It is correct to say that a person who passes any one of the tests mentioned in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. One of those tests is a test that simulates an operation situation.
It's a shame this PMO can't understand how simple the matter actually is and just comply with the law like some of his predecessors once did. It seems that passing an "operational" flight test once satisfied AvMed that a person met the requirements of 67.150 (6)(c).
Bill Smith's experience is a case in point.
No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me.
I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges. Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.
I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry.
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.
So in 2014, Pooshan tries the same trick again on this pilot revoking his ATPL privileges. See
here.
A few months later, Pooshan once again
reverses his decision and reinstates his ATPL after being challenged and publicly exposed.
...a certificate is being reissued without the ATPL limitation.
As you know, your class 1 medical is being issued despite your failure to meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception…
I'd say the problem is not that this pilot, nor any of the other CVD pilots fail to meet the applicable medical standard, but rather that the PMO doesn't understand what the definition of an "operational situation" is.
For the PMO to re-issue Bill's ATPL privileges (for the second time) must mean that he is obviously satisfied that he doesn't pose any safety risk. After 17 years experience, 12000 hrs and not just one test (as required by (6)(c)), but numerous flight and simulator test passes "simulating operational situations", it is fairly obvious to most ordinary people that he meets the standard required.
Why then is the PMO being inconsistent and failing to apply this same logic to the other CVD pilots who have not been given this same opportunity?
My guess is because he and the promoters of more stringent CVD standards are afraid of what the results will be. It might just prove that their prejudices are unfounded and that CVD pilots can perform just as safely as colour "normals" when it comes to operating in the real world. I wonder where that would leave those (particularly some in the optometry profession) who've staked their entire careers on promoting the myth that CVD's can't fly safely?
