently been extended well beyond those which the applicant originally sought to raise, that is to say whether his defective colour vision made it unsafe for him personally to pilot an aircraft at night. The proceedings have taken 28 hearing days. In order to reach conclusions on those matters raised it is necessary for us to address a number of questions. Because of the amount of evidence given we cannot set all of it out in detail; however, we have taken the whole of it into account in making our decision and in expressing conclusions on the various matters raised for our consideration.
And the questions...
:
The following are the questions which we consider have to be addressed. The final question must be answered strictly in terms of the applicant. However, as these proceedings have been conducted as a test case, we shall try to answer all the questions in as full and broad a manner as possible.
1. What is the nature of the following types of
defective colour vision -
(a) protanopia and protanomaly,
(b) deuteranopia and deuteranomaly,
(c) tritanopia and tritanomaly,
(d) other?
2. How is colour used -
(a) outside aircraft,
(b) in the cockpit of an aircraft,
relevantly to the safe piloting of an aircraft?
3. Does defective colour vision of any type or
degree make it unsafe for a person to pilot an
aircraft -
(a) at night,
(b) by day,
so that there is a significant and unacceptable
risk to the safety of the public?
If so, why?
4. If an unacceptable risk is found to exist, can
the risk be eliminated, or reduced to an acceptable
level, by the imposition of conditions or limitations
on the pilot's licence?
5. Are the answers to any of questions 2, 3 and 4
different depending on whether the aircraft is fixed
wing or rotary wing?
Now a quarter of a century later we have a PMO (ably backed by his STBR dictatorial, bully boy boss
), apparently on some ego driven crusade, choosing to totally disregard the legal & historical lessons of Denison (a decision now fully justified with solid empirical evidence of 25 years of incident free CVD pilot flying)...
I'm with BP, CP etc.. the sooner this zealot is removed the better..
MTF..
Definition: zealot - ˈzɛlət, noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.