The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[Sarcs]

Arthur, Creamy is referring to my original link.. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine ( Vol. 81, No. 7 July 2010) (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_140377755509414&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=d7f0d933-d8b0-4a45-bbd8-417fda678881&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewrep ly%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D8538024&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asma.org%2Fgetmedia%2F1a4c6e5b-c613-47a5-96e0-57d7cf16fe7b%2Fjuly2010_news&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpacific-general-aviation-questions%2F527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-14.html&title=PPRuNe%20Forums%20-%20Reply%20to%20Topic&txt=%3Cfont%20color%3D%22%230563c1%22%3E%3Ci%3EAviation%2C%2 0Space%2C%20and%20Environmental%20Medicine%20(%20Vol.%2081%2 C%20No.%207%20%20July%202010)%3C%2Fi%3E%3C%2Ffont%3E)...whic h if you read above the part that I quoted has this to say with a reference:

"In 2004, he presented to the AsMA meeting his expert views on evidence-based risk management, followed by publication of a landmark paper on that topic in Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine (Aviat Space Environ Med 2005; 76:58–62)."

If you then follow the link to its penultimate conclusion you will be led to this paper: Safety Management as a Foundation for Evidence-Based Aeromedical Standards and Reporting of Medical Events (http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v80n6/s1.pdf?expires=1403779866&id=78520619&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=9E0B4B9C5496EC27DCF4F2843BB8CFD2)

Where you will find both the relevant (original quote) & the authors names:

Authors: Evans, Anthony D; Watson, Dougal B; Evans, Sally A; Hastings, John; Singh, Jarnail; Thibeault, Claude

Conclusions

Despite the growth and acceptance of evidence-based practice throughout most fields of medicine, we still find ourselves routinely using the lowest level of evidence (expert opinion, unsupported by a systematic review) for regulatory aeromedical decisions. Such decisions are often not based on the explicit acceptance of any particular level of aeromedical risk. Without guidelines concerning acceptable risk levels, and with reliance on expert opinion for individual aeromedical decisions, consistent decision making is impeded, and comparisons between States are more difficult.


Interestingly enough, in further explanation of EBAS, the same author wrote his own paper that better explains the principles of EBAS &
risk management, titled - Aeromedical Decision-Making: An Evidence-Based Risk Management Paradigm. Which you can download here (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2005/00000076/00000001/art00010?crawler=true)...:ok:

AP the following is also of interest in light of ADM, you will see a reference to the 1% rule and that same author gets a mention (Note: A 2010 publication):Unravelling ADM (Aeromedical Decision Making) Categories: ADM (http://www.avmed.in/category/adm/)
by Av Med (http://www.avmed.in/author/admin/)

Aeromedical Decision Making (ADM) is a paradigm, a template and a tool. ADM as a paradigm presently consciously practiced by Civil Aviation Authority, New Zealand; and it is a logical template to be applied by other regulators as well, while it is a useful tool in the hands of Aviation Medical Examiners (AME).

To unravel ADM, one needs to first understand that this is an amalgamation of two concepts: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and structured risk management. The aim of ADM, in the context of regulatory medical licensing, is to ensure assessment of individual fitness for aviation duties without compromising the aviation safety. Meaning thereby, that irrespective of the fitness awarded, the possibility of subtle or sudden incapacitation in flight is not likely to jeopardize the safety of flight, with existing safety measures in place: be it the presence of a second pilot, or applying the prevalence rates of illness/disease in the population, or aircraft automation like audio-visual warnings or auto-pilot, or applying the airmanship or crew resource management principles or any other safety mechanism. It must be understood though, that while evaluating a disability, the available safety mechanism listed above are not considered (except applying the 1% rule for multi-crew operations only), except the professional responsibilities of the pilot under assessment; however the restrictions imposed on the pilot, in case of disabilities, may consider the safety mechanisms listed above.

Let us first understand the concept of Risk Management [1]. The broad elements of Risk Management are: establishing the context, risk assessment (by identification, analysis and evaluation) and risk treatment.

These elements of Risk Management are continuously governed by two vital processes throughout: “monitoring and review” and “communication and consultation” [1]. Without delving into these self-explanatory concepts, it is important to understand that this paradigm of systematic risk management is useful for the ADM as well. In case of ADM, acceptable parameters are required for defining the context, broad risk assessment is undertaken by identifying/defining the risks requiring observation/ intervention/management, to enable the analysis of the disease/disability, its management and the operational (read aviation) environment; for an evaluation of acceptable or non-acceptable risks under operational environment, to finally define the flying fitness (unrestricted or with limitations) or denial of it.

Now to answer as to how does EBM help in ADM? It is said that “the practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research” [2]. Furthermore, it is “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” [2]. It is important here to understand the broad meaning of the word ‘care’ in the context of aviation regulatory functions. It starts with the AME and the individual’s family/general physician (if both are not the same, which may be the case many a times) who have to responsibility of offering the best available treatment in case of a disease/disability to their pilot-patient. It then extends to the medical regulators, who determine the status of such an individual pilot for determining his/her fitness for aviation duties. To quote, Sackett et al, “Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients’ predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care [2]”. This has to be extended, where the vital principles of EBM viz. individual patient’s predicaments, rights and preference, need to be applied by the regulators while evaluating fitness of a pilot. It is important that EBM is applied holistically by all concerned and not in an arbitrary or piece meal manner.


Therefore, it has to become a conscious practice by all those who are party to the ADM process determining the medical fitness of pilots for aviation duties.

There are certain pitfalls in applying ADM, the biggest being the absence of evidence pertaining to the niche population of pilots. But as 1% rule, initially propounded for assessment of cardiovascular morbidity based on the data from the age and sex matched population [3], has proven its usefulness as a rule of thumb in determining the fitness in case of multi-crew operations; it is envisaged that the principles of ADM, if applied earnestly, shall provide fair, just and transparent outcomes. Thus ADM, in the context of the regulatory purposes, is to align itself with the due scientific basis of EBM within the structured risk management paradigm. So also it is the onus of the AME/medical licensing authority to apply the current best evidence, within the structured risk management processes to provide the “reasonable, replicable and reviewable” [4] fitness outcomes for the benefit of the individual pilot without compromising aviation safety.

References
1. ISO 31000: 2009: Risk Management Principles and Guidelines [Abstract at http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43170]
2. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Hynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71.
3. Evans ADB. International regulation of medical standards. In Rainford DJ, Gradwell DP (editors) Ernsting’s Aviation Medicine. Fourth Ed. Hodder Arnold: London; 2006: 547-566.
4. Watson DB. Aeromedical decision-making: an evidence-based risk management paradigm. Aviat Space Environ Med 2005; 76: 58-62.Further relevant links:

Pilot Incapacitation: Debate on Assessment, 1% Rule etc.

(http://www.avmed.in/2012/02/pilot-incapacitation-debate-on-assessment-1-rule-etc/)Pilot Incapacitation: Extent of the Problem.
(http://www.avmed.in/2012/02/pilot-incapacitation-extent-of-the-problem/)
Pilot Incapacitation: What is? (http://www.avmed.in/2012/02/pilot-incapacitation-what-is/)

MTF...:E

[Creampuff]

Two choccy frogs to Sarcs. :D

I wonder whether Dougal B Watson will be among the 'experts' lined up by CASA for the AAT matter. His answer to the question: "What is the 'high-level evidence' to prove any causal link between pilot CVD and risks to air safety?" will be interesting.

Given that the only high-level evidence supports the conclusion that there is no causal link, he might end up looking a little silly.

"Aeromedical Decision Making" sounds very impressive and sensible in principle, but in practice it means a beauracrat prying into and taking control of every aspect of your medical 'conditions', justified on the ground of 'safety'. :=

[Sarcs]

Oz Flying:

CASA Moves on Colour Vision (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-moves-on-colour-vision)Dr Arthur Pape, Director of the Colour Vision Deficient Pilots Association (CVDPA), has slammed the letters claiming they are linked to a pending AAT appeal of a CVD pilot fighting licence restrictions.

"Let me tell you that this trio of letters represents outright thuggery, particularly when it is realized that there has not been a scratch on a single aeroplane, let alone an accident or incident that can be attributed to the colour vision deficit of any pilot in over 25 years in Australia, and in over 60 years in the USA," he told Australian Flying.

"Furthermore, none of the three references cited by [CASA Principal Medical Officer] Dr Navathe in his letter to the DAMEs contain any evidence of accidents or incidents attributed to colour vision defectiveness of any pilot.

"There appears to be a link between these letters and the matter of the appeal by John O’Brien against the restrictions he has on his licence stemming from his colour vision defect."
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) was not impressed with CASA actions. In a statement released recently they said:

"TAAAF expressed considerable concern with CASA’s recent letter to operators and pilots regarding colour vision deficiency which seeks to place an unreasonable burden on the industry for no identified safety benefit despite many years of safe operation by colour vision deficient pilots.

"TAAAF calls on CASA to withdraw its current colour vision deficiency letter."
A lawyers perspective (courtesy 'The Oz'):

There are legal remedies for CASA’s decisions based on pilots’ colour impairment (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/there-are-legal-remedies-for-casas-decisions-based-on-pilots-colour-impairment/story-e6frg95x-1226968141137)
KATHRYN HOWARD |
The Australian |
June 27, 2014 12:00AM

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority recently wrote to pilots querying the effect of colour impairment on aviation safety and encouraging them to consider whether it is safe for them to fly. This has many alarmed.

CASA’s letter refers to “recent medical research” but does not specify what that research is. It says the “possibility exists” that a pilot’s colour vision deficiency “could” adversely affect aviation safety to a greater degree than previously thought.

Media reports suggest CASA is referring to a comparative study recently completed by Dougal B. Watson of the Civil Aviation Authority in New Zealand. That study addresses not whether colour deficiency affects safety but how colour deficiency is assessed internationally.

The report’s author acknow*ledges the lack of high-quality medical evidence to support one threshold of safe colour deficiency versus another; the limited exploration of which colours are necessary for safe flying; and the small number of documented aircraft accidents or incidents where colour deficiency was identified as a contributory factor.

In the absence of other medical research, it is difficult to see the proper legal basis for a broad conclusion that colour deficiency affects aviation safety.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the effect of a pilot’s colour deficiency on safety in a detailed and well-reasoned decision in 1987 after hearing detailed medical and operational evidence. The medical evidence addressed what purposes colour was capable of serving in the operation of aircraft. The operational evidence addressed the use that pilots made of colour cues.

The tribunal concluded that in most situations colour was redundant because the information communicated by colour was otherwise rapidly and readily perceptible by the pilot. For example:

 The indicator lights for the landing gear were green when down and locked, and otherwise red; but there were generally three green lights and one red light.

 Lights flashed in emergencies.

 Red was perceived by the pilot as yellow — still distinct from white.

 The pilot’s perception of the intensity of light was unaffected by colour deficiency.

 The approach to a runway in a city was identified by a competent pilot knowing where he was, and the black hole, runway lights and threshold lights — the tribunal accepted that pilots did not rely on finding a concentration of coloured lights to locate an airfield.

The tribunal granted the pilot a private licence to fly at night, subject to certain conditions. It held that this reduced the risk to air navigation safety to a level not significantly different from that of a pilot with normal vision at night. Two years later, the tribunal made a similar decision in respect of a commercial pilot’s licence.

The tribunal has recently shown a willingness to overrule CASA on safety-related issues. In March and last month, it rejected the evidence of CASA and cleared those pilots to fly.

Remarkably, in one of those cases the tribunal rejected the ultimate conclusion of CASA’s principal medical officer and made the following observations:

“We do not consider this aspect of (the PMO’s) evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that (it) may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made ... We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in the (PMO’s) statement of 8 October 2013 … and his oral evidence.”

Pilots should feel reassured that there are legal standards for the assessment of safety relevant issues under aviation legislation.

The evidence to which CASA refers must be made available to pilots and the link between colour deficiency and safety established before adverse administrative action can properly be taken. Following the outcry, CASA has itself reassured the industry that there will be full consultation in respect of any change.

The tribunal has been willing to robustly assess safety issues and ensure that legal standards are met. An upcoming appeal against restrictions precluding a pilot with colour deficiency from acting as a captain will be a timely test of the current evidence.

Kathryn Howard is a senior associate at Sydney law firm Holding Redlich.

[Kharon]

Creamy – while you've got the Choc frog box open, send one to Ms Howard, hell send two on account of the brilliant article. And, while you're at it, have a couple yourself to share with Sarcs; for one of the very best passages of play it has been my pleasure to watch.

Bravo fellaheen; bravo indeed. {insert round of applause and big, huge grin} I'll be smiling all day now.

Sponsor. The IOS chapter for Friday Embuggerance as a Blood Sport.

Still smiling _._

Still smiling

[Kharon]

Jandakot Joe # - 124 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/541172-perfect-example-casa-outrageaous-behaviour-7.html#post8539613)- From reading the documentation it sounds like this CVD issue has arisen from NZ medical and/or administrative processes. Since this "poohshan" fella has migrated (most latterly) from NZ it would not be unreasonable to wonder if the concept caught a ride in with him, possibly to be imported as his own personal cause celebre.

Everyone brings a personal style and a cultural background to a job and having done some time overseas and worked with various cultures, it is a fact that not all work cultures are as easy to deal with as the next. Some are downright difficult, underhanded, obnoxious, lacking in transparency and mired in conflict and confrontation.

Officiousness for the sake of officiousness, bullheaded adherence to poorly-thought out policies, defensive posture in a minority position combined with lofty arrogance from a perception of having been headhunted... I shudder to think what this guy must be like to deal with. Was there not a single DAME in the whole of Australia who could've adequately filled the role of CASA PMO?

It is disgraceful that the affected licence and AOC holders were not advised of this career and company-altering CVD fiasco by the CASA PMO himself. Having slyly hand-balled the ugly baby to Peter Fereday who is left with putting his name to the letters, it would appear the entire issue has exploded in "poohshan"s face. Maybe he didn't expect the backlash and has tried, predictably, to distance himself from the sorry affair. This is unacceptable; the PMO needs to own up to the shambles he has created and deal with it himself.

These gov't post-holders are answerable to the public. When this is over and the CVD issue has been rightly buried, poohshan, having dragged licence and AOC holders alike (not to mention the CASA itself) through this idiocy, should find himself looking for a new job. The handling of this issue has been unacceptably poor and the current PMO cannot be allowed to continue in the role after over-seeing such an adverse impact on so many fee-paying end-users.

This affair is disgraceful and shameful - I am actually embarrassed to be associated, as an Australian licence holder, with the designated "authority" which is so ignorantly trashing the Australian aviation industry. What pilots and operators have to deal with in this country is beyond the pale and sets up the country as a laughing stock when compared to first world aviation environments. This is the sort of bureaucratic stupidity I've seen persisting in third world aviation regions and now it is a reality in Australia too.

Good work, Sunfish, keeping the topic alive here. I had not heard about it until reading your thread. Although it doesn't affect me directly, please post links to any petitions, online protest logs, or other ways of registering disgust at this situation and its handling; I will be more than happy to put my name to it.

Worth a repeat I thought.

Still smiling.....

[Sarcs]

Agree top post Jandakot Joe...:D...& the article courtesy of Ms Howard is definitely worth at least 2 choccy frogs...:D:D

Noticed that the CVPA have an update which can be viewed here (http://cvdpa.com/) .:ok:

This bit is most interesting...:rolleyes::AAT Update
The hearings which were scheduled for next month have now been adjourned at our side's request. This was due to the sheer amount of preparation that is still required and our limited resources. The new hearing date is scheduled to commence on October 21.

While we were looking forward to progressing to hearings next month, we don't want to rush this case given it's significance. CASA were not of the same view, arguing that they wanted to continue progressing to hearings ASAP as they were concerned we were running a campaign in the media to discredit them. Our lawyer's response was that CASA have been running a campaign to discredit CVD pilots by writing to all the DAME's and AOC holders. However coming back to Ms Howard's article and this quote...

“We do not consider this aspect of (the PMO’s) evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that (it) may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made ... We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in the (PMO’s) statement of 8 October 2013 … and his oral evidence.”

Well I managed to track down the AAT hearing where Ms Howard extracted that quote: McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/119.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=CASA)50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other. It is somewhat unfortunate for PAIN, given the constraints of the ASRR submission closing dates, that the McSherry case couldn't be included in their submission prepared for CVDPA, see (here (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/P1_CVDPA.pdf)).:( It would have fitted quite nicely in this part :rolleyes::9) Dr Navathe’s decision making abilities have been called into question on numerous occasions, notably during previous coronial and AAT hearings; including the now infamous 'Hempel' case; 2013, in which Dr. Navāthe presented a diametrically opposed argument to that which he espoused during an almost identical medical scenario, (Hazleton v CASA); 2010, in which different rulings were made; but, the comments relating to Dr. Navathe performance and knowledge were similar. The Hazelton AAT findings are germane and support the CVD pilot construct...
However Ms Howard's AAT quote does further highlight the conundrum Dear Watson, AP Shambolic may find themselves in, come the AAT hearing (now in October). From Watto's article:Quality of Evidence
One of the core components of the evidence-based medicine paradigm is the quality of the evidence being considered. Often the evidence used in reaching an aeromedical decision comprises a mixture of published research reports and individual expert opinions.

Medical evidence can be sorted into a hierarchy based on evidence quality (2,3,5,7,8). Such a hierarchy could list systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials as the highest quality evidence, and then descend through randomized controlled trials, non-randomized intervention studies, observational studies, and non-experimental studies, to unsupported expert opinion as the lowest quality of evidence. Table I illustrates this concept by categorizing evidence quality into levels 1–5. (refer PDF page 2 here (http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v76n1/s10.pdf?expires=1403910958&id=78533884&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=CBAED637F3BDE60795D15470E39529D9)) Hmm...interesting times ahead for the PMO, Dear Watson & the Flying Fiend legal crew...:E

[004wercras]

CAsA really are mentally ill;
CASA were not of the same view, arguing that they wanted to continue progressing to hearings ASAP as they were concerned we were running a campaign in the media to discredit them. The only discrediting that takes place is done by themselves to themselves, the dopey f:mad:wits. Every time they screw someone, or they themselves screw up, they blame everyone else for trying to discredit them. FFS, they themselves are a standing joke. Here's a thought you clowns - do the right thing and you wouldn't have to worry about being 'discredited'! Simple really, you bunch of nupties. A dung beetle has more intelligence.
And since when do CAsA want to do anything quickly anyway? The longer the process is drawn out the more likely it is that they will bankrupt the person appealing, that's a favourite trick of theirs taken from Volume 2 - 'How to pineapple the IOS'. If CAsA are trying to rush this case through that can only mean they are a little worried. Poor Flying Fiend must be very busy of late, what with all the grief Poohshan and Peter 'a ferret a day' are causing the Big 'R' regulator, not to mention all the endless senate shenanigans.

Tick Tock and 'off with their heads'

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I'm sure casa would like things 'sorted' before the new DAS takes over. The big R boys could be in trouble. Looks like Holding Redlich is in for a fight. Word is this firm has had success against casa before. Institutional bullying claims could get interesting.

004 your right if they played things straight they wouldn't be in this mess.

[Kharon]

One of the more interesting aspects of the whole CVD business is the creation of the reasonable doubt, in public, with evidence and witness that the CASA don't play with a straight bat. This whole CVD event typifies the standard SOP approach to anything they wish to do; only now the putrid vileness can be seen, smelled and touched. I wonder how many hearings and court decisions have been 'affected' by the 'judiciary' being subconsciously influenced by the 'mystique'; the thought that this is the governments appointed safety 'expert' and the blood will be on my hands should I go contrary to their demands. In the 'judicial' mind, CASA residual, tacit 'credibility' must now be lost. No longer can it provide provide a hidden, but tangible barrier that needs to beaten down before any ruling against 'the authority' can be won: and that's before they start cheating.

The incontinent antics of the Shambollic regime have publicly revealed what many already knew; that the methodology of embuggerance is an art form team Sleepy Hollow have perfected; but now that is no longer a secret. Wodgers back room antics underneath the Pel Air thing only narrowly escaped public scrutiny, that time. That's not to say that perhaps, somewhere during 'in camera' evidence the beans weren't spilled; but that doesn't signify as publicly demonstrating the depths to which some of these catamites and drones will stoop, when commanded.

It is quite remarkable to see the beast, exposed to sunlight blinking in confusion as it desperately thrashes around looking for the gateway back to the underworld, away from daylight. The Senate nearly trapped it but allowed it to escape; Rev. Forsyth got a good shot presented to him, but declined to take the trophy; now the CVD tribe have dragged it into daylight, lets hope they manage, with our help to destroy the creature and send it back to hell it came from.

I am a sportsman all over, and to the back-bone – 'Unting is all that's worth living for – all time is lost wot is not spent in 'unting – it is like the hair we breathe – if we have it not we die – it's the sport of kings, the image of war without its guilt, and only five-and-twenty per cent of its danger. Jorrocks....

Fresh air and good 'unting for all.

A Sunday read for second coffee. – HERE (http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/nov2005.html) – Luxury.....

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

From a wise owl,

At an early point, as when any major conflict seems to be drawing to a close, it may be necessary to declare a form of “ceasefire” to ensure that the processes of reform are not further clouded by hyperactive over-regulation on the part of individuals or groups. We have in fact already heard reports of harassment that seem to suggest the reopening of old and not fully healed wounds, and some recent “initiatives” in the medical and airworthiness areas also appear to be indicative of a scorched earth philosophy. Surely any new regulatory interpretations or enforcement activity should receive close scrutiny for non-compliance with published procedures, due diligence, procedural fairness and the rule of law.

[brissypilot]

Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate.

Yes, this seems to be a common theme. So is this guy an Associate Professor or not? There appears to be some inconsistency in his use if the title.

The CVDPA folk have also published "Dr" Navathe's email to DAME's a few weeks ago. See here (http://cvdpa.com/news/latest-casa-changes).

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Colleague,

As you are probably aware, there has been much discussion recently about issues related to colour vision deficiency (CVD) and its implications for holders of flight crew licences.

Over the past several years, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued class one medical certificates to a number of commercial pilots who have either failed the Ishihara test and not gone to any further testing, or who have failed to satisfy the applicable medical standard after further testing. The same has been true for holders of class two medical certificates.

Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant are than they were initially considered to be. Accordingly CASA is writing to all affected pilots, asking them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the conditions to which they are currently subject, and whether modifications to their flying practices such as limiting their flights to day only, VFR only, or other such limitations as may be appropriate. To help pilots to make this decision, we are urging them to get in touch with their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.

We are also writing to AOC holders to let them know that we have written to the pilots and to let them know that they could be employing a pilot who has a CVD.
In the expectation you will be approached by pilot-patients with questions about this matter, I thought it would be useful to provide you with some information that can illuminate the issues and facilitate your discussions. Dougal Watson, Principal Medical Officer of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, has recently published an article in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine about the differences in medical certification with respect to colour vision deficiency worldwide Lack of international uniformity in ... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(watson%5BAuthor+-+Last%5D)+AND+Dougal). For those of you who have access to the Flight Safety Foundation’s publication AeroSafety World, there is a ‘plain language’ article about colour vision based on the Dr Watson’s article AeroSafety World | Flight Safety Foundation (http://flightsafety.org/asw-issues) . I am also providing a link to an interesting and relevant report, Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew, which was published by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

Of course, it is for you to determine whether, and if so how, to advise any pilot who may approach you in connection with this matter. At this point, it is for the individual pilots concerned to make their own decisions; although I am sure you will agree that making such a decision on a medically informed basis would be advisable.

At this point, CASA has no plans to change the existing endorsements on the medical certificates of anyone who has a CVD-related limitation. Our current approach to the matter is described on the CASA website at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Medical Certification frequently asked questions (http://www.CASA.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593) (see How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?). However, we are continuing to review current research and are closely monitoring the consideration and disposition of certain evidentiary materials that are being assessed in pertinent proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

As CASA’s position on this matter develops further, we will keep all of our stakeholders advised accordingly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any particular questions or concerns. Probably the best way to contact me is to email [email protected]

Kind Regards,

Dr Pooshan Navathé
MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer

[Creampuff]

MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)If the PMO has a PhD, he is permitted to use the title "Doctor". If the PMO is an "Associate Professor", he is permitted to use the title Associate Professor.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone is, as we speak, researching each of the PMO's qualifications in detail: Which institution awarded it? What is that institution's academic credentials and reputation? What were the criteria for the award? What has been published in the PMO's name and do the authorities cited in those publications exist and support the claims made?

The PMO can have no reasonable objection to, and should have no discomfort in, research that confirms his stated qualifications, experience and authored publications are substantive and accurate.

I stress I am not suggesting anything inappropriate or inaccurate in the PMO's stated qualifications, but I cannot help but recollect a person by the name of Marcus Einfeld whose "Who's Who" entry was discovered to contain a number of "Wheeties Box" and non-existent qualifications and experience, after he was convicted of perjury and intending to pervert the course of justice. (Not a good look for a judge.) From an article in The Australian, 20 March 2009:... As his story unravelled so did his CV. He had unwittingly invited scrutiny and the media took up the challenge. It emerged that he had bought degrees from American "universities", had not been a director of Marks and Spencer and that his judgements adopted others' work without attribution.

The public was reminded that his presidency of the Human Rights Commission came to an end soon after he was challenged for allegedly twice claiming compensation for the same property - an overcoat - lost on an overseas trip.

He had also falsely used the "I wasn't driving excuse" on three previous occasions, blaming friends who were visiting from overseas. It would become known as the Einfeld defence and promoted a change in the law when it was discovered that hundreds of drivers had used it avoid traffic and parking fines. ...

[004wercras]

Perhaps he went here;

Corllins University – The Place for Effective Learning & Education (http://www.corllinsuniversity.com)

Corllins University - FAKE university, Review 468391 | Complaints Board (http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/corllins-university-c468391.html)

I don't know if he did or not, just asking the question.

[Creampuff]

And the letters to the employers of CVD pilots casting doubt on their safety is not a personal attack on them? :*

Dr Pooshan Navathé MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer of CASA is an employee of a public authority, and is therefore subject to public scrutiny.

[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]

[Up-into-the-air]

I believe that there is a reasonable question to be raised here. Pooshan is put up as an "expert witness".

Having been in the situation as an expert witness, it is essential to ensure that all the proper and directed procedures are adhered to by the expert.

The following is an excellent summation by J. Craig

EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NSW: A SYNOPSIS (http://www.lec.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/lec/m420301l711809/craigj_expert_evidence_paper_acpect_2012.pdf)

The Hon. Justice Malcolm Craig Judge of the Land and Environment Court of NSW
Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment Courts and Tribunals
Perth, 28 August – 2 September 2012


Expressed at a level of generality, it can be accepted that the intended role of an expert has been to provide the court or tribunal with impartial and objective assistance in drawing inferences and conclusions from primary facts in respect of which the court is not able to do so without the assistance of a person possessing expert knowledge.

The obligations of an expert witness have recently been stated by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal2 in a series of propositions, summarised in the following way:

(i) Expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.

(ii) An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of an objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his or her expertise. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate.

(iii) An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. That witness should not omit to consider the material facts which could detract from his or her concluded opinion.

(iv) An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside the expertise of that witness.

(v) If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because that expert considers there to be an insufficiency of available data, this must be stated, with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an expert who has prepared a report cannot assert that the report contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.

(vi) If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his or her opinion on a material matter, having regard to the other side’s expert reports, or for any other reason, such change of opinion should be communicated (through legal representatives) to the other side without delay and, when appropriate, to the court.

(vii) Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses, measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports.

These obligations upon expert witnesses are of longstanding. It was the perceived failure of experts in many cases to observe these obligations which identified the need for reform, directed to the manner in which evidence should be prepared and presented to a court or tribunal vested with jurisdiction to resolve a dispute.

The manner in which courts and tribunals in various jurisdictions have grappled with the need to preserve the integrity of expert evidence has differed in its detail.

However, at a level of generality there can be no doubt that achievement of the obligations upon expert witnesses that I have identified has informed the measures taken in many jurisdictions.

[Creampuff]

If you have any concerns, take them up with the mods or take action in defamation. :ok:

[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]

[ausdoc]

Yes Creampuff, I deleted the posts. Mainly because I realised that after your reply to my suggestion that playing the ball rather than the man may be more productive, that you are not interested in rational debate, rather in the shutting down of anybody who might question your methods. Editing your posts after I had replied to them is pretty similar, is it not?

I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.

As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.

I'll take no further part in this.

[Anthill]

I'm with Creampuff on this one. If a person uses a whole heap of titles and puts themselves forward as a man of letters, then it is fair and reasonable that their credentials be the subject of scrutiny.

There is nothing at all sinister about such investigation (I have no knowledge of the exchange between CP and the good Ausdoc, here). Indeed, such investigation should be see as for the common good.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The way casa introduced drug and alcohol testing and subsequent changes made could have relevance to CVD? Too quick to introduce a one size fits all and the safety argument didn't support leading to changes.

CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-simplifies-drug-and-alcohol-testing)


CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing
12 Jun 2012
Small AOC holders will be able to use new simplified rules to comply with important drug and alcohol management requirements.
CASA is introducing the new processes for aviation organisations with seven or fewer employees engaged in safety sensitive activities. The new simplified processes do not apply to any aviation organisation engaged in or providing services to regular public transport operations.
Eligible aviation organisations will be able to use a standard drug and alcohol management plan provided by CASA. Full details of eligibility requirements are on CASA's web site. Operators will also use an e-learning package to educate and train their employees in drug and alcohol responsibilities.
Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, said the new processes recognised that the existing requirements could be unnecessarily onerous for these small operators.
"We are making life easier for small aviation organisations by streamlining the process of drug and alcohol management while maintaining high safety standards," he said. "Small aviation organisations will no longer have to develop their own drug and alcohol management plans.
"By using CASA's new drug and alcohol management plan and new on-line training small aviation organisations will save time and resources and still be confident they are meeting all the regulatory requirements.
"CASA has listened to the concerns of the aviation industry about the impact of drug and alcohol management plans on small organisations and found a solution that is simpler and protects safety."
Small aviation organisations using the new processes will still be required to report to CASA every six months on their drug and alcohol management performance and CASA will continue to check on compliance.

[Creampuff]

Yes Creampuff, I deleted the posts. Mainly because I realised that after your reply to my suggestion that playing the ball rather than the man may be more productive, that you are not interested in rational debate, rather in the shutting down of anybody who might question your methods. Editing your posts after I had replied to them is pretty similar, is it not?

I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.

As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.

I'll take no further part in this.How bizarre.

First, let me make this very clear: I am entitled to, and will, track down every last letter of every pre- and post-nominal of any and all qualifications, experience and publications that any occupant of any public position claims to have in his or her correspondence, if I choose to. If some public official wants to claim qualifications and experience, he or she better have them if he or she is going to use those claimed qualifications and experience as a basis to claim a right to the position and decisions that affect people's livelihoods.

And as I said earlier, no one in any public position has a reasonable objection to, and should have no discomfort in, research that confirms his or her stated qualifications, experience and authored publications are substantive and accurate.

To what 'rational debate' and 'argument' do you refer? A 'rational debate' depends on evidence.

If there is any evidence - other than the mere opinion of zealots - to demonstrate a causal link between pilot CVD and air safety, please produce it so that a rational debate and argument can occur, on this thread or anywhere else.

You understand the concept - the evidence is 'the ball'.

I don't need 'credibility': I'm nobody.

[004wercras]

Does ausdoc and Flyingfiend work out of the same office in the same capital city? What will be next, an A380 endorsed old codger masquerading on Pprune? And why did ausdoc really delete his posts? Too incriminating perhaps?

Creampuff and I don't always see eye to eye, but I am happy to defend him on this occasion. Creamys robust and succinct line of questions as well as his musings were not presented in a way that may cause ausdoc to be 'outed'. In fact ausdoc's weak attempt at quoting Pprune rules so as to shut Creamy down is an interesting chess move. A somewhat threatening/bullying move orchestrated by a cornered cat! Funny thing is that CAsA often pull that trump card! Amazing coincidence to be sure.

Too much fun too much fun

[ausdoc]

You understand the concept - the evidence is 'the ball'.

I sure do. That's exactly what I was saying. You and your fan club seem intent on ignoring "the ball" and playing the man.

Does ausdoc and Flyingfiend work out of the same office in the same capital city?
No idea. As Flyingfiend doesn't seem to have made a post for more than 2 years, I'm not sure how it is relevant anyway.

And why did ausdoc really delete his posts? Too incriminating perhaps?

I told you exactly why. And incriminating of what? I would have just left it lie, but Creampuff chose to edit his posts to continue the issue.

[Creampuff]

So the evidence demonstrating a causal link between pilot CVD and risks to air safety is .... what?

Links will do.

Names of published articles will do.

Accident investigation reports will do.

[004wercras]

No idea. As Flyingfiend doesn't seem to have made a post for more than 2 years, I'm not sure how it is relevant anyway. Very true, February 2012 was his last post. Soon afterward he was 'outed' and never posted again :=
Anyway ausdoc, I have digressed and believe the thread should be placed back on track. Creampuff has offered you some robust questions in his last post. I am sure that a skilled physician such as yourself could answer these and supply the requested evidence? Perhaps you can take Creampuffs questions on notice, discuss them with Flyingfiend tomorrow, then respond in around 3 years time?

P.S ausdoc, I am not part of Creampuffs 'fan club', however I do have the ability to smell CAsA and **** from 10 yards. And there is an incredibly foul smell emanating from your arena, so which is it?

Anyway, I'm off to raid the Weetbix Packet to see if I can get a PHD! Im collecting the whole set and only have 2 qualifications to get!

[ausdoc]

Never once did I say I disagreed with the predominant view of the thread. Never once did I say I thought there was a link between CVD and aviation safety. All I said was that I thought that the argument would be better served with data than with personal attacks.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the principal tool in the box around here.

[ausdoc]

Perhaps you can take Creampuffs questions on notice, discuss them with Flyingfiend tomorrow, then respond in around 3 years time?
I think you have me seriously confused with somebody else.

[ausdoc]

P.S ausdoc, I am not part of Creampuffs 'fan club', however I do have the ability to smell CAsA and **** from 10 yards. And there is an incredibly foul smell emanating from your arena, so which is it?


Proof positive

[004wercras]

Proof positive The only thing here that can be positively proven is that you can't answer Creampuff's question or substantiate your hypothesis with evidence, Doc :=

[ausdoc]

And what hypothesis would that be?

The only hypothesis I've got is that you and Creampuff seem to speak for each other, and the minute anybody suggests that there might be a better way to go about things, you gang up on them. I've got all the evidence I need for that. You've provided it in spades!

[004wercras]

The only hypothesis I've got is that you and Creampuff seem to speak for each other, and the minute anybody suggests that there might be a better way to go about things, you gang up on them.Bollocks. Creampuff and I don't speak for each other. You obviously aren't aware of the amount of arguments I have had with him, there is 'no love lost' between us. If you think that because Creampuff and I hold a similar view on this matter, then so be it. In fact I do agree with his comments wholeheartedly, but let me assure you that there isn't any 'ganging up' Doc.

You hold a strong view, and I actually respect that. All that has been asked is that you provide the research, data, reports, evidence to back up your CVD claims. Not that hard you know. Please provide it as that way I am sure that us nasty bullies will then go away. Is it really that difficult? I will be the first to eat the proverbial **** sandwich and apologise to you if you can provide the requested evidence.
And as for your comment about a better way of doing things, you must really be an imbecile. CAsA's sending out the CVD letters it did to pilots and AOC holders, based upon non factual evidence, plus taking into account the careers and untold damage its stance has already caused many pilots and its families, do you honestly think that is a better way? If you answer yes then you are exactly who I suspect you are, Doc.

[ausdoc]

You just don't get it do you. I haven't made any CVD claims, so there's nothing to back up.

let me assure you that there isn't any 'ganging up' Doc.

Then you must be the same person.

[004wercras]

Then you must be the same person.
Proof positive - You really are an idiot.

[ausdoc]

I see. So you and your mate Creampuff can make all sorts of incorrect comments on who you think I am and where you think I work, and that's OK?

[Creampuff]

Errrrmmmm

I haven't made any comments on who I think you are ausdoc, and I don't care who you are.

And I don't know who 004wercras is, and I don't care who s/he is.

You are running a classic 'false dichotomy' interference, ausdoc. We can "debate" the medical issue or we can research the claimed qualifications and expertise of the people whose opinions have caused the controversy.

In fact, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to do both, because the latter is relevant to the merits of the arguments made during the former. That's why the AAT said this:“We do not consider this aspect of (the PMO’s) evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that (it) may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made ... We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in the (PMO’s) statement of 8 October 2013 … and his oral evidence.”Further, and more importantly in the context of this thread and your intervention, there's actually no "debate" going on about the medical issue. The purpose of this thread is to rally support to ensure that scaremongering zealots with other people's money to spend don't prevail over the hard evidence.

[Kharon]

Sunday morning, fat, dumb and happy; established at suitable flight level for a day off and what do I find Monday - toys hurled out the pram, the dog covered in the gods only know what, pizza boxes scattered everywhere and there's something really nasty stuck to the television screen. Now I can see who started it, done it before, with a record number of threads locked after last comments posted. So, before Tidy Bin Billy turns up and puts a padlock on the toy box, lets clean up a bit.

There is always a couple of pages of 'mess' in any long running thread, hair pulling, bitch slapping and sniper attacks. Used to get 'trolls-for-hire' on here of all flavours, distracting and muddying the waters; but, we've seen them off before and kept the discussion alive.

Good landings begin with a good approach, a few bumps on final just don't signify. I just ignore them, being as they are usually of short duration.

At an early point, as when any major conflict seems to be drawing to a close, it may be necessary to declare a form of “ceasefire” to ensure that the processes of reform are not further clouded by hyperactive over-regulation on the part of individuals or groups. We have in fact already heard reports of harassment that seem to suggest the reopening of old and not fully healed wounds, and some recent “initiatives” in the medical and airworthiness areas also appear to be indicative of a scorched earth philosophy. Surely any new regulatory interpretations or enforcement activity should receive close scrutiny for non-compliance with published procedures, due diligence, procedural fairness and the rule of law. Phelan

Now, where was I? – Oh yes, the Shambollic system of medieval medicinal practices and the one part of the NZ regulations, we don't want to import.

Toot toot. (Makes sign to ward off the dreaded "Click").

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I apologies in advance for a slight thread drift.
Creamie,
Don't knock (formerly) Hizonna Marcus Einfled's old alma mater, it's one of the longest running post boxes at Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles.
Pacific Western University (one and the same) provided PhD's for all Werner Von Brauns "other ranks" when the east coast intelligentsia wouldn't deal with anybody not "suitable qualified". It was Ben Rich, from the Lockheed Skunk Works who got the idea, and organised a job lot of PhDs, probably got a bulk discount. Suddenly, Corporal Schmidt became Herr Doctor Schmidt, problem of perception of competence solved.
Tootle pip!!

[papakurapilot]

Hi guys,

A petition to get the Minister Warren Truss to intervene has just gone up, please sign this and it can be confidential so no one has to worry about CASA retribution!!

https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers

[brissypilot]

The CVDPA folk have launched a petition calling for Minister Truss to intervene in the current dispute:

Petition to the Hon Warren Truss MP (Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development): To Intervene in the battle between colour defective pilots and CASA which threatens to destroy hundreds of careers (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers)

In June 2014, the Aviation Medicine Branch (AvMed) of CASA made radical changes to its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). Policies that had been in place for over twenty years and which had flowed from two landmark rulings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were suddenly and without notice abandoned, the new policies involving draconian restrictions the likes of which had not been seen in Australia for over half a century. In line with these new policies a number of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots, upon renewing their medical certificates, found they faced restrictions that made participation in professional aviation a practical impossibility. In addition, the new policies effectively closed off all pathways to a professional piloting career for new applicants with CVD.

The changes in the policies governing the implementation the ACPS were justified by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) in the following statement he made in a letter to all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs): “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.” The letter to DAMEs was repeated in similar letters to CVD pilots and to all Australian AOC holders (the pilots’ employers), both containing the same claim as to “recent medical research”. This claim is not supported by any published evidence of unsafe performance by pilots with a CVD condition. Indeed, all the available evidence from both Australia and the USA is that the performance of CVD pilots is as safe as that of other pilots who do not have such a CVD condition. At the very least, there is no evidence of unsafe performance by any CVD pilots as a consequence of their CVD condition.

The reversal of policies that were based on the findings of the two AAT decisions is a serious matter, and even more so when seen in the light of a twenty five year period of incident and accident-free performance at all levels, private and professional, by CVD pilots since those landmark decisions were handed down. These hearings are widely recognised, even today, as the most comprehensive and impartial examination of all aspects of the ACPS, that has ever been conducted in any place and at any time.

Not only do the changes in these policies amount to a denial of the AAT findings of 25 years ago, they are even more bizarre and baffling when it is realised that a new appeal by a CVD pilot had already been lodged before the AAT and was due for a hearing in July 2014. Preparation and documentation by both parties of the evidence for that hearing were well advanced when CASA dropped this bombshell.

The trio of CASA’s letters to DAMEs, CVD pilots and AOC holders have been widely condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying. As well, the taking away and then the re-instatement of “privileges”, within a span of mere days, of a number of CVD professional pilots has led to widespread industry outrage. Were it not so serious, it is quite farcical, and further exacerbates the broad lack of trust in CASA within the industry.

We petition Minister Truss to:

1. Direct CASA to immediately retract the letters sent to DAMEs, AOC holders and CVD pilots and appropriately sanction those responsible for these letters.

2. Direct CASA to immediately reverse the recent changes in policy that threaten the careers of hundreds of pilots and severely restrict new CVD pilots from being able to enter the aviation industry.

3. In the event that CASA is allowed to continue pursuing this matter through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that public funding be made available so that once again, a fair, thorough and unbiased re-test of the established tenet can be presented.

4. To fund a study into the practical relevance of the aviation colour perception standard and its scientific basis so that Australia can continue to lead the rest of the world on this issue, as we have done for the past 25 years.

SIGN HERE (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Please get on there and sign the petition. You don't have to display your details either if you fear retribution.

This is more than just about CVD. There are many conditions that could receive the same treatment.

[Creampuff]

They do have a very big Ace up their sleeve: The cognitive bias of ignorant punters (or, in pprunespeak, ‘the mystique of aviation’).

Imagine, if you will, an ordinary line of punters shuffling on board an ordinary RPT jet service from A to B. On the flight deck the pilots are going through the usual checklists and sipping orange juice.

After the aircraft takes off and reaches cruise altitude, the ‘seatbelt’ sign is switched off. An ordinary-looking passenger unclips his seatbelt and moves from passenger to passenger, whispering: “Pssssst. I’m from CASA and I think pilots with colour vision deficiencies could be a risk to air safety. How does that make you feel?”

If the punters were well-informed, they’d say: “Are you the idiot that let both pilots drink orange juice from the same source? Make yourself useful and find a competent doctor to closely monitor the pilots for symptoms of food poisoning. Then do us all a favour and sit down and STFU.”

Alas, the punters are not well-informed. Their response is: “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN A 30,000 FOOT DEATH PLUNGE! PLEASE CASA PLEASE: SAVE US FROM COLOUR BLIND PILOTS.”

Enter our regulatory ‘saviours’.

That’s the exquisite irony of “evidence-based risk management” as a justification for increased regulatory meddling in matters medical. If the aviation medical certification system was indeed based on hard evidence and objective risk, there’d be less regulatory meddling in matters medical and more focus on the matters that the hard evidence demonstrates are the substantive risks to aviation safety. Unfortunately, our regulatory ‘saviours’ know that although mum, dad and the kids couldn’t care less if the petrol tanker behind them on the highway is being driven by someone who hasn’t seen his toes or a doctor in a decade, they’ll be scared sh*tless if the aviation regulator’s opinion is that the pilot of their jet to Melbourne has a colour vision defect that ‘could’ be a risk to air safety.

Get involved people, or a bureaucrat on an unjustified medical crusade will be meddling unnecessarily in your life next.

[T28D]

Unfortunately this is absolutely true;


Unfortunately, our regulatory ‘saviours’ know that although mum, dad and the kids couldn’t care less if the petrol tanker behind them on the highway is being driven by someone who hasn’t seen his toes or a doctor in a decade, they’ll be scared sh*tless if the aviation regulator’s opinion is that the pilot of their jet to Melbourne has a colour vision defect that ‘could’ be a risk to air safety.


Due to a chronic medical condition my ability to exercise the privileges of my licence have been withdrawn as a result of the cancellation of my class 1 and 2 medical, however the Road Traffic Authority have allowed me to retain my Heavy Combination Drivers licence a clear set of regulatory double standards.

[TBM-Legend]

We need political support as well as petitions. A "Champion of General Aviation" in the Parliament is needed..

Senator Inhofe Outlines New Pilot’s Bill of Rights
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has released a draft of a new Pilot’s Bill of Rights. “The goal of Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 is to continue addressing unfair practices and regulations toward the aviation industry,” Inhofe said. Among the issues that the bill seeks to change are expanding the LSA third-class medical exemption to cover pilots flying small general aviation aircraft; requiring Customs and Border Protection officers to follow general law-enforcement standards when exercising CBP powers in stops of general aviation pilots and searches of their aircraft; making it illegal for the FAA to enforce Notam violations if the FAA doesn’t finish its Notam improvement program by year-end; providing civil liability protection for aviation medical examiners, designated pilot examiners and designated airworthiness representatives; facilitating means of allowing safety-enhancing equipment to be installed on aircraft without lengthy certification processes; and updating language in the current Pilot’s Bill of Rights to include new rights such as requiring the FAA to notify individuals when they are subject to investigation, limiting the scope of document requests to pertinent issues being investigated and reinstating the expungement policy that would prevent the FAA from keeping enforcement action records after five years.

[Sarcs]

….or a bureaucrat on an unjustified medical crusade will be meddling unnecessarily in your life next…” :ugh:
Take heed of the Creamy statement and get on-board the CVD petition, the numbers are past 500 but they need many more…:ok:

And if you thought this was solely a little old Oz issue, think again as CVD pilots worldwide are taking notice of the CAsA PMO’s draconian attempt to take us back to the Dark Ages…:=:=

Recent petition Comments:

helen castles (https://www.change.org/u/119311800) AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

my husband is a pilot and my son wants to be one but is slightly colour blind. my husband doesn't believe his inpairment would affect his ability to fly.

phil boughey (https://www.change.org/u/119273470) AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

I am an airline pilot for Air NZ, my son, all he wants to do more than anything is to become a pilot. he is colour blind, but he plans to try his hardest to become a pilot for a major airline. he's 10 years old now, and I sure hope once he's old enough there will be the opportunity for his dreams to come true.

Ian Kirton (https://www.change.org/u/119143970) HONG KONG

I am a second generation pilot. My nephew is CVD but has commenced his flight training regardless. He has never wanted to be anything else other than a pilot like his Grandfather, his Father and myself, his Uncle. He should be allowed the same potential future as we have already enjoyed in our own careers and lives. Passion for aviation should never be punished but encouraged and mentored.

Ron Tomlinson (https://www.change.org/u/119128460) INVERURIE, UNITED KINGDOM

I am a mildly color vision deficient pilot training for my Commercial and Instrument ratings as we speak. I have none and never had any issues with many night hours in my logbook and in all types of conditions. I even meet the current standard, but had to go through many years of stress and extra hundreds of dollars to get my unrestricted medical certificate from the FAA, and now I always have to worry if they are going to change the requirements in the future which could potentially cause my career to end. I have invested thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to train, and to have it all stolen from me on the basis of the opinion a of few pencil pushing NON PILOTS who know nothing about flying and are simply defending their PhD's while trying to SELL a new color vision test is nothing short of highway robbery, abuse of power, and discrimination of the highest order.

I know MANY color vision deficient pilots in the USA with 1000's of hours in jets of all types, many decades of experience, and 0 issues. I even meet the standard, but the price has been high, and I am supporting this to defend the future of our careers, human rights, and fairness in general.

"Normal's" don't have to pay the extra money, time, sweat, and stress to jump through these hoops, so neither should someone who can't tell lime green from chartreuse. Pilots are not interior designers and do not need perfect color vision at all. If nothing else, they should design color out of the system entirely, as it is already redundant in its current design. With the technology of today, they could probably do this for every single technical career field out there.


The PMO Russian Roulette who'll be next??:ugh:

TICK..TOCK..TIME Miniscule!:{

[Kharon]

Many of the more pragmatic, sanguine submissions to the ASRR make polite, if pointed reference to the many issues surrounding the Avmed department. Personally I found the Maitland submission to be of great value, being balanced, succinct and very much grounded in experience. If for no other reason it is well worth a quiet read, the medical section (f) 4 sets out the issues and in part (between the lines) offers a solution.

Extract (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/265_maitland_lawyers_3_mar_2014_redacted.pdf) - EW. John Maitland. Part (f) Aviation medicine.

By far the most common complaint I receive regarding the processes and administration by CASA officials is in relation to Aviation Medicine.

Problems arise when a pilot fails to meet the requirements of the relevant table set out in CASR 67.150 (for class 1) or CASR 67.155 (for class 2). CASR

CASR 67.180 provides a mechanism by which a pilot who fails to meet the medical standards set out in CASR 67.150 or CASR 67.155 may still be issued with an aviation medical certificate if CASA is satisfied that issuing a medical certificate to the applicant would not endanger the safety of air navigation.

A dispute often arises in situations where the applicant may have suffered a medical condition which his or her medical specialist has determined will not affect his or her ability to safe! y operate an aeroplane, but notwithstanding the assessment by the medical specialist in the field, CASA aviation medicine will often ignore the specialists' expertise and advices; and refuse or cancel the applicant's aviation medical certificate.

The submission made by - Dr Rob Liddell – is directly related to the CVD issue and also worthy of a coffee and a quiet think. The second paragraph (IMO) nails down the really important issue. An incorrigible operator, such as Hempel could not be prevented, no matter what the 'regulations' say. The Hempel medical farce was simply a distraction from the underlying elements of the case. Even so, the regulator and the PMO were not embarrassed; they should have been. But the vast majority of pilots are mostly 'self regulating' as a matter of professional pride and operational maturity; it is grossly unfair that this ethos is suspected or dismissed. Trusted with many lives, over many miles to operate safely and legally; but not trusted to realise when they are too ill to fly. It's bollocks; actually it's real Pony Pooh; Shambollic style.

Extract (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/069_r_liddell_24_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)- The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

The RAAA submission touches on the frustration of operators; I'd like to see the figures on how many roster changes are made due to a medical revalidation expiring before the new certificate reaches to applicant. I know it's not just me chasing down a certificate close to deadline – can't fly without it.

Extract (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/246_raaa_7_feb_2014_redacted.pdf) - The medical certification seems to involve a large amount of second guessing the Designated Medical Examiners (DMEs) and demanding more expensive additional tests and re-examinations. Is there any good reason why DMEs in Australia cannot be authorised to actually issue the Medical Certificate as UK Authorised Medical Examiners are – even to the extent of issuing a UK/JAA medical here in Australia? It is the opinion of many in the industry that the medical section of CASA needs a complete overhaul.

Anyway, for what it's worth, it is clear that Avmed need to be revamped and taken forward to the twentieth century and not regress any further toward the nineteenth style of bureaucracy, made infamous by colonial administrators, before the damage being inflicted becomes irreparable without huge amounts of time, trouble and money being wasted.

It's not just CVD, no siree; hair loss and flatulence are next; after 'funny turns' that is....High priority, big ticket items so don't say I didn't warn you.

Toot toot.

[ausdoc]

Is there any good reason why DMEs in Australia cannot be authorised to actually issue the Medical Certificate as UK Authorised Medical Examiners are

This has already started (for Class 2 at least). There is a trial going as we speak, with DAMEs issuing certificates, and will be expanded once the system has been confirmed as robust. A lot of DAMEs around the country have done the training for this over the last few months.

There are a couple of concerns though:

More than half of the 700 or so DAMEs do less than 20 medicals per year (is that enough to be good at the risk assessment part of issuing a certificate?)
Less that 20% of DAMEs currently meet their mandatory ongoing education requirements to maintain their delegation
A lot of the DAMEs I've spoken to have reservations about the system, as when they issue the certificate, they take on the liability if something goes wrong. At the moment, my medical indemnity insurer has said that it won't increase my premium, but it is likely to following the first case.

[Anthill]

Ausdoc, an objective question: can you direct me to research (peer reviewed) that shows that pilots who have a cvd are less safe than non-cvd pilots.

I have spent days trying to search for such a reference, but have been unable to find any. What I would point out is that globally there have been millions of flight hours flown by cvd pilots and not one accident or incident recorded where a cvd has been shown as a cause. This would suggest a very strong case that a cvd is not a threat to flight safety.

[ausdoc]

Anthill, I'm sure your search abilities are no different to mine.

[thorn bird]

"This has already started (for Class 2 at least). There is a trial going as we speak, with DAMEs issuing certificates, and will be expanded once the system has been confirmed as robust. A lot of DAMEs around the country have done the training for this over the last few months."


More bureaucratic Flim Flam.


There already has been a trial, its been going on since aviation first started.


It works very well, there are no safety issues apparent, it is cost effective, and processes vastly more pilots than This third world country will ever aspire to.


The trial I refer to is the FAA, and it would seem the Brits have finally seen the light as well and followed them.


I am somewhat embarrassed that our foreign PMO has such a low opinion of the standard and probity of the medical profession in Australia, Perhaps we should be sending our doctors to Mumbai to train.

[ausdoc]

Thorn bird I am somewhat embarrassed that our foreign PMO has such a low opinion of the standard and probity of the medical profession in Australia, Perhaps we should be sending our doctors to Mumbai to train.

I'm not really sure what his country of birth has to do with the argument. It would appear that none of the Australian born PMOs have introduced the system of DAMEs issuing the medical cerificates.

[outofwhack]

Thorn bird,

Sending doctors to India to train could have a negative impact on standards unless our own universities faire worse than India. Most DAMEs would have
several more years training in a hospital too so the quality of hospital would contribute I suspect.


The Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings published on Tuesday ranked 800 universities from 76 countries on the basis of four criteria - research, teaching, employability and internationalisation.

Even the elite Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), which are counted among the country's finest universities, could only manage a ranking of 222, the Hindustan Times reports.

The ratings are "an unpleasant surprise" to those who think that Indian higher education is world-class, the paper says in an editorial, adding that "there's little doubt that the absence of truly exemplary institutions of learning is terrible news for a country that aspires to be a world leader".



Source BBC News - Indian media worried over falling education standards (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-24058842)

[Kharon]

Doc # 306: the argument is circular and probably redundant. Had the Avmed ever intended to progress to a revised DAME 'sign-off' system, the process would have started with a letter saying that a new system was being considered, discussion sought and a pathway mapped. It certainly would not involve sending letters spouting some half assed, insupportable bull**** relating to CVD.

A progressive regulator would send letters saying we are initiating a new system and 'You' need to tick boxes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should you wish to be one of the super DAME approved to issue a full 12 month certificate; otherwise tick boxes 1,2,3 to have CASA continue to oversight your professional assessment.

The proposition, as stated is flawed; wrong on a couple counts, not least of all insinuating to those who hold a DAME delegation – the inference is that without advanced 'qualification' over and above those presently required, only being allowed to assess under CASA 'supervision' the DAME is, in some way, 'sub-standard, despite some of those DAME being able to sign off FAA and CAA medicals.

Then the liability insurance ploy; this is a risible nonsense. I'm sure any competent insurance risk assessor would tell you that, even if it were remotely true, at the worst a pilot medical would be what, $20 more expensive, and that a scam to cover the almost non existent matrix risk.

The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...

So on balance, post #306 is, in light of USA, UK and other 'enlightened' countries experience rendered well and truly nugatory; and of value only to supporting an increasingly inefficient, bureaucratic, self aggrandising edifice, which offers DAME not education but insult, in the land of nugatory regulatory purgatory.

Sorry chum, need to do better than that to sell that particular bill of goods to the IOS.

Toot toot

[ausdoc]

Not sure how it's a circular argument Kharon, despite your flowery language. Casa did notify all DAMEs that the new system was being considered, discussion with the relevant professional bodies was conducted, and all DAMEs were invited to attend training on the new system if they wished to participate. Training courses were conducted nationwide. Now, a small number of practices that do a lot of medicals are being used as a trial of the system (particularly relating to the IT systems). Once the systems are confirmed to be robust enough (Beta testing is pretty common you know), all who have done the training can apply for the designation to do the extended role.

There is no "advanced qualification", as you put it.

The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Isn't that a good thing? Yet it still happens.

Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times Not often, but it does happen. Some very high profile transport accidents have been caused by medical incapacitation.

and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off Insulting and inflammatory drivel. If you think you can do a better job, maybe you should have worked harder at school.

How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now Well, yes they do in fact. It is not the doctor that makes the decision on the level of risk in the case of life insurance, it is the insurance company. Much like CASA do now - the DAME assesses the applicant angainst the provided standard, and CASA decide on the level of risk.

which offers DAME not education but insult That's just plain wrong. They not only offer education, but require it.

[Sarcs]

Kharon:The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...Top post “K”! The current drift is way out of my league and I’m not into promoting thread drifts or classic 'false dichotomy' interference (thanks Creamy) but the “K” post I can understand…:D

Perhaps to drift back we can focus on a couple of posts from a 2012 Medical & Health thread on CVD, which perhaps highlights the good DOC’s true colours (so to speak) on CVD.
First a quote from ausdoc from this passage of play..

“..The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment)…”

Okay our very own brissypilot kicks off the discussion:

brissypilot
#106 (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-6.html#post7431830)

Hi all,

Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.

The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."
Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/gjrd-x2KAlQ)

It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.

The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.Then this from the Doc, which includes the above quote:
ausdoc #107 (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-6.html#post7431856)

I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).

Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.

There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.

It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP:Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited.

Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.

I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.

I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.

I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?To which ausdoc completely ignored instead in his next he said...

“..I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test…”

But pponte was not prepared to let the good Doc off the hook quite so easily..:D pponte #119 (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-6.html#post7449206)

let's support what we're saying then..

Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.

I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.

By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.

We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.

Happy to go to court.. Are you?To which ausdoc replied…

“….Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?

You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?..”

And pponte in reply..

“…Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize for targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.

This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base…”

After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from.

Maybe also because, a couple of posts later, AP weighed into the argument..:E :Why keep talking about these tests?

It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.

If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers So ausdoc perhaps here is your chance to debate your point of view on CVD with Arthur, I’m pretty sure he will oblige..:rolleyes:..just do it elsewhere OK..:ok:

ps perhaps here: Collective Colour Vision Thread 4 (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-19.html)


Further OBS on the Doc: Passing strange that prior to the Doc's recent interest in the ESB thread the last contribution he made was back in November last year in his favourite haunt the Medical & Health forum and on this thread: Should he list Attention Deficit Disorder on his first class medical? (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/527157-should-he-list-attention-deficit-disorder-his-first-class-medical.html)


Hmm...further research required here I reckon..:E

[ausdoc]

And here we go again. Rather than discussing the matter at hand, the standard response is to go dredging into history to attack the individual.

Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP Not that hard really -the attendance details (and in fact a list of most of the attendees) was included in the conference satchel at registration. Pretty common practice.

To which ausdoc completely ignored So what would have liked me to do? I don't feel obliged to comment on every statement made by somebody else.

After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from. OK I admit it, I don't live for PPRuNe. Sometimes I go for weeks without looking at it. Sometimes, there is simply nothing new to read or comment on. I tend to spend my life looking afdter people and doing aircrew medicals - Perhaps I've done yours. I spend my time doing my very best to keep pilots flying, rather than engaging with petty, small minded people who seem incapable of addressing an issue without resorting to character assassination, wild identity speculation, and trawling of completely unrelated threads.

[Kharon]

Sarcs you crafty devil; just worked back through all of that; including a couple of interesting asides from one 'AirMed.Ind' who was panting to ingratiate himself with his mate Ausdoc.

So, I'll try out my basic, uneducated Anglo Saxon instead. Bollocks.

Creamy, I'll see your dichotomy and raise you an ad hominem..

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus
A special version of this fallacy is known as falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, essentially “false in something, false in everything”. This is a combination of a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack, because it attempts to disregard everything the person is saying by the claim that they’re either presenting the truth or presenting falsehoods. It ignores the possibility that the individual is wrong about one thing but right about others. The fact that someone has been proven wrong about claims they made is a potential reason to suspect other claims they make, but not a logical reason to disregard them entirely.

I just had an entertaining chat with my basic model, uneducated DAME mate (although there does seem to lots of real letters after his name though, perhaps it's a medico 'thing'). Anyway - however, as this is a family show I shall resist the temptation to reproduce in full his basic Anglo Saxon version of the good ship Avmed and all who sail in her. I shall simply content my flowery self with another hearty quote -"All Bollocks mate, being considered, trial and robust are the words of a forked tongue."- unquote.

Acknowledging the bleeding obvious don't signify either: i.e. that in every day life, people have accidents caused by illness, well fancy that. – It is a statistical certainty, a fact the underwriters, who bet fortunes on it know all too well; much better than anyone, including Avmed. FFS; if they are comfortable for our Docs can sign you as fit on a FAA or UK docket, then they are comfortable for the same Doc sign one for this third world place.

No, it's unfortunate, but the devotees of Shambollic Hole-mystic medicine are beyond all credibility or redemption. The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/487144-barry-hempel-inquest.html) - fiasco; let alone some of the other famous 'red-face' cases. Avmed, claiming to be anything other than a retrogressive, inefficient mess is disingenuous. Seeking only to become a 'name', either by following or being led by the nugget who took the Kiwi's back to the dark ages is more the mark.

The notion of CVD discrimination is simply as disgusting as the underhand methods used in the vainglorious attempt to achieve it.

Flowery – forsooth.. I think I'm flattered; should I flutter my eyelashes now?

[ausdoc]

uneducated DAME mate (although there does seem to lots of real letters after his name though, perhaps it's a medico 'thing')
Hey Kharon, how do you know that they're real? Did you research every one of them fully? Did you accuse him of academic fraud until you could confirm every one?

Ask him how many aviation medicals he does in a year. Also ask him if he meets all of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements to maintain his DAME designation. Ask him if he has attended the DAME2 training, and if he intends to register to do the medicals. If he has, ask him if he understands that it will be him, not CASA, who will be standing in front of the coroner when the statistical certainty of a medical condition causing an accident just happens to occur in somebody that he's certified. Whether he was right or wrong in his assessment, it is a traumatic experience.

[ausdoc]

The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco

A fiasco indeed. Much blame all round: The pilot for knowingly flouting the conditions of his licence. CASA (not just AVMED) for allowing him to repeatedly break the rules over decades (although I'm not sure what they could have realistically done other than posting an armed guard next to every aircraft that he might have tried to fly). His DAME and specialist for deliberately covering up his condition for so long. Every single one of his colleagues and those that knew what he was doing, and chose to ignore it.

In the end, a paying passenger, who had no knowledge of the risks they were accepting ended up dead.

[Kharon]

Creampuff (for an example) is more often an adversary than an ally, as are some others here at one time or another. Bloggs and Leadsled for example, I can't find a skerick of agreement, different views, but there is not a drop of troll blood in either. Honest, worthy opponents all in a good cause, present two options to ponder and discuss. There have been some 'entertaining' bouts, robust discussions, even areas where it was agreed to disagree. Mutual even if grudging respect had been earned; and, as part of any healthy society, considering the independent nature of pilots, this is a fine thing.

After a while, playing on this board one can discern and even predict an outcome; some are worth waiting for; some are not, but even to retire hors de combat carries some credit. There are some clever, lively, articulate folk haunting these portals, all capable of expressing a point of view; unfortunately, this attracts trolls.

Now your Trolls come in various guises, with different agendas. It's pretty easy to spot them though, you see even a poster who is disagreeing 'fits'; the argument may be diametrically opposed, but the protagonist 'fits'. Trolls do not. Perhaps it's in the sly syntax, maybe it's the devious 'attitude', the deliberate word traps to bait the unwary, the scathing attack, the retiring to more neutral ground to wait a chance: the pattern, the stance if you will. But inevitably, they get sprung, a little patience, a dab of Troll bait and Wallop; you have a troll head for the mantelpiece. Minnie Bannister hates them, but I like to see 'em there and they make great ashtrays.

Lady Macbeth:
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
have had so much blood in him?

Toot toot. Next service? – Oh, tomorrow, sometime after second coffee.

[Frank Arouet]

ausdoc;


The passenger didn't pay, his girlfriend did. Neither had an inkling that he was a "protected species".


But CAsA did!


Were his visual conception skills brought up in the Coroners inquest? It appears he lacked the medical score on many counts.

[ausdoc]

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.

[ausdoc]

Frank, I totally agree. CASA did know, and so did just about every person on the airfield. I still don't quite know what CASA could have done to prevent the accident.

[outofwhack]

I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself.

[Creampuff]

This is at the heart of what utterly astounds me about the recent regulatory controversy about pilot CVD: The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).Demonstrably very intelligent people who presume to make judgments about people’s fitness to fly are apparently incapable of perceiving – dare I say: are blind to? – the potential invalidity of the proposition on which their conclusion and consequent regulatory intervention depends.

“There is complex, subtle use of colours in modern cockpits. It is no longer a red/green/white environment.”

So what?

In the normally certified aircraft I fly most often, there is a system that has a red light which illuminates when the system is in a particular state. There is another system which has a blue light which flashes when other systems are in particular states. There is yet another system which has an orange light that illuminates when that system is in a particular state.

Neither the colour nor the difference between the colours of those lights has any actual or intuitive implication for the relative importance of the system state indicated. I know what it means when each light is on, and I know what it means when each light is off. And that’s all I need to know from a safety perspective.

If I changed all those light colours to Mission Brown or Barry White, it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference.

When a big CAUTION light flashes, one does not need to pause to consider whether it’s Duck Egg Blue or Mojave Mist.

The proposition implicit in the quote is that there is a safety risk if pilots cannot distinguish between the subtly different colours in complex cockpits. That proposition has never been proved. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Objective people can see that.

[ausdoc]

Creampuff, I agree with you in a cockpit that has lights that are either on or off. My understanding is that the problem is when a light changes colour depending on the state of a system, or when the colours of digits change on an EFIS display. The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance.

An analogy is traffic lights. The position of the light in the stack provides a redundant cue to those with CVD, and in most cases this is enough. There is good research though, that shows CVD drivers (and not all CVD is the same) are slower to detect the red and amber lights than non CVD. There is no difference in green detection, and it probably doesn't matter. So what, you may ask? Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights).

[ausdoc]

I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself.
Yes, they should have in this case. Indeed the chief pilot should have known that Hempel had neither a CPL nor a Class 1 medical - both of which were required for the operations he was conducting. I have to show my licence and medical when I hire an aircraft.

But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying.

Happy to continue this discussion on the more appropriate thread.

[ausdoc]

There is plenty of evidence to more than suggest that it is risky for folks with serious Depression to fly

I'm not sure that there is actually. Just that it is not a good idea, for the reasons that you mention.

I'd be happy to fly with either of the groups that you mention, and I regularly do. I just think that proper data gathering on CVD pilots from the start was a missed opportunity. I also think that money spent on lawyers would be better spent on science. There are a couple of universities in this country with extensive experience in testing visual perception, and I'm sure that they could design representative study tasks (using real cockpit instrumentation, lighting, etc rather than simulation) to give the data to put this matter to bed once and for all.

[outofwhack]

Ausdoc wrote: But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying.

Well the PMO thinks it is reasonable to post everybody a letter damning CVD pilots who already operate perfectly safely so why not send letters about pilots with head traumas?

[thorn bird]

Yet year after year professional CVD pilots are required to undertake the same scrutiny of their standards and ability, during the same checks that "normal" pilots do, and nothing..not a hint, not the tiniest scrap of concern from any of their checkers.

If there was the slightest shred of concern it would have surfaced by now.

For goodness sake after a quarter of a century in this country, and a whole lot longer in other enlightened places, not a single definitive example of CVD having the slightest affect on a pilots ability to safely commit aviation.

Sorry Doc. that's a whole lot of positive research, show us the research to the contrary.

Regarding DAME's and CAsA's rather demeaning attitude towards them.

I question why CAsA deems it necessary to squander, how many zillions, of tax payers money? on some Flim Flam "Training" exercise.

Are Australian doctors competent or not?

I'm told by DAME friends that the so called training exercises are very like the professional development courses ATO's are required to attend.
More being lectured AT rather than lectured to, hardly education.

I reiterate there is ample research, in the history of FAA medical examiners that doctors are perfectly capable of assessing whether a pilot is fit or not.

The furphy of liability is exactly that.

In the most litigious society in the world is there or has there ever been a problem?

Given the size of the US industry, the massive numbers of pilots the FAA must medically administer, is there any issue with their DAME's issuing medical certificates?

I go to the same DAME every year to renew my medical's. Same process. Difference is my FAA medical is issued on the spot.

My CAsA medical is given a three month extension, until some clerk in Avmed adds up the points and decides if I can earn my living or not...and for that "service" I have to pay a fee of $75.

As someone once said "What a nice little earner"

Someone else might call it corruption.

[Creampuff]

Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights).Clearly, then, CVD pilots should be prohibited from taxiing aircraft on the roads. :rolleyes:

Seriously: Is this the quality of the logic justifying the recent change?

Where is the data to which you refer, and where is the evidence proving causation rather than correlation? When was the last time a policeman asked the driver involved in a rear-ender, do you have CVD? How could this data be collected?The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance.So in which system/s does it matter?

If that change of colour has any safety-critical implications, it's badly designed system. The history of aviation is littered with systems that seemed brilliant in theory but caught out many perfectly competent pilots in practice.

[Sarcs]

Thank you Flying Fiend & FOI crew :D:D;)

While trolling through Fort Fumble's FOI Disclosure log I came across a new entry, which must be said was published in world record time, that possibly may shine new light on the PMO's new evidence on CVD. Here is a couple of excerpts..

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/CASAAAMAC2.jpg

No nothing there??

However the next excerpt does have an interesting comment by the PMO on a CAMI (FAA) new research on CVD testing:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/two.jpg

So ausdoc, since you are in the know, any chance that we could get a copy/summary of this CAMI (FAA) research paper?? It could be the key to this new research that the PMO is banging on about??

OK back to the petition which still needs far more support, so come on people get on-board…

SIGN HERE (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers)

A couple more recent comments:


John McDermott (https://www.change.org/u/120130745) AUSTRALIA
Another example of CASA making radical changes, which effect careers and livelihoods of many, without safety based reasoning and in fact ignoring the 20 years of actual safety data supporting the CVD personnel. It is as much the principle of change without reason and without consent which causes me the greatest concern. IF there was a history of incidents, then it would be an understandble argument BUT that simply is not the case.




Wayne Moore (https://www.change.org/u/120118095) AUSTRALIA
Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm. As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.

MTF…:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

ausdoc, you say;


"QUOTE if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence QUOTE"


We had a suite of long running rules that permitted CVD pilots to fly and this was recently reversed. It would then seem that CAsA changed their own rules, but has refused to give the "good evidence" that the rules were flawed in the first place. Nothing I've seen cancels the historic work of Dr Pape.


Rather than blather on about what happens in NZ or anywhere else, we should perhaps acknowledge that Australians have some very good history in the fields of medical research that the rest of the World either already follow or should do.


This may be the exception to the "peculiar Australian" rules that besot us in regulatory matters. Some here would see your obstruction in deference of good medical evidence as seriously alarming, and tantamount to scaring little kids and adults, even bordering on alarming the poor bloody paying airline passengers that are subject to certain security concerns at the best of times.


On the balance of probabilities, I concur with Kharon.


Creampuff: It is well documented that 97.852% of aircraft accidents happen when the pilot has no CVD.
CONCLUSION: CVD pilots have only a 2.148% chance of ever having an accident. Again, on the balance of probabilities.

[dubbleyew eight]

altough I am a pilot (with no colour deficits) I come at this problem from the industrial control systems environment.
I cannot believe the utter stupidity of the protagonists who push the CVD barrow.

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS.

in the industrial control systems environment there is quite some history to colour perception problems.

the original instrumentation standard from back in the days of pneumatically controlled systems was that a running machine displayed a red indicator atop it to indicate that it was running and dangerous to approach. a stopped machine was safer and showed a green indicator to show that it was safe to approach.

then with the advent of computer based instrumentation like the Citect systems I worked on, the programmers were more attuned to traffic light logic and eventually most computer displays showed green as healthy and running and red as faulted or stopped.

so red and green can have totally the opposite meaning in a control system depending on whether the old instrumentation logic is used or the newer traffic lights logic is used.

there are colour blind operators on sites. in one notable instance the introduction of a new updated control system caused monumental problems on the site. it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind and the errors were because they couldn't work out what the colour symbology was on the new displays.
when the engineer twigged to this he had realised from talking to the guys that they had no mental deficits. the software was suave enough to allow dynamic recolouring of the display logic so he changed all the displays so that the colour sets for the logic could be switched by the operators at the press of a button.

the normal logic is red stopped, green running, blue out to maintenance, grey not in service, flashing indicating running faulted.
there are other colours and logic states used but I forget them.
what the operators decided on was a colour set that included yellow, brown, blue, white, grey among others.
they can change the display logic at the press of an on screen button.

the engineer who did the work professed that the screens looked like nothing on earth compared to a "normal" screen but the error rate dropped to nothing after the change.

also in an allied area of electrical work the red green black colours used in wiring changed to brown blue and striped yellow and green to make electrical wiring in houses safe with colour blind technicians.

the problems have been faced and solved in two areas of industry that I am familiar with.
why aviation regulators are so perennially stupid on this just beggars belief.

if there is a colour problem change the colours.

[Kharon]

Wayne Moore –"Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting."

The sentence quoted above is part of a nicely constructed paragraph, which pretty well sums up many of the 'issues' and highlights one of the 'real' problem areas. This catch cry of 'identified safety risk' or 'imminent danger to navigation'; however it's phrased, "what" is to be considered 'dangerous' is not clearly defined or qualified. Back a couple of pages, we see a letter written to Bill Smith where it is stated that he 'may present a danger'. The subjective nature of what may be perceived as a 'danger' allows the unscrupulous a mile of wriggle room and there are no checks and balances to prevent the arbitrary notion being translated into "show cause". (Abandon all hope, ye who enter here).

If we can ever just get one part of the 'regulations' changed, this would be it. No one should ever be allowed to arbitrarily declare a person is 'a danger'. Think of it this way – you are driving through the main drag, looking for a park; suddenly a kid runs out in front of the car: slam on brakes, bark at kid, recover cool and toddle off, no probs. Now that kids Mum decides you were dangerous and complains to that effect. The Coppers can't just decide to back Mum's hysterical reaction, they can't suspend your license and they most certainly cannot drag you to a court and expect you to prove that you are not dangerous, not in this scenario anyway. CASA not only can, but will and do, as, when and as often as pleases.

Judge. "Can you prove this?"

IOS. "Evidence M'lud, Oh yes, which one of the two dozen case files would you like to start with?, may we suggest Quadrio as a classic example of bastardry, or perhaps Hempel, for the reverse view".

Problem is getting the whole shooting match to a venue to be heard. The Minuscule and the WLR was a good start; but if the regulator (a serial offender) is to be 'truly' rehabilitated, the misuse of arbitrary declarations must be examined, in depth and charges brought against those that dabble in these atrocities; to ensure the lessons are learnt, good and proper.

There have been some true abominations created through this widespread practice. A 'declared a danger' should be only be issued through at least three independent assessments (one legal) and signed off at executive level; not just left to likes of Wodger and his two best mates. It is a serious charge and with the reverse onus, a tough one to beat.

This is the danger subtended through the CVD issue; it serves to reinforce the 'arbitrary' decision process into a normalised deviance. Bill Smith should not have to prove he is safe – CASA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt that he is, indeed a danger. It must be 'beyond reasonable doubt', because it's a career at stake; balance of probabilities ain't good enough for ending a mans ability to work in his chosen profession. Not by a long shot...There's more at stake here than a quibble over a few words, split infinitives and what colour your socks are (or are not).

Selah –.-

[ausdoc]

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS

That's a great solution, but a very long-term and expensive one. There are numerous standard colour codes used in all sorts of industries. Warning lights, navigation, electrical wiring, map colour codes. It would be great if they could be standardised to colours that are agnostic to an individual's perception of colour. Remember though that CVD is not a single entity. Some types are more common than others, but it is so much more than just red/green.

it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind
That must have been a very odd population, or there was something causing acquired deficiencies in colour vision. Acquired deficiencies are pretty common in fact. Eye disease, some medications, even prolonged solar damage can cause changes in colour vision.

[Sarcs]

Nail on the head "K" and sort of runs in line with many of the comments on the CVDPA petition (sign HERE (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers) by the way..:D) e.g.

"...I have never understood why CASA or anyone else is allowed to arbitrarily discriminate against people with CVD without having to prove what it is that they supposedly can't do. Having dealt with CASA over many years, I find this type of arrogant behaviour typical of an outfit that does not deserve the term 'organisation'..."

Perhaps the next minority group to come under the (playing at God) PMO's scrutiny, is highlighted in his summary of the 85th Annual Aerospace Medical Association Conference held in sunny San Diego May 2014...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/one-1.jpg

...which it seems he has already hand balled to Flying Fiend and his bloodnut mate...:ugh:


Next potential victim(s): Then, as I earlier predicted, the next minority group to possibly cop a pineapple is highlighted in this PMO (PAG) boxed statement:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/two-1.jpg

This joker has got to be stopped...:{

Moving on...

ausdoc don't bother chasing down that CAMI paper mate, cause I've found it..:rolleyes: (link HERE (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201406.pdf)).

Now I can see with 20:20 hindsight where all this concern on CVD is coming from, the following almost perfectly replicates Creamy's ausdoc quote at post #334: Given the increased usage of color in cockpit displays, it is highly likely that, for pilots, the LED PAPI task (although a critical task) is not the most demanding color discrimination task that pilots will face; and therefore, the usefulness of these screening tests for determining whether the pilot possesses the requisite color vision ability for other tasks, including tasks involving multi-colored LEDs, should not be based on the validity of the tests for predicting performance on this red vs. white LED task.
Hmm...well at least LED lights don't appear to exacerbate the problem...:(

MTF...:ok:

[ausdoc]

Sarcs, yes I've seen that study, but there are others as well. As I said, there needs to be more practical research using real-world tasks. Where possible, colour should not be used as a stand-alone indicator (like in the PAPI) because all sorts of things can disrupt the signal, even for colour "normals". I agree wholeheartedly with Arthur on this one, that the T-VASIS was a much better system, as it was not reliant on normal perception of colour, and was less likely to be corrupted by atmospheric conditions/dirty lenses etc. That doesn't mean that colour coding should be removed altogether, as it provides very useful additional information.

The aviation colour environment is far more complex than a tower signal lamp or a PAPI. Really difficult to design a single study, but there are big brains in a lot of the universities that could do it.

[thorn bird]

Doc,
there has already been 25 years of practical research in Australia and over 40 years in the USA. How many tens of thousands of hours, how many six monthly practical tests in that time.


The results show no safety case exists for CVD pilots as opposed to non CVD pilots, which is born out by accident statistics.

[ausdoc]

How many tens of thousands of hours, how many six monthly practical tests in that time

That's part of the problem - nobody really knows. As I said, a missed opportunity for data collection. Without proper data collection and analysis, it's not research. Are there enough to reach statistical significance? Because if it doesn't, it's just anecdote not evidence.

The data could be collected now, but it would rely on self reporting.

[Creampuff]

You’ve convinced me.

As of today, AVMED should write to all pilots and their employers, warning that alopecia could be dangerous.

It’s a fact that most aviation accidents and incidents involve pilots with alopecia. (I reckon it’s an hormonal thing.) Sure: They pass all those recurrent tests but – you know – there’s something wrong with them.

These people have been flying around for decades, but nobody really knows whether there’s a causal link between aviation safety and alopecia. It’s been a missed opportunity for data collection. Without proper data collection and analysis, it’s not research. It’s just anecdote, not evidence.

Therefore, in the interests of aviation safety, the danger to aviation that could be posed by pilots with alopecia should be notified to everyone, all pilots with alopecia should have restrictions on their medicals, unless and until the absence of a causal link is proved through valid data and proper analysis.

The only difference between the above twaddle and the logic that leads to the recent regulatory actions about CVD is an historical coincidence.

[thorn bird]

Careful Creamie, they'll be accusing you of having shares in Ashley & Martin next.;)

"That's part of the problem - nobody really knows."


Yes they do, the fact that CVD pilots have successfully passed proficiency checks for the past 25 years in Australia and the past 40 years in the USA confirms that there is no problem.

Added to that there are no accident statistics worldwide that support the hypothesis that CVD pilots are a greater danger to safety than anyone else.


Guys and girls we need signatures to the petition, please encourage as many of your colleges to take the time and sign it.
CAsa says there are 37,000 pilots in Australia, everyone of us should be signing before the next round of letters from CAsA avmed is sent out to everyones significant other, warning them that if you snore you could be a danger to Air navigation.

To all the union people.
Guys you were very supportive of GA with submissions to Truss inquiry and for that we are very grateful, could you send a newsletter to all your members and inform them of the petition, the fight for CVD pilots is everyones fight.

[brissypilot]

"That's part of the problem - nobody really knows."

Yes they do, the fact that CVD pilots have successfully passed proficiency checks for the past 25 years in Australia and the past 40 years in the USA confirms that there is no problem.

Exactly! CASA had no trouble sending letters to the supposedly 400 professional CVD pilots around Australia. Instead of writing to all these pilots and telling them that they're a threat to the safety of air navigation, it wouldn't have taken much more effort to instead pull up their CASA records of instrument rating passes etc to see what the statistics are of how successfully they pass these checks when compared to colour normal pilots.

They could've written to the AOC holders and instead requested feedback on how well their CVD pilots actually perform in a real world environment. All this information is readily available through detailed training records.

CASA could've actually consulted with the industry and the affected stakeholders to better understand the issues, rather than alienate them even further.

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS

As AP explained a few pages back, the colours aren't the problem and don't need to be changed. CVD pilots perform equally as well as pilots with normal colour vision. His presentation to the International Congress of Aviation & Space Medicine conference in 2012 is worth reviewing. Yes, this is only a small sample of three pilots (with the most severe form of CVD there is), but it does unquestionably highlight how the CVD pilots are still required to pass all the regular and rigorous tests required for the "safe performance of duties" (to quote the ICAO standard). These guys might've failed the three levels of CVD testing as per the regs, but they each have passed literally dozens of flight and simulator checks over thousands of hours each.

MoXp-ZGgV9A

In my employment, my performance is assessed in the sim four times a year. Despite my own CVD, I still pass all the required sequences with no discernible differences to my peers with normal colour vision. The comments over the last 18 pages of this thread highlight that colour on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary to safely perform duties. I don't believe CVD is a "medical" issue, rather it is a "perception" issue.

Visual perception and how we perceive things and make correct decisions is far more complex and relies on many more cues than the simplistic views adopted by those who promote colour vision research and testing. They also forget that people with a CVD have never known anything different their entire lives. I didn't even know I was colour "blind" until I went for my first aviation medical at age 15. In my 16 years of flying since it has never once come up as an issue. As humans we learn to adapt. Perception is a private experience and no one else can claim to "see" what another person sees and therefore they can't assume to know how we individually process and react to information. If flying was dependent on the ability to be able to reliably name and distinguish colours, then I'd be the first to admit that I shouldn't be doing this for a job. But it doesn't!

As Creamy highlighted a few pages back, the premise of the argument of those who set the standards is false. Colour is undoubtedly used lots in the aviation environment, but the assumption that the ability to rapidly and accurately identify colours is essential to the safe performance of duties is completely wrong!

With the PAPI for example, it has long been argued that that this is colour "critical" and that without the ability to perceive it's colours, that CVD's will pose a safety risk when using it. You would think from the way some of these researchers write, that it is impossible to land an aircraft without it!

Forget for a moment that the evidence shows that CVD pilots continue to use PAPI on a daily basis without issue and that even colour normal pilots cannot reliably interpret it under certain atmospheric conditions.

The claim that PAPI is "critical" to be able to land an aircraft is false. All pilots are trained from day 1 to land an aircraft based on the visual "perspective" out the window. We fly into airports that aren't even equipped with it including at night in black holes. We can program VNAV guidance into the FMS. We do mental calculations of altitude vs distance to run to confirm the correct profile. Approach plates also have this information published on it. CASA even issue exemptions for jet operators to fly into airports without it subject to conditions. Colour is not critical!

A few more comments from the petition (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers). Over 800 signatures and still rising :ok:

I see no logical reason to limit pilots with colour deficiencies considering flying with the use of NVG's is done with a 40 degree field of view and a monochromatic image.

I have flown with colour deficient pilots as part of an airline crew. They are more than capable of carrying out the responsibilities of the job, some better than their colleagues whose colour vision is not impaired.

Im a colour vision defective pilot. I have 17,000 hrs in command and have been safely flying commercially for 30 years.

Retired now, but looking back on 44yrs flying finding it hard to remember when colors were that important.

I operated as a pilot for 45 years(including 25 years as a B747 Captain) with Qantas. I failed the standard colour blindness Ishihara plates continually. I passed the "Lantern Test" in 1968. Never in my whole career did my colour blindness?interfere in any way with my ability to operate as required.

Colour vision may have been important when signals to aircraft were ONLY by means of RED & GREEN or white lights, but we now have RADIO & Telephone/Texting available so why take this backward and unnecessary step? I am a professional pilot not afflicted in this way but CASA has to start thinking of cost to innocent lives not their own to control i.e. the families of those disadvantaged by the stupidity of many within the CASA

I am a now retired CVD pilot after a 46 year career and 25077 flying hours. The majority as captain on DHC8 a/c. My so called CVD was of no effect on my operating of these a/c. Further I held check and training approvals on DHC6,EMB110,DO228,B1900Dall being turbine powered plus numerous piston multi engine a/c. Also I held initial & renewal approval for Class1 instrument ratings. All in RPT operations. Dr Pape is well aware of my qualifications. PS I have 584 hrs night hrs again on RPT operations.

Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm.

As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.

[Sunfish]

Ausdoc, you are applying absolutely fallacious logic, as is CASA.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof here with your "nobody really knows" bull****.

The facts of the matter are that CVD pilots have been flying legally for Forty years.

It is therefore up to you to prove the hypothesis: "CVD pilots are at a statistically significant greater risk of causing an incident or accident as a direct result of their CVD condition".

You do NOT get to take away licences without rigorous statistical data analysis to prove that the above hypothesis is correct, and judging from the comments expressed here there is no industry experience of events or accidents to date that would even remotely support your theory.

To put that another way, you and your pals are attempting to advance a negative hypothesis for which there is only negative evidence : "It cannot be proved that CVD pilots are NOT at greater risk of causing an incident or accident" and then glibly saying that the lack of statistically significant data proves your hypothesis.


This is not logic and you would be howled out of any University experimental design class for suggesting it.

Why the hell is CASA tilting at windmills all the time????????????????

[Frank Arouet]

There's probably heaps of unemployed "climate scientists" that can give a hand at proving something exists because someone thought it "should" be a political imperitive. By this reasoning ausdoc is on a payroll.

[Creampuff]

New research about Colour vision testing carried out by the Civil Aviation Medical Institute (FAA) indicates that people with colour vision deficiency have difficulty in perform intra-cockpit tests.How was this research carried out, and where are the results? Does it constitute ‘high-level evidence’?

If it is research that has been taken into consideration by AVMED in its regulatory decision-making, it should be made public.

It couldn’t possibly be a reference to this, because it is not high level evidence of anything about CVD and difficulty in performing intra-cockpit tests: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201406.pdf

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

If anybody is reading this and thinks it's just CVD pilots and doesn't affect me please read some of the posts. Are there any conditions that any of us could develop that could be tret in the same manner? Suddenly you could be faced with having to prove you are safe as this CVD issue has left left a dangerous precedent.

As Sunfish and Creampuff keep asking where is the evidence? Why not make this an open debate? We might be in a better position to understand and manage CVD better if they were more collaborative rather than adversarial in their stance.

[Creampuff]

These extracts from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them, by David H. Freedman, are still my favourites:

“Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them.”

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,”

“Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously.”

“[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science ...”

“[A]ssuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time.”

“Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.”

[Bill Smith]

What brissy said :D :D :D

[dubbleyew eight]

it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind

That must have been a very odd population, or there was something causing acquired deficiencies in colour vision. Acquired deficiencies are pretty common in fact.
Eye disease, some medications, even prolonged solar damage can cause changes in colour vision.

honestly ausdoc you're a grade a certified ******.
have you ever thought that the word might have gone around that the site didn't give them a hard time, the pay was good, and on the recommendations of existing employees they were short listed for the jobs?

prove your statements regarding acquired deficiencies. if kumar and clark list only one clinical item in the entire 'clinical medicine' you and CAsA might just be bull****ting us. show us the evidence.

Why the hell is CASA tilting at windmills all the time????????????????
I've been telling you the reason for ages now. CAsA are incompetent.

[gerry111]

A long while back, CAA (later CASA) and their AVMED were progressive.

(My thinking is the early 1980's as that also applied to me, then.)

I believe that the then attitudes were simply these:

Unless you present with reasons that are clearly unsafe, then go flying!

Bob Hoover was denied his FAA flying licence, all those years ago, in the 1990's. But the then progressive Australian authority were prepared to allow him to do a proper medical and grant him an Australian licence. And he subsequently flew here as safely as he had always done.

I seem to remember that the FAA may have removed his entitlement (Freedom) to fly simply because he may have been deemed to be "Too Old".

Bob's now a highly experienced, retired aviator but clearly he's still alive!

Please pardon my thread drift. But the CVD thingy may be just the start...

As you all know? :eek:

[LeadSled]

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.Ausdoc,
I very strongly recommend that you reread and seriously consider the reasoning supporting the Denison AAT decision.

Core to that decision was that CVD "normal" had never been established by any scientifically conducted studies as an aviation requirement ie ; the "standard" has been carried over from military screening standards.

I would further point out that, last time I looked, use of colour in "glass" instruments was restricted to the four standard printing colours, plus black and white.

I believe it is quite incorrect to say that there is increasingly "sophisticated' use of colour in aviation operations.

Indeed, one might read the derivation of "sophisticated", and who were the Sophists, quite appropriate, really.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Hoover's FAA medical was withdrawn because two FOIs "thought he looked frail" --- when he objected (as bureaucracies do) the "FAA" lined up against him, en mass, to support "their own". I got to know Hoover in latter years, he was eternally grateful for what Australia did for him, not only the enlightened medical section, but Flying Operations in the form of Barry Diamond and the RVAC, who tutored him to pass the exams he had to do. Never again are we likely to see a CPL flight test, multi rating, initial issue of an instrument rating, aerobatic rating and an unlimited low level waiver --- all in the one flight.

[Kharon]

Aye : Once wuz warriors ; now just wurryers. Pass the Prozac Leady old mate.. (Had to Google to find out what that stuff is, they even have it for dogs, can you believe it?).

Petition – HERE (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14045357757347&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=62033343-0c9c-4a48-b245-481342e077a7&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpacific-general-aviation-questions%2F527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-18.html&v=1&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpacific-general-aviation-questions%2F527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-19.html&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fen-AU%2Fpetitions%2Fthe-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers&title=The%20Empire%20Strikes%20Back!%20on%20Colour%20Defecti ve%20Pilots%20-%20Page%2018%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=%3Cfont%20color%3D%22%230563c1%22%3ESIGN%20HERE%3C%2Ffon t%3E) – Sign NOW, Choccy frog for 1000 th customer.

Don't let the site bother you. The petition site is 'tricky', consider un-ticking the two options at the bottom of the sign in box and once you have 'signed in' and 'voted' look in the top right corner – make sure you log out – or you stay logged in (sneaky). My 'system' says the certification is not trusted, but that just may be the way my 'box' is rigged. I have checked the site as well as I can, nothing nasty has arrived – yet.

Toot toot...-.-

[Creampuff]

[I]t seems almost like someone in CASA thinks the only way to keep pilots and the public safe is to keep them on the ground.... for any spurious reason they can think of!It's a bit more complex than that.

When you read all the material about "evidence-based risk management" of aviation medical issues, one of the purported benefits is that people who might otherwise not have met the 'standard' for medical certification may still be able to fly.

Great idea!

In principle.

After all, we can see all the people who would, in the past, have not achieved the standard but are now allowed to fly, subject to limitations.

The reason it's not such a good idea in practice is that it is a perfect platform for a bureacrat on a crusade to demand to know everything about every aspect of a person's life that could impact on his or her 'safety' in the air, so that the bureacrat can condescend to kindly grant (at a fee and after a delay) a conditional permission for the person to be present in the sky (hopefully accompanied by grovelling thanks for the privilege).

How else would the bureacrat be able to understand the risk, so as to manage and protect the public by preventing the 30,000' death plunge? The bureacrat must know everything about an individual in order to make a proper assessment about how to protect the public against the individual's 'conditions'. The bureacrat must have powers to demand information relevant to the assessment of the risk and must have power to place limitations to deal with the assessed risk.

Who else will protect the public from these risks?

Although it pains me to say it, the number of respondents to the Petition confirms for me a concern that I've had for a long time: Most participants in aviation in Australia are apathetic or cowards. That's why they continue to be treated like livestock.

[triton140]

The reason it's not such a good idea in practice is that it is a perfect platform for a bureacrat on a crusade to demand to know everything about every aspect of a person's life that could impact on his or her 'safety' in the air, so that the bureacrat can condescend to kindly grant (at a fee and after a delay) a conditional permission for the person to be present in the sky (hopefully accompanied by grovelling thanks for the privilege).


Exactly right Creampuff, happened to me on a non-CVD related medical issue - my DAME and specialist had no issues with me flying, but AvMed took 3 months to finally issue the medical (renewal subject of course to CAsA audit). The deskbound medicos would not even discuss the matter with me during that time, preferring to hide behind the insidious veil of bureaucracy.

And, of course, I was mightily thankful in a grovelling sense :(.

Folks, sign the petition!

[Kharon]

You know, I have the odd day when I ponder my profession and despair of industry; rare but they happen (before first coffee, disappearing after second coffee). Then I read the stuff you guys pop up with, faith restored, - always makes me smile. Now, 1000 + is a good result; not great, but very good. It's great that enough folk can see beyond their rice bowl. The CVD issue goes to the very heart why a holistic reformation of the regulator is so desperately and urgently needed.

Do what you can, use your overseas contacts, the butcher, the baker or candlestick maker; anyone who cares about a fair go and honouring the umpires decision. Remember, the pilot associations are not just paying lip service to this issue; they carry a lot of clout, have influence and are quite happy to 'pick up sticks' in a good cause, in support their workmates.

Fear no more the heat o' the sun,
Nor the furious winter's rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages;
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.

Fear no more the frown o' the great;
Thou art past the tyrant's stroke:
Care no more to clothe and eat;
To thee the reed is as the oak:
The sceptre, learning, physic, must
All follow this, and come to dust.

Fear no more the lightning-flash,
Nor the all-dreaded thunder-stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finished joy and moan;
All lovers young, all lovers must
Consign to thee, and come to dust.

No exorciser harm thee!
Nor no witchcraft charm thee!
Ghost unlaid forbear thee!
Nothing ill come near thee!
Quiet consummation have;
And renownéd be thy grave!”


Selah...

Shakespeare poem for Sunday reading - Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymbeline)-

[Sunfish]

The problem CASA doesn't realise it's courting is deliberate non compliance.

When Regulation becomes too onerous and compliance becomes virtually impossible then at some point pilots and operators will decide that disobedience and hiding are cheaper.

At that point CASA faces an impossible task because it can't be everywhere at once. From anecdotal comments from pilots far more experienced than I am, this is already rife with medicals. It sounds to me that maintenance is going to go the same way shortly.

To put that another way, as a student I worked at a highly unionised chemical plant one summer; the first thing the leading hand taught me in reference to managers and foremen was "tell 'em nothing!". The truss review is the last chance to tell them anything. If nothing is done, communication by industry will be reduced to the bare minimum. Nothing will be reported. Safety issues won't be raised and a blind eye will be turned to events at every opportunity.

Grudging, minimal, compliance will be attempted as we descend to Third World standards.

[Frank Arouet]

In The US flying is a gift. In Australia flying is a privilege. When granted that privilege, one had a right to exercise it. The trouble now is everything is becoming gratuitous and one wonders if it's all worth it. Pilots are forced to fight for that privilege and are having a difficult time exercising what is left of it. CAsA are making aviation safety an uncertainty and people "WILL" beat the system because it is natural to do so. The travelling public should be advised of the broken incompetent and dangerous system.


All pilots have a duty of care to advise the public they are operating in a bureaucratic induced fog that refuses to lift. You are Pilot in Command. It's no good saying after the crash, "I told you so" or "I was acting under orders". The Nuremburg Trials found this excuse lacking.


It's too late for Truss to blame the other mob for this. He had his chance and passed. He now has another chance to rectify the problem and he needs to be put on notice that if he fails he alone will be responsible.


Do anything, do something, or be branded that apathetic coward!


At least sign the petition and start another. Let Brandis know what is going on and don't assume he knows anything. Write him a letter before his interim report is published.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms/terms-reference
http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms

[004wercras]

It's too late for Truss to blame the other mob for this. He had his chance and passed. He now has another chance to rectify the problem and he needs to be put on notice that if he fails he alone will be responsible.
Very true Frank. It's interesting that Mr Truss, as a government representative, has taken an oath to the Australian public. It's time that he honoured that oath...
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited spiralling debt - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited an expensive 'boat problem' - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited a crooked carbon tax - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited a diseased, broken and out of control aviation industry, a condition decades in the making and predominately at the hands of government bureaucracies - yet it refuses to act, refuses to acknowledge the problems, refuses to listen to industry, refuses to act proactively with honesty and integrity??? What are you scared of Miniscule?

Tick Tock Minister? Oh yes indeed Minister - TICK TOCK!

[LeadSled]

It's interesting how the current government has inherited a diseased, broken and out of control aviation industry, a condition decades in the making and predominately at the hands of government bureaucracies - yet it refuses to act, refuses to acknowledge the problems, refuses to listen to industry, refuses to act proactively with honesty and integrity??? What are you scared of Miniscule?

No, he is not the least bit scared, there were no serious election promises about aviation, because to most voter aviation is airlines, and CASA and the "Australian Rules" are great, must be, because we have the "world's best safety record"(which we don't).

I can think that I can say, with great confidence, that in order of importance, aviation is not on his top 10 "to do" list, indeed, about the only aviation matter of interest to the Government is: "Would it have any effect on re-election of the Government if Qantas went broke or real control was sold off".

Sad, but true.

At the recent NP national conference, aviation as a policy matter was not mentioned in any meaningful way.

The best hope we have is Senator David Fawcett chipping away.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

One should be mindful of the possibility of a D/D election if the current Senate proves unworkable. If Abbott can't govern with what he has, he will loose nothing by calling another election. It's a 50/50 chance and the plebs will eventually get the government they deserve.


A joint sitting of parliament to break the deadlock could work, but this is only a short term budget solution. (I'm certain Labor won't block supply). The LNP may attempt to legislate minor parties out of existence, (with the help of Labor), but he still needs a new election sooner or later.


If this be, aviation must be put on the table of "promises". Fawcett certainly has the runs on the board to get this seen to and he must make Brandis aware of the goings on at FF, the CVD situation and the AAT.


http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/531950-darwin-award-candidates-casa-fodder-5.html


Read post #92 by scavenger.


In the meantime, sign the CVD petition ad write Brandis a letter.

[triadic]

Sad, but there are few votes in aviation - change that and we may have some hope! :ugh::ugh:

[brissypilot]

A late entry from AOPA, but better late than never... :D

7th July 2014

Mr. Peter Fereday
Executive Manager
Industry Permissions
Avmed Branch
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Re: Colour Vision Deficiency

Dear Mr. Fereday,

As we are sure that you are aware the issue of Aeromedical safety in colour deficient pilots was examined very thoroughly at two Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings about 25 years ago. To the best of our knowledge this examination of the Pape and Denison appeals was the most comprehensive carried out anywhere in the world and lasted for over 30 days.The AAT overturned CASA's ruling about colour deficient pilots not being able to fly at night. To the best of AOPA's knowledge this examination still remains the most comprehensive carried out anywhere. Pilots have been able to fly at night and undertake IFR operations in Australia for 25 years. More recently they have been using modern "glass cockpit instrumentation", again without incident. AOPA strongly supported these appeals at the time and we continue to support the current rules pertaining to colour deficient pilots.

To the best of AOPA's knowledge there has never been an aviation accident or incident in Australia directly attributable to a pilot being colour deficient. AOPA agrees with the use of evidence based procedures in evaluating aeromedical disposition but in this case where is the evidence that colour deficient pilots may be unsafe?! With now 25 years of safe operations utilizing these pilots the evidence surely indicates the opposite situation.

This is why we and many of our members are distressed by a letter sent out under your name on 6th June 2014 to all colour deficient pilots and to their employers asking them to reconsider their current flight crew privileges and for pilots to seek the advice of their DAME and/or their personal physician. This letter was apparently based on some alleged medical research which reportedly indicated that the safety implications of colour vision deficiency were greater than first thought.

The aviation industry has been kept ignorant of this evidence. If it is so important then why has it not been released for proper evaluation?
AOPA is aware of a further letter from you stating that any changes could be far down the track and would only occur after proper evaluation and consultation, however the first letter has already placed seeds of doubts in the minds of aviation employers and pilots could well be overlooked for promotion and progression to more complex aircraft due to possible implications of employing colour deficient pilots.

To our mind this initial letter should never have been sent without proper evaluation of this alleged new evidence. It most certainly should not have been sent to aviation employers.

AOPA respectfully requests your Department to write again to all of the affected pilots and their employers stating that CASA does not intend to proceed with any action in relation to colour deficient pilots unless genuine strong evidence emerges of a safety issue and, if that does become the case, then the evidence is thoroughly examined by expert ophthalmologists and that proper consultation is conducted with the aviation industry.

Yours Sincerely,

Aaron Stephenson
CEO

CC: Mr John McCormick
GPO BOX 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Minister Warren Truss
PO Box 283
MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Could CASA's action constitute bullying and harassment of CVD pilots. I feel their reluctance to engage in open discussion does not put them in a good position.

If they believe there is a safety risk surely they need to be more open to resolve rather than take such an adversarial approach.

Mr Fereday is not the driver on this issue but I bet he'll end up the fall guy if needed.

[Sunfish]

AOPA's letter is far too polite.

I have direct personal and business experience of a "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) campaign waged by people paid more, and with more brains than CASA and I know one when I see one.

The correct technique is to boot the bastards in their Armani suits out the door.

From Wiki:

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information........................

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry but has since been used more broadly.[3][dubious ] FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

[Kharon]

Pathetic as it is, the AOPA windsock points in the right direction, for nothing, short of an act of the gods would provoke them to stand up against CASA; unless they were certain sure. The letter pitiful, the message beautiful....There are two beautiful parts to the CVD issue; one is the very public way in which it defines 'how' the system can be and is manipulated to suit; two, is that this can be clearly seen and is 'understandable' to that famous 'man at the back of the room'.

Leadsled suggests Now we are seeing the murky depths --- CASA making decisions based on "a potential liability for CASA".,

In other words, CASA instituting the most draconian medical standards so as to limit any CASA liability for having instituted any medical standard less than the most restrictive.

Under oath in the Federal Court, an admission was extracted from the then head of Airworthiness of CASA, that CASA routinely rejected otherwise sound and lawful proposals, on the grounds that CASA approving the project could create a potential future liability for CASA.

Unfortunately, here we have the interaction of, in my opinion, a CASA DAS who seems to take a very black and white view of the law, a PMO who, In my opinion, believes that only the strictest and most limiting medical standards should be applied, and, of course, the CASA legal branch.

The serious effect of a "potential liability for CASA" has had a long history of resulting in very adverse and regressive CASA decisions.

This argument carries some merit; and perhaps, if we were dealing with 'normal' humans it could be considered the prime motivation. Standing alone, the need to reduce 'liability' seems a reasonable enough argument. Even so; there are much more civilised means of achieving that end than we are now witnessing.

In the CVD matter, there has been no such discussion or explanation, if indeed such an argument ever existed in the woolly mind of Avmed. What we see is the preferred method; that of total, systematic absolute bastardry at work. I'll admit it's but a poor example when compared to some of the really stellar CASA actions mounted against operators and individuals. But it does serve to highlight why the reform process, weak as it, is must be brought into reality and made to work, properly, NOW...if not before; 2008 would have been a good time.

If the tip of the Pel Air iceberg was not enough justification for some form of 'judicial' inquiry into the abhorrent behaviour CASA will stoop to; the CVD matter must add significantly more bulk to the now clearly visible aberration.

Until one of the bullies has been dragged out in front of the class, publicly whipped and humiliated; the rest of the gang will continue their antics, unchallenged and unabated. There are a couple of prime targets suitable for use as example; loads of evidence, miles of facts and enough anger to get the job done. In public if need be, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the minuscule and his government. It would be better, all around, if this was done quietly, confidentially, in private; lest the world discover exactly what has been done in the name of 'aviation safety'; by whom, how and at what cost. The list of atrocities is long, the register of moral corruption full and the endless bastardry clearly visible.

Tick tock minuscule; don't forget to watch your Sunday papers. It would be amusing to watch the opposition using the WLR as a weapon against the man who did nothing – twice. What price the Qld elections then – no votes in aviation; wrong assumption, very wrong. Everyone who travels in an aircraft votes, they are easily swayed and even more easily scared witless. So think on....

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

Sarcs is paying attention, perhaps the Fawcett speech – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/542738-petition-minister-truss-2.html#post8557850)– will persuade the last, hesitant few that's it's OK to have your say; even in a small way.

Colour me HAPPY.

[brissypilot]

Perhaps we need to start a petition to make Senator Fawcett the Minister :D

n80roKjPToc
Senator FAWCETT (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)(South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a layman—understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

The issue I would like to touch on tonight though is about a small group of people in the aviation environment. One of the characteristics of a plural liberal democracy such as we have here in Australia is that we respect and look after the rights of minorities. Amongst the pilot population in Australia—the estimates vary, but it is well over 30,000—there is a small group, numbering in their hundreds, potentially around 400, who have a colour vision deficiency. For many years—in fact going right back, I think the first publication that dealt with this was in 1926. People made the assumption, as they looked at aircraft deriving from the days of sailing ships and steamships where they had red and green lights for navigation lights, that if a pilot could not discriminate colours, then he was not safe to fly by night. And since 1926, that document has formed bodies of thought that have flowed through into regulation.

The current ICAO—the international organisation that looks after aviation—document recognises that, to use climate change terms, the science is not settled. They are not actually sure what difference a colour vision deficiency makes to an individual's ability to safely pilot an aircraft by day or by night. Despite that, regulators around the world have tended to err on the side of safety and say, 'We won't let people fly by night unless they pass one of a number of tests'. What that has meant is that for around nine per cent of the male population around the world, those who would aspire to be pilots or even air traffic controllers, are often denied that opportunity.

That changed here in Australia about 25 years ago. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal there was a case that has become known as the Denison case where a colour-vision-deficient pilot took the regulator to the tribunal saying: 'This is unfair. I can demonstrate that I'm competent to fly.' The Commonwealth, because of the degree of interest, funded the applicant as well as the defence, through the then CAA, and so you had a test case where both parties brought in lots of experts. At the end of it, the judgement was made that in fact pilots who had a colour vision deficiency should be able to demonstrate their competence and be licensed to fly. The only condition that was put on that was that they could not captain high-capacity airline aircraft.

As a result of that, Australia is unique in the world in that we now have some 25 years of experience of people with a colour vision deficiency who have been flying, and they have been flying everything from light aircraft by day through to regional type airliners; single pilot, for example overnight freight or the Royal Flying Doctor Service, through to co-pilot roles, particularly in regional type aircraft. We also have—because a number of the principal medical officers within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have sought to facilitate people with a colour vision deficiency to fly and have implemented things like practical flight tests for people to demonstrate their competence—some people now captaining large capacity aircraft and they have been doing so quite safely for a number of years and in some cases have well over 10,000 hours of flying. That says that, despite the theory, much of which has its origins in that 1926 document, practice shows that people with a colour vision deficiency can operate aircraft safely.

There are four key areas that people raise concerns about. One is to do with the tower. If you lose your radio and there is a control tower, you have to look for the red, green or flashing lights to tell you whether you can land, take off et cetera. People are concerned that if you cannot distinguish the lights then you would not be able to land safely. Again that was probably valid in 1926, but the reality is that on the top of the approach plates that I and other pilots use when we fly is the phone number for the tower. It says, 'If you lose radio contact, phone the tower.' The headset I use, like many others, has a bluetooth connection for a phone so you can quite safely, if you need to, have a redundant system that is specified in the publications to call the tower. So I think that argument is somewhat outdated.

There is also the argument that, with the advent of EFIS screens or glass cockpits, the increased use of colour means that you must be able to distinguish the colours in order to be able to operate safely. One pilot recently underwent a test in a simulator with a CASA flying operations inspector. He specifically asked to be tested on all the night sequences information from the cockpit and he was assessed as being quite safe to operate. In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit.

There is also concern about traffic and whether you will see the position lights on aircraft. The reality is that many aircraft now have bright white strobe lights for collision avoidance. The interesting part is that the aircraft that most these people have been able to fly over the 25 years are aircraft that do not have automated systems to support the pilot. The one type of aircraft they are not generally allowed to fly in Australia—your larger airlines—has things like white strobes; predominately flies in controlled airspace where air traffic control provides a degree of separation; and has traffic collision avoidance systems, TCASs, that give automated warnings of proximity to other aircraft. So there appears again, both in practice and just conceptually, to be a problem with the restriction that has been placed on people there.

The last area is the PAPI, the precision approach path indicator, which is a glide slope indicator that is positioned next to a runway for pilots to use at night. Because it relies on a combination of red and white lights there is a concern that certain kinds of colour-vision-deficient pilots would not be able to interpret those lights. Again, the confound for that theory is that over 25 years hundreds of pilots have flown thousands of approaches at night using PAPIs quite safely, which says that either the PAPI itself has additional cueing, such as the intensity of the lights, or, more probably, there are enough redundant cues in the surrounding environment that the pilot can land safely. That is backed up by the fact that CASA will provide an exemption if the PAPI is unserviceable: you can still fly your aircraft and land it. That says that the PAPI is a nice thing to have but it is clearly not essential for landing an aircraft.

For this minority group of pilots there has been a change in CASA's view. They have decided to review the safety of these people flying aircraft. They have written to the individual pilots and to employers saying that research, which they have not published, has shown that these pilots may be unsafe. But they have not clarified what that is. The history over the last 25 years shows that that is not the case. Previous principal medical officers in CASA have shown a willingness to support pilots. I am concerned that the attitudes of a few within the regulator may be putting at risk this group, albeit a minority group. In our democracy we look after the rights of minorities. There is an injustice being done to this group. I will be working with the government to fund either another test case or research to make sure that this group receives the justice that the last 25 years have shown that they are due.

On another note, it appears AOPA are finally starting to take more of an interest in the AvMed woes. :ok:

Problems with AVMED

Dear Member,

As you are no doubt aware, AOPA has an advisory panel set up to assist members with issues relating to Medical, Maintenance, Insurance & Legal matters.

The vast majority of complaints to date are in relation to medical issues and problems with AVMED.

AOPA is concerned that AVMED / CASA & the Minister are not aware as to the extent of medical grievances currently suffered by pilots in Australia.
We are currently preparing correspondence to go to AVMED / CASA and the Minister and would like to include a petition/feedback from members who are currently experiencing problems with AVMED. This will allow us to demonstrate the widespread impact of the problems with AVMED.

We invite you to provide us with brief details of your complaint. Please keep the detail relatively brief, as we intent to attach the responses to our correspondence.

Please include:

· Name
· ARN #
· AOPA Member #
· Details of AVMED Issue

Please provide your response within 14 days by 24 July 2014.
Please email your response to:

Email: [email protected]
Fax: 02 9791 9355
Post: P.O. Box 26 Georges Hall NSW 2198

Yours faithfully,
Aaron Stephenson
CEO

[outofwhack]

More dirty work presented by Fereday for the PMO. I think Fereday is being lined up to be the fall guy for this bastardry!

http://arthurpape.com/LetterfromFereday.jpg

http://arthurpape.com/LetterfromFereday2.jpg

[thorn bird]

More weasel words, the stench of the sewer this guy resides in waft through his letters, have these people no shame?.

[outofwhack]

Oh - how could I forget - here's the list of references that CAsA avmed provided with the letter.

All 262 of them!

About 261 of these make the ASSUMPTION that defective colour vision is unsafe in aviation and discuss the testing of colour vision.

Nice of CAsA to include reference 41 by Clark, BAJ, Gordon, GE.
"Hazards of Colour Coding in Visual Approach Slope Indicators". Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

This paper predicted the Tallahasee accident years before it happened.
The captain was not CVD and he was monitoring the black-hole PAPI equipped approach.

The size of the list is proof that CAsA intend to use 'quantity rather than quality' to fight this case and beat up the little guy until he cannot afford to continue the case.

http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/CVD%20References.pdf

[triton140]

Good to see CAsA is at the cutting edge of this research, one of their papers dates back to 1855 :D.

Looks like a cut and paste job to me to try to bamboozle us, the courts and the Parliament. No effort has been made to cull the list for relevance.

[thorn bird]

Errr, pardon if I misunderstood CAsA's reason for destroying the careers, livelihoods and wellbeing of some 400 Australian "Citizens", but didn't they say they had "Recent" research??. They never mentioned the volume!!!... about every bit of paper written with CVD in it back to 1885!!

Oh Good grief!!...Excuse me.

Hoi!!!...Mr. Attorney General, you have an inquiry going on about the rule of law...

Want a really good example of bureaucratic buggery??

Have we got a deal for you!!..... and mate CVD is just the start!!

While their at it, perhaps your investigators could find the persons responsible for hacking a serious CAsA critic's computer and hampering his ability to contribute to the debate.

In Case your wondering the vast majority of the population of this country is under the impression that we live in a democracy, do we or don't we?? Your college in government, minister Wuss, seems reluctant to confront corruption, are you of the same Ilk?

The question that troubles me is Why???

What possible motive? what perverted reason? is compelling CAsA to deliberately and maliciously destroy an Australian industry?

I've heard said, someone overheard a member of the iron ring state if he had his way the only aircraft operating in Australian sky's would be "RPT or Military".

Is it his warped military Philosophy that drives CAsA to wipe out a whole industry?

I just don't accept they are not intelligent enough to realize what they are doing.

So it must be intentional, malicious and carefully planned, the big question is why?

[Creampuff]

From wikipedia:With the Federation of the Australian colonies into a single nation, one of the first acts of the new Commonwealth Government was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, otherwise known as the White Australia policy, which was a strengthening and unification of disparate colonial policies designed to restrict non-White settlement. Because of opposition from the British government, an explicit racial policy was avoided in the legislation, with the control mechanism being a dictation test in a European language selected by the immigration officer. This was selected to be one the immigrant did not know; the last time an immigrant passed a test was in 1909.

Perhaps the most celebrated case was Egon Erwin Kisch, a left-wing Czechoslovakian journalist, who could speak five languages, who was failed in a test in Scottish Gaelic, and deported as illiterate.The High Court ultimately overturned the decision (on the basis that Scottish Gaelic was not a European language...)

So Australia has 'progressed' to the point at which the control mechanism for pilots, who are demonstrably competent in all respects, is a vision test selected by a bureacrat.

I find it exquisitely ironic that a person whose skin colour would, in the past, have resulted in him being subjected to a test that conveniently justified, on appallingly irrelevant racial grounds, the person's exclusion as a citizen of Australia - Can't write in Scottish Gaelic, don't you know old boy? Not the kind of chap we can have around here old boy! - is now determining the tests that will discriminate on the basis of colour perception abilities that have no relevance to the fitness of a person to be pilot.

As to the letter, the paraphrasing provides an insight into the thinking of the author.CASR Part 67 clearly identifies the process that is required to be carried out ...A tip contained in the first textbook I was told to read at law school: Don't use the word "clearly". If something is clear, it will be clear.... a relevant test determined by CASA that simulates an operational situation.That's not what regulation 67.150(6)(c) says.

That regulation says (in fact? clearly?) that a person who does not satisfy (a) or (b) must instead demonstrate that he or she meets the applicable standard by:... correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.Note that, contrary to Mr F's letter, the word "relevant" in the CASRs to which he refers does not apply to the "test". Rather, and very importantly, the word "relevant" applies to the word "lights".

The person has to "correctly identify all relevant coloured lights in a test ... that simulates an operational situation." That sentence would continue to make sense if it said the person has to correctly identify all "relevant lights" in a test, but wouldn't continue to make sense if it said the person has to correctly identify all "relevant coloured" in a test.

The requirement is not that the person has to identify the colour of relevant lights. Rather, the test is that the person has to identify all relevant coloured lights.

So, for example, the person has to be able to identify the fact that the coloured light 'over there' indicates the undercarriage is not down and locked, and that the coloured light 'over there' indicates the cabin pressure is decreasing at a high rate. There is no requirement for the person to know what the colours of each of those lights happen to be or that they happen to be different (if they are).

That interpretation is consistent with the safety intent of the legislation.

If CASA 'determines' a test whose aim is to find out whether a person can identify and distinguish between the colours of lights, CASA is no different to the administrators of tests requiring someone to write in Scottish Gaelic.

[Kharon]

Creamy – I do declare you an honest man. A worthy. It is an very undervalued accolade in the modern world. So, perhaps Sirrah, should the opportunity present, I could buy you a beer; whilst we argue, amicable like...

[dubbleyew eight]

on my mother's side I am 7th generation Australian.
I couldn't pass a test in Scottish Gaelic.

I'll be McComic couldn't either.

[thorn bird]

Brilliant, well said creamie.

[Creampuff]

If the CVD issue were being managed on the basis of evidence and safety risk, the test determined by CASA for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) should be based on reality: Can the person pass the flight test for an instrument rating? Can the person pass the flight test for a multi-engine rating? Can the person meet the required level of competence in a sim ride? (Of course, we know the results of those tests, because CVD pilots have been passing them for decades.)

It's obvious that CASA is going to try to tough this one out.

It seems to me that the argument to leverage off the mystique of aviation and the fear of the 30,000' death plunge will be based on "the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits". The "problem" - so it will be alleged - is that "when a light changes colour depending on the state of a system, or when the colours of digits change on an EFIS display", our CVD colleagues take longer than non-CVD pilots to notice the change. This and the consequent risks are a recent development the implications of which were not considered by the Tribunal in the previous matters.

I can see it now: CASA flashes up those airliner cockpit photos with all the dazzling and confusing arrays of coloured lights and dials and screens and numbers and words. "The colours in that cockpit are different for a reason, your Honour. How could a person who has a defect in the ability quickly to distinguish between those colours possibly be as competent, and therefore be as safe, as a person without that defect?" [Pause, to let the Tribunal contemplate the horror of the 30,000' death plunge...] (It won't work on the Tribunal, but CASA doesn't have too much else to argue.)

Time to do some very important homework, people.

Is anyone aware of any safety-critical system in any "modern cockpit" that annuniciates through, and only through, the change in colour of one light or text? E.g. A system that has a green light that itself changes to red to signify a safety-critical failure/circumstance requiring immediate attention?

Is anyone aware of any display that annunciates important information through, and only through, the change in colour of text/numbers?

Is anyone aware of any warning system in any "modern cockpit" that does not use multiple methods to annunicate a safety-critical failure/circumstance requiring immediate attention? e.g. buzzer/tone sound plus flashing light in front of the pilot plus a physical intervention to cancel the annunciation.

(I would have thought that if the answer to any of those questions is 'yes', it's a badly-designed system, irrespective of the CVD issue.)

Is anyone aware of any circumstances in which a CVD pilot takes more time than a non-CVD pilot to notice a change in important information or an annuciation of a safety-critical failure/circumstance requiring immediate attention?

[Creampuff]

Choccy frog for the first person to identify the paper from which this comes:...

• Identification of the most important, safety-critical, colour-related tasks for pilots and faithful reproduction of such tasks in the laboratory made it possible to establish experimentally the safe limits of colour vision loss. The visual task analysis carried out as part of this study identified the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) as the most important, safety-critical task that relies largely on colour vision.
...

• Analysis of PAPI results shows that the use of a modified “white” light results in significant, overall improvements in PAPI performance, particularly within normal trichromats and deuteranomalous observers. The modified (or colour corrected white) is achieved simply by adding a colour correction filter to the standard white lights produced by the source. The filter employed in this study decreased the colour temperature of the standard white (used in PAPI systems) by 200 MIREDS (micro reciprocal degrees).So there you go: The most important, safety-critical, colour-related tasks for pilots is, apparently, PAPI, and simply fitting a ten buck filter to the PAPI apparently results in "significant, overall improvements in PAPI performance".

Why not just:

- fit the ten buck filter to the PAPI (given that it results in significant, overall improvement in PAPI performance), and

- test CVD pilots using real PAPIs in the real world (given that PAPI has been identified as the most important, safety-critical task that relies largely on colour vision)?

[tolakuma manki]

CAA Paper 2009/04 is your reference.
Must add that the only interest I have in this discussion is that I carry the red green defect as recessive gene, my son is red green deficient

[Creampuff]

Choccy frog to tm! :ok:

As a matter of interest, is your son/does your son aspire to be a pilot? Does he have any trouble with PAPI?

[outofwhack]

Why am I not surprised its a UK CAA paper that is quoted?

It is the British ICAO medical officer and his CAA chronies we are fighting here. They are spurring CASA to comply with the way it has always been in UK/Europe where Cvd pilots have never been allowed to fly past sunset with no hope of a decent career.

When we clear up the final stinking remains of the ACPS in Australia they will be the next target!

CVDPA

[tolakuma manki]

From the CAA paperThere is also some evidence to suggest that the likelihood of accidents is increased in pilots that are colour deficient (Vingrys & Cole, 1986). Other studies have shown that subjects with colour vision deficiencies make more errors and are slower in recognising aviation signals and colour coded instrument displays (Vingrys & Cole, 1986; Cole & Maddocks, 1995; Squire et al, 2005). There are also a small number of tasks in which colour information is not used redundantly and therefore the correct interpretation of colour signals becomes very important.Creampuff, have you read the source documents bolded above? As to your question, no but he is in a profession that also uses the Ishiraha plate test as entrance hurdle, and was able to identify the correct image or non image by another method.

[Creampuff]

There is also some evidence to suggest that the likelihood of accidents is increased in pilots that are colour deficient (Vingrys & Cole, 1986).So what?

There is also some evidence to suggest that the likelihood of accidents is not increased in pilots that are colour deficient (see: decades and tens and thousands of hours of real life operations).Other studies have shown that subjects with colour vision deficiencies make more errors and are slower in recognising aviation signals and colour coded instrument displays (Vingrys & Cole, 1986; Cole & Maddocks, 1995; Squire et al, 2005).Those studies don't "show" that CVD pilots make more errors and are slower than non-CVD pilots, in real-life operations.There are also a small number of tasks in which colour information is not used redundantly and therefore the correct interpretation of colour signals becomes very important.What are those tasks and where is the high level evidence to prove that pilots with CVD do not perform them as effectively as pilots without CVD in real life operations? The high level evidence is to the contrary.

My favourite paper is David H. Freedman's Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them. My favourite quotes from that paper:

“Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them.”

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,”

“Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously.”

“[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science ...”

“[A]ssuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time.”

“Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.”

[tolakuma manki]

Creampuff, you have no argument from me on your astute synopsis of the issue.
I have at times found that source documents do not support a given position, hence my question about the documents. I will continue to search for them

[Arthur Pape]

Creampuff (bless his socks) wrote:
My favourite paper is David H. Freedman's Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them. My favourite quotes from that paper:

“Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them.”

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,”

“Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously.”

“[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science ...”

“[A]ssuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time.”

“Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.”
The Pape and Denison hearings of the ‘80’s devoted a lot of energy to examining the “scientific” evidence of the day, the bulk of which came from the Vic College of Optometry. It is amazing how the same names just keep on popping up 25 years later. In those AAT hearings we mounted a sustained critique of the works written by Cole, Vingrys, MacDonald, and Bowman, to name just a few. The six paragraphs in the above quote were applicable to these works. None of the works presented by the then DOT were able to withstand the critiques offered, and the cases were lost on the basis of the bad evidence that the regulator presented through their proxies, the optometrists. There are more modern additions to the list, and the problem their works suffer from come from the same five points in the above quote.
It should be noted that these authors, both the old and the new, come from an industry sector that earns a great deal of income from the promotion of, and implementation of industrial colour perception standards. There is a multi-million dollar industry at stake. It didn’t shock me when I attended my first ASMA (Aerospace Medical Association Meeting) in Chicago last year and found a multitude of new colour vision tests on display, all vying for a piece of the action in the resurgence of aggressive promotion of the aviation colour perception standard. The marketing of the CAD test has been brilliant, as far as marketing goes. I wonder who started the CAD project off, the CAA UK or the City University, London, Applied Vision Research Department. Irrespective of the answer, the marketing claim that the CAD test is “aviation specific” is demonstratively untrue and not supported by the documentation provided. Make no mistake, the CAD alone represents a very large investment in the expectation of equally large profits. But, in the debate that is now raging in good old Oz, the CAD and its underlying philosophy, will be given the critical scrutiny it deserves.
I am so glad to see that so many who have contributed to this thread “get it” that the only tests that have validity in assessing the safe performance of pilots are those tests that measure the safe performance of pilots, i.e. the flight tests, simulator sessions, check and training tests, instrument renewals and so forth. They “get it” that in the entire history of aviation there has been only one accident in which the colour vision deficient status of a pilot was attributed a causal role, and that there are more plausible explanations for that crash, which if accepted, leave the tally of accidents due to CVD at NIL. Not bad for a century old industry.

[gerry111]

So while some people are saying complimentary things about Creampuff..

Creampuff achieved his 1000hrs GA PPL "in command" today.

And it was just so much fun to go flying with him, yet again, in his rather beautiful V35 Bonanza. :ok:

Sorry for the thread drift. Now back to topic!

[Prince Niccolo M]

brilliant - straight to the heart of the matter :D :ok: :D

[dubbleyew eight]

oi gerry111. naughty boy. cream puff is a kid in a wheelchair in salt lake city.
tisk tisk.

no mods it is not worthy of punishment. :E

[4dogs]

So Arthur,

It seems that you are saying:

Barry Cole was corrupted by commercial interests and cooked the books...

Optometrists are the enemy, even though in the eighties they were totally suppressed by the ophthalmologists...

My recollections of the man and the motivation for the research in the mid-80s is a bit different from yours, it would seem. At the time, such vision research was not widespread among scientists as it was not seen as offering the path to academic glory that other research areas seemed to do. My memory is that it was quite highly regarded within that part of the Australian scientific community that concerned itself with matters of aviation.

However, I am very open to the thought that the biggest failure of the research by Barry's group was that it failed to challenge the eleventh commandment - that there is no place in aviation for CVD. I wholeheartedly agree with Creampuff that neither the evidence nor the ICAO SARPs support such a view and we should again challenge it as the starting point for all the current CASA nonsense. I am also open to the thought that much of the research of those times is flawed in terms of modern experimental designs and verification methods and, on that basis, the conclusions should also be challenged.

However, I would be disappointed if we stray from the pinnacle of the moral high ground by implying or directly impugning the motives of those who long preceded the present debate and whose role in your and Denison's case has not been examined with any hint of procedural fairness.

Stay Alive,

[Creampuff]

Dr Pape can speak for himself, but I don't read his comments, or the findings of David H Freedman, as suggesting corruption.

Everyone has natural biases. (To a hammer, every issue is a nail...) That doesn't make them corrupt.

As you note, there is bias built into the whole CVD paradigm. It is manifested in capital "D": The word "defect" or "deficiency" has negative connotations.

As I keep saying, pilots with alopecia have a "D". They should therefore have restrictions imposed on their medical certificates until a causal link between alopecia and increased risk of accidents has been disproved.

[Arthur Pape]

I apologize, 4Dogs, for giving the impression that I was accusing anyone of corruption; such is far from the truth.

From 1977 onwards I was a close observer of the research work originating almost exclusively from the Vic College of Optometry. I was able to obtain via a FOI request a great deal of the correspondence between the regulator and the VCO, and the terminology was often along the lines of "defending the standard". Bias can arise from the terms of the contract between sponsors and researchers.

Contrary to your assertion regarding the suppression of the optometry school by the ophthalmologists, I found the exact opposite. I challenge any observer to find a published paper by any individual or collection of ophthalmologists on the topic of the aviation colour perception standard. In fact, in my dealings with them, I found most ophthalmologists were quick to acknowledge how little they knew about colour vision defects. I find the same today.

In 2002 there was a heated debate that played out in the pages of "Clinical and Experimental Optometry" between Dr Richard Wolfe, the Chairman, Visual Standards Committee, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, and a number of optometrists representing the College of Optometry. The debate topic was "Protans and Driving Safety" and the problem Dr Wolfe saw was the selective and inappropriate interpretation by the optometrists of published road accident data. Reading the same papers, Dr Wolfe came to the opposite view in regard to accident rates for colour defective drivers. The view of the ophthalmologists ultimately prevailed and the colour vision standard for road transport was subsequently abandoned Australia wide. I refer the reader to Clin Exp Optom 2002; 85: 6: 399-402. The same Dr Wolfe admits freely how little he knows about colour vision defects, but that was not the issue. The issue was, with close parallels to the current aviation colour vision debate, how a certain group mindset can predispose to a bias that is unlikely to be detected or exposed from within that group.

Optometry is but one of many disciplines within the broad field of the visual sciences . Until I got seriously into my own reading, I had never heard of the field of perception psychology. I too believed the eye was a camera and the brain something akin to a computer. I now know that human perception is far more amazing than what any such simple analogy can describe.

The common theme in much of the research presented to the AAT 25 years ago was the reduction of complex psychomotor tasks to the level of de-facto colour vision tests. People with colour vision defects are distinguished by their inability to pass colour vision tests, and experiments that reduce the task to a colour vision test will inevitably produce predictable results. The best illustration of this phenomenon is embodied in the two papers: MacDonald and Cole, in Ergonomics 1988, and Cole and MacDonald, in Opthal. Physiol. Opt.,1988 Vol 8. The first papers sought to determine the value of colour coding in the new technology of the day, the EFIS displays of the B767. The second measured the performance of colour defective observers against the performance of colour normal. The bias built into this paper was palpable, once it was realised that the colour normal subjects were sourced from the student ranks of the College of Optometry. Their mean age was of the order of 23 years. The colour defective subjects (from memory, four different groups) were sourced from the public patient lists of the College, with significantly greater mean ages and lower levels of academic backgrounds. None were pilots and all had brief indoctrination in the meaning of the various colour coded symbols that they would be expected to identify in a multiple choice task. What they were administered amounted to quasi colour vision tests. The results were a foregone conclusion. The design of the experiments was flawed at several levels, yet both papers passed through the peer review processes and were judged suitable for publication. Not a word of critique was subsequently ever sighted in the journals concerned. The critique of these papers in particular in the AAT was a lesson in basic experimental design and how not to do it.

I am alive!

[Creampuff]

So here's my WAG at what CASA will argue in the AAT.

CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150. By operation of law, neither CASA nor the AAT has any discretion but to refuse to issue a 'vanilla' Class 1 medical certificate, if a candidate does not demonstrate compliance with the standard, by:

- passing the test in paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150(6), or

- having failed the test in paragraph (a), by passing the test in paragraph (b), or

- having failed the test in both paragraph (a) and (b), by passing the test in paragraph (c).

It's a little like having a criterion for something that requires a candidate to be at least 18 years old or, if the candidate is less than 18 years old, is at least 17 years old and has obtained a Higher School Certificate or, if the candidate is less than 17 years old, is at least 16 years old and has obtained a School Certificate and a Bronze Medallion.

Each step is a 'yes' or 'no' that does not allow the exercise of any discretion, leading inevitably to a final 'yes' or 'no'.

(Don't confuse the choice as to what CASA pressed to be put in the regulation in the first place, or the efficacy of each 'yes'/'no' criterion, as a discretion as to application and operation of that regulation once it is made. Once it's law, it's binding on CASA and the AAT, unless the validity of the regulation is successfully challenged - not the AAT's jurisdiction - or the regulation is changed or repealed - not the AAT's jurisdiction.)

Assuming a candidate achieves a 'no' against paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150 and a 'no' against paragraph (b), the outcome is dictated by whether the candidate gets a 'yes' or a 'no' against paragraph (c). (There's a deeming provision in regulation 67.150(7) that applies to changed standards, but let's not complicate things with that at the moment.)

Paragraph (c) requires the candidate to demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion by:correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights, in a test determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.On the current terms of CASR 67.150 and noting the content of CASA's correspondence, my WAG is that paragraph (c) will be where the new CVD war will be fought in the AAT.

My WAG is that CASA will argue that it, and it alone, has the power to determine the test or tests for the purposes of paragraph (c), and its determination is not reviewable by the AAT. In other words, the AAT does not have power to decide that the test determined by CASA was not the correct and preferable test. If that argument gets up, the consequence is that the AAT cannot determine and substitute its own test, and subject the candidate to that substitute test and find that the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in that test. Instead, the only question, if any, for the AAT, is whether the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in the test determined by CASA.

I will have to think hard about all of that....

[dubbleyew eight]

I am alive!

you sure are.

how would you like a spell as director of aviation safety?

even if you spent 9 months a year off fishing you'd still do a more competent job of it than McComic.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Fereday's latest letter seems to indicate that pilots who have passed one of the practical tests to get the restrictions lifted may be retested as they won't be compliant with the latest standard. Are these guys included in the figure of 400 CVD pilots currently flying???

SN

[Frank Arouet]

A re-test! The proposer should be deported as an illiterate with a short attention span if he can't understand the proof of concept exhibited over the past 25 years. Probably can't even read Sanskrit let alone Gaelic.

[Creampuff]

Long post alert!

I have been doing some hard thinking. (My brain hurts...)

If the test determined by CASA for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) does not "simulate an operational situation", it seems to me that the determination is not valid.

What test should be determined?

I note that the words of regulation 67.150(6)(c) are "a" test determined by CASA, not "the" test determined by CASA. It therefore seems open to CASA to determine more than one test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c). This appears reasonable and consistent with the safety intent of the legislation, because (presumably) the operational circumstances in which a CPL/ATPL may find him or herself are very different to the operational circumstances in which an air traffic controller may find him or herself, when performing duties.

My reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue suggests to me that the use of PAPI is the most safety-critical task that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights (that happen to be coloured). If that is true, and the point of this whole rigmarole is to find out whether a CPL/ATPL's CVD causes him or her to be less safe than non-CVD colleagues, the test determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs would seem self-evidently to be the simulation of an operational situation involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD population.

The words "simulates an operational situation" are very important here. A valid test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) cannot be conducted in an unrealistic environment that bears no semblance to the actual operational environment of (in this example) an approach using PAPI. The simulated operational situation must include the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to the pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality, if the test is to be valid.

And what do decades and tens of thousands of hours of real life operations show about CVD pilots' performance using PAPI? (Rhetorical question...)

(As an aside, I note another exquisite irony that again shows why the focus on CVD is so bizarre. On my reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue, it seems to me that non-CVD pilots get fooled by PAPI indications in some atmospheric conditions. Instead of dealing with the substantive risk posed by the flaws in the technology itself, we instead devote all this energy to dealing with an issue that will not address the substantive risk. Ridding the skies of CVD pilots is not going to remove the risk posed by the PAPI technology itself. This is another manifestation of cognitive bias: Punters are blissfully ignorant of the risks posed by non-CVD pilots relying on PAPI in certain atmospheric conditions, but will scream to be saved if one of the pilots has CVD.)

What if CASA uses a test that is not valid and a candidate fails, and the AAT has no jurisdiction to substitute and administer its own test?

CASA's obligation to issue a medical certificate is in regulation 67.180(1). The obligation arises if an applicant satisfies the list of requirements in regulation 67.180(2).

So far as the CVD controversy is concerned, it seems to me the essential requirement out of the list is in paragraph (e):(e) either:

(i) the applicant meets the relevant medical standard; or

(ii) if the applicant does not meet that medical standard—the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation; ..The Empire's armour has a chink here.

Note that, by operation of law, the outcome is the same whether the candidate "meets the relevant medical standard" (sub-para (i)) or "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation" (sub-para (ii)): Either way, the candidate gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (e) 'box'. Assuming the candidate gets ticks in all the other boxes in the list in regulation 67.180(2), CASA is obliged to issue the certificate.

Key point: The AAT steps into CASA's regulation 67.180 'shoes' and it is open to the AAT to find that "the extent to which [a candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation", and therefore decide the AAT is bound to issue the certificate. The very existence of sub-para (ii) (and other provisions to which I will refer) shows that someone can be entitled to (note: Not that the regulator may condescend to begrudgingly gifting a certificate - the applicant is entitled to be issued the certificate) even if the applicant does not meet the relevant medical standard, provided that (quite reasonably) "the extent to which [the candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It is open to the AAT to find that the operational history of a CVD candidate demonstrates that his or her CVD is not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation.

What should happen if a candidate does not meet the relevant standard but is entitled to a certificate?

This is where I think CASA may have recently gone off the rails.

It appears that the way in which CASA has recently started dealing with CVD pilots who are taken not to meet the colour perception standard, due to failing the test determined by CASA, is to restrict the operations in which the holder may engage. I don't reckon the legislation permits CASA to deal with the circumstances in that way.

Regulation 67.180(8) deals expressly with (and I reckon exhaustively with) circumstances in which a candidate who does not meet the standard is nonetheless entitled to a certificate because "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation".

Regulation 67.180(8) relevantly says:A medical certificate issued to an applicant who does not meet the relevant medical standard for the issue of the certificate ... must bear a note of that fact.[My bolding] (The omitted text relates to another provision of regulation 67.180(2) that I will discuss, but I reckon it leads to the same end result.)

The only thing that I reckon should happen is the certificate should have a "note" that says: "Does not meet the colour perception standard in CASR 67.150 item 1.39". I don't reckon there should be any CVD-related conditions or limitations because, by definition, to get the certificate in the first place the candidate has been given a tick the box that says "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It does not make sense to me to have assessed the candidate as not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation, but then impose limitations or conditions purportedly to deal with a risk that has already been assessed as not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation. Yet this appears to be what CASA is doing.

If conditions and limitations were the mechanism intended to deal with the circumstances, why have regulation 67.180(8) at all?

The words I omitted from the quote of the text of regulation 67.180(8) refer to an applicant "to whom subparagraph [67.180](2)(f)(ii) applies". That subparagraph is about "relevant tests" and tests "directed by CASA". CASA (and therefore the AAT) may decide that a candidate who has undergone a test of that kind gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (f) 'box', if CASA (and therefore the AAT) "is satisfied that issuing a medical certificate to the applicant would not endanger the safety of air navigation." Once a candidate gets a tick in that box and is therefore entitled to the certificate, it seems to me that we end up in the same place: The only thing that should happen is that the certificate be marked with a "note" in accordance with regulation 67.180(8).

It seems to me that conditions on medical certificates may validly be imposed for things like vision correction. If the only way someone can meet the vision standard is by wearing glasses, it makes sense that the person's medical certificate be subject to a condition requiring the holder to wear glasses while exercising the privileges of his or her licence.

[Creampuff]

One of the unsolved mysteries of the CVD issue relates to the determination, by CASA under CASR 67.150(6)(c), of a test (or tests) that simulate/s an operational situation.

Is anyone aware of any piece of paper anywhere that has words to the effect that a delegate of CASA has determined a test or tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c)?

If so, can you provide a link or post a quote of what the document says?

[Creampuff]

I've just had a look at what is represented as the 'CAD Test'.

What I saw was just a big square comprising a mosaic of much smaller squares of various shades of grey, on which a medium sized square mosaic of various shades of a colour moves around. See Slide 3 of the UK CAA document here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/20090827CADForCMOsForum.pdf. I also found a video on youtube: CAD - Color Vision Assessment - YouTube

If that is really the 'CAD Test' and CASA has really determined it to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), I'm confident the latin maxim "accipere pisiāre" applies: Your Honour, CASA is taking the piss.

Funny one, CASA! Got us a beauty! :D

Could you now put the competent adults back in charge of the CVD issue, please?

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Come on chaps, cant you see the PAPI within the squares?? You have to de-focus, you know, like you do on final!

SN

[Creampuff]

Gotta say I'm a bit dubious about all this. :confused:

If that is the 'CAD test', and if CASA has determined the 'CAD test' to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), CASA is doing more than taking the piss.

Are there really candidates with CVD in Australia who've been asked to do the 'CAD test' in order to demonstrate compliance with the colour perception standard as required by 67.150(6)?

Really? :confused:

If you have been asked to do the CAD test in order to obtain a medical certificate from CASA, please send me a PM.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Creampuff, good posts.

What I'd like to see is evidence that a test is consistent with perception in a real environment "that simulates an operational situation". Prove the test has validity. Most just prove the condition of CVD and that some people perceive colours differently they don't prove a lot else and certainly not whether a CVD pilot is less safe than a non CVD pilot.


This is a complex issue but it appears the letters aren't clear.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Albert Einstein

[Creampuff]

I have had confirmation, from a person with first hand experience, that:

- CASA has required pilots to undergo the CAD Test, and

- the actual CAD Test is similar to but a more complicated version of the simplified one in youtube video, but in any event bears no semblance to any operational situation.

So here's where we are at, as far as I am concerned:

1. CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.

2. CASA is obliged to comply with the law, like everyone else.

3. A test determined by CASA for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) must "simulate an operational situation".

4. The CAD Test does not "simulate an operational situation", at least not for pilots. The CAD Test is merely another test that confirms what has already been determined by the application of the tests in paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.150(6).

5. Therefore, CASA cannot validly determine the CAD Test as a test under CASR 67.150(6)(c), for candidates who are pilots. (The fact that CASA has purported to use that test worries me, because it suggests to me that AVMED are blind to what the legislation requires, and why.)

6. If CASA complied with the law and determined a test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that properly simulates an actual operational situation in which the identification of lights (that happen to be coloured) is a safety-critical task, CASA would have a valid basis on which to decide whether a candidate has demonstrated that he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.

7. A candidate who passes a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) has, as a matter of law, demonstrated that he or she meets the colour perception standard. There is no valid basis on which CASA may require the candidate to undergo further testing: By law, the candidate meets the standard.

8. The test that should be determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs is the simulation of the most safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured: An approach involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD pilot population.

9. To be a "simulated operational situation" the test must be carried out in an environment that includes the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to any other pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality.

10. Assuming I am wrong and the CAD Test is a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), candidates who fail that test are still entitled to be issued a certificate if the extent to which he or she does not meet the colour perception standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation. The candidate's aeronautical experience is centrally relevant to the assessment of the likelihood of the candidate's CVD endangering the safety of air navigation. Assuming the candidate meets all the other standards, the certificate should merely bear a note of the fact that the holder does not meet the colour perception standard, and no more.

[brissypilot]

Brilliant posts Creamy :ok:

From Bill Smith's letter (http://www.pprune.org/8526987-post81.html):

CASA has determined the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) Test to be an appropriate test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c).

And from the Senate Estimates (http://cvdpa.com/news/casa-grilled-in-senate):

February Hansard: (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Feb%20Estimates%20-%20CASA%20CVD%20QON%20Answers.pdf)

Senator FAWCETT: I have a letter dated 24 January this year from CASA to a gentleman saying, 'CASA has determined the colour assessment diagnosis test to be an appropriate test for the purposes of the regulation' and it appears to be the test that CASA is now using to apply. My question is, in accordance with your letter, who made the decision that it is an appropriate test and on what basis did they make that decision?

Mr Fereday: It would have been for an individual occurrence; it's not across the board. All testing for colour vision is on a case-by-case basis; in terms of that decision it would have been our principal medical officer.

Senator FAWCETT: Clearly at some point in time somebody has decided that the test has a degree of efficacy that makes it worthwhile to use. My question is: who made that decision and on what basis?

Mr Fereday: It would be the basis of medical evidence of the test's validity. We could provide on notice the actual details of why that approach was the appropriate one.

Noting the concerns which arise in ensuring the reliability of test results where repeat testing occurs, together with more recent developments in developing aviation specific colour vision tests, the recently devised CAD test was chosen by CASA’s Principal Medical Officer as the most suitable third level test for the assessment of this particular individual.

May Hansard: (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Senate%20Estimates%20Hansard.pdf)

Dr Navathe: The point that you made about our flight tests and the difficulty of tests identifying people who have got colour vision deficiency, but not identifying people who may or may not be fit because of that colour deficiency to operate an aircraft, was very true a few years ago. Around 10 years ago, the UK CAA, with the local university, undertook a project to identify the specific colours which are important to aviation. This was a three phase project. The first phase was to look at the important colours outside the cockpit. The second phase was to identify the colours inside the cockpit, for which they used an Airbus and a Boeing cockpit. The third phase was to identify a test which would separate people who had abnormal colour deficiency from those who had abnormal colour deficiency but who were not colour safe. That was the intent of the project. That is how the CAD test has been developed. What the CAD test does is to specifically identify those colours and people who are able to meet the colour requirements for aviation...

So lets take a proper look at how this test was designed:

Minimum Colour Vision requirements for Professional Flight Crew: Task Analysis (https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2006_04%20Pt%20B.pdf)

2.1.2 The approach undertaken was to carry out a task analysis. This required firstly, a detailed study of the many flight manuals (10, 11, 12) to achieve a detailed knowledge of the different operating procedures. This was followed by a number of interviews with operational pilots during scheduled flights. In addition some data gathering was undertaken in flight simulators.

2.3 A Human Factors Consultant for QinetiQ, Centre for Human Sciences, collected the information required for the task analysis. The Human Factors Consultant spent time on flights, travelling on the flight deck of an Airbus A321 and a Boeing 757, observing and questioning the pilots from the two airlines.


3.1.7 The perceived importance of colour in any particular task was, after discussions with pilots, placed into three categories:


1. Low importance for safety2. Medium importance for safety
3. High importance for safety.





3.1.9 These categories relate, in the pilot’s perception, to the safety critical nature of the task. However, in almost all situations there were additional sources of information to aid the taking of a particular decision. Very few instances were found in which colour was the sole source of information and therefore likely to be safety critical in its own right. Because the task analysis was a very large undertaking, the scope was of necessity restricted to colour information.


7 It was concluded that the most colour critical elements in the pilots’ environment were the PAPI light lights and the parking lights

Ok - so we now have this brilliant CAD test derived on the basis of opinions from a task analysis undertaken by a human factors consultant, following discussions with colour vision normal pilots and observing how colour vision normal pilots operate. No details are provided as to the nature of those discussions and whether any attempt was made to objectively or empirically verify the comments made by those pilots. There was also no discussion on how an objective and empirical determination of the "importance for safety" was carried out.

Importantly, the task analysis did not involve any discussion with CVD pilots or request their expert opinion of how they perform tasks without full colour vision. This is probably because there are none in the UK to actually ask - which is what Dr Navathe is aiming to do here!

Not only were CVD pilots not even asked to give an opinion, most importantly the tasks themselves have never been validated by testing or observation of CVD pilots.

I wonder if anyone ever thought to come and ask the Aussie CVD pilots who've been flying for the last 25 years about their opinions?

It appears that CASA's only (flawed) argument for saying that the CAD "simulates an operational situation" is that it was derived as a result of this task analysis. The problem is however, that the task analysis leaves more questions than answers and so remains unconvincing. :ugh:

[Creampuff]

The CAD Test does not "simulate" anything, much less an "operational situation" remotely connected to aviation. Therefore, the CAD Test is not a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.160(6)(c).

The PMO needs to brush up on his comprehension skills and look up the words "simulate", "operational" and "situation" in the dictionary. The phrase "simulates an operational situation" has an obvious and uncontroversial meaning.

The purpose of the test under CASR 67.160(6)(c) is not to find out whether the candidate has CVD. We already know the candidate has CVD, as a consequence of the results of the tests under paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.160(6).

The purpose of the test is to find out whether the candidate is as capable as non-CVD colleagues in a safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured.

[Arthur Pape]

9. To be a "simulated operational situation" the test must be carried out in an environment that includes the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to any other pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality. This point is captured by the term "ecological validity", a concept Boris Crassini and I have been promoting for many years, going back to before the Denison case. For a test to be valid, it must satisfy the criterion described above by Creamy, that is, it must be "ecologically valid". Anything not ecologically valid misses the point.

[Arthur Pape]

This was received today, in a broadcast email to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners. The tune is changing somewhat. Make what you will of it for now!






UNCLASSIFIED


Dear Colleague,





In response to my email that I sent you recently, I have become aware of some confusion among some DAMEs and thought I should clarify a few points.





Perhaps the most important issue is of the meaning of the term CVD. CASA’s policy about CVD applies to those individuals who have a CVD such that they have not demonstrated that they meet the standard by passing one of the three levels of testing that is available to them. So if someone failed the Ishihara, but then passed the Farnsworth or the third level test (whatever it might have been) as required by CASA, these people are not being referred to as CVD pilots by CASA (and are provided unrestricted medical certificates). There are (to the extent that the MRS allows us to know), 134 Class 1 pilots, and 252 Class 2 pilots who have a CVD, ie, they have not demonstrated that they can pass the second or third levels of testing – either, because they have not undergone it, or because they have not been able to pass the tests.





I had said in my email, that “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant are than they were initially considered to be”. That evidence consists of a large a number of papers, which I have not provided in my email. Should any of you wish to have the bibliography of CVD related evidence, I would be happy to send it to you for your information.





As I had said before, the policy is under review. CASA’s interim policy is http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593 (wlmailhtml:{B960CB43-437A-4B42-9C8B-77F529982B90}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593) .








Kind Regards,
Pooshan Navathe

Dr Pooshan Navathé
MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer,
http://www.pprune.org/wlmailhtml:{B960CB43-437A-4B42-9C8B-77F529982B90}mid://00000004/!x-usc:cid:[email protected]
Mail: Office of Aviation Medicine, PO Box 1544, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
Courier: CASA, 16 Furzer St, Phillip, ACT 2606, Australia
Phone (DDI) : +61 2 6217 1005
Facsimile: +61 2 6217 1640
E-mail :[email protected] (wlmailhtml:{B960CB43-437A-4B42-9C8B-77F529982B90}mid://00000004/!x-usc:mailto:[email protected])
Web: www.casa.gov.au (wlmailhtml:{B960CB43-437A-4B42-9C8B-77F529982B90}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.casa.gov.au/)
This e-mail and any attachments do not represent and do not purport to represent CASA policy or position.

Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error, please advise me by reply to [email protected] (wlmailhtml:{B960CB43-437A-4B42-9C8B-77F529982B90}mid://00000004/!x-usc:mailto:[email protected]) immediately and remove this message and any attachments from your system. The information in the e-mail may be legally privileged or medical in confidence. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. Your co operation is appreciated.





There are two statements about human beings that are true: that all human beings are alike, and that all are different. On those two facts all human wisdom is founded - Mark Van Doren

[Creampuff]

The PMO doesn't need a policy on this issue and doesn't need to create further confusion with any more attempted clarifications.

The PMO just needs to shut up and comply with and apply the current law in its current terms.

Applying the current law in its current terms requires CASA to determine, for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), tests that simulate operational situations. The CAD Test does not simulate anything bearing any semblance with any operational situation in aviation.

If you are interested in air safety rather than perpetuating discrimination against people with a 'defect', PMO, the way forward is obvious: Determine tests that simulate safety-critical operational situations that depend on the ability of the candidates to identify the meaning of lights, that happen to be coloured, with the 'pass' standard being the same performance level achieved, in the same test, by candidates without a CVD.

My very real concern is that the reason tests of that kind have not been determined is that the outcomes will be rather inconvenient for zealots on a medical mission. :=

If you really want to clarify something important, PMO, please explain why flying an approach using PAPI, in a simulator, is not good enough as a test of CPL/ATPL candidates for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), given that PAPI has been identified as the most important safety-critical task requiring pilots to comprehend the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured. You might also explain how pilots with CVD have been conducting these approaches, in real life, for decades, without a single accident caused by CVD.

(I've been struck by another potential exquisite irony: Wouldn't it be ironic if the performance of pilots with CVD in simulated PAPI approaches were statistically significantly better than pilots without CVD ....)

[Arthur Pape]

The word "Disintegration" is ringing in my ears!!

[Sarcs]

Better late than never..:D..short article from SMH on AIPA correspondence to miniscule on CVD..:ok::CASA accused of bullying
Date July 23, 2014

Pilots have accused the air safety regulator of ''blatant institutional bullying'' over its warning that colourblind pilots could be grounded if it implements stricter medical requirements under consideration.

The Australian and International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss complaining that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has exhibited a ''lack of regulatory courage and integrity'' in its handling of colour vision deficiency.

For the past 25 years, sufferers of colour blindness have been allowed to fly. But CASA has cited ''new research'' that could end the careers of hundreds of pilots.

Read more: CASA accused of bullying (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/casa-accused-of-bullying-20140722-3cdq1.html#ixzz38FPvuhQj)
No surprises there..:ugh: Bullying from the big "R" regulator is SOP, take a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0pJv6DNzuo

[Clare Prop]

My DAME sent Mr Pooshan a letter about “CVD” being cardiovascular disease and not anomalous colour vision- or more correctly and precisely, deuteranomalous vision or protanomalous vision....

(I had to cut and paste those big words!)

....when she wrote and asked for the "recent references" which she has since received. I can't be assed to look up the most "recent" CASA definition of "recent" but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..

[cockney steve]

but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..
Correct! they've com up with guide dogs and white walking sticks since then.:}

The medic concerned needs a stiff reminder that this is not a joking matter and a reference to 1922 research as "recent" is a step too far in the "poor taste" stakes.......but perhaps, in his current important job, Mr. Poosnan is a *bit* out of touch.........time to feed the national press newshounds a few scraps?
Really, that one item could reduce him to a laughing -stock and totally discredit him and his whole vindictive vendetta.

I reckon you guys really owe Creampuff a beer or three!
He's one sharp cookie and seems to have the measure of the situation with this shower of 5h1ts.

[triton140]

I can't be assed to look up the most "recent" CASA definition of "recent" but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..

Try 1855, which is the earliest quote I can find in that so-called "recent" research. Pre-flight by a long shot I would have thought.

And by the way, what is this crap? I have a whole swag of degrees, but never quote them because I would hope people judge me by my achievements not by a collection of letters from the distant past, but then I'm comfortable in my own skin and don't need to seek refuge from my own insecurity in a whole lot of essentially meaningless qualifications - in all seriousness I can't understand why anyone would put this out - FFS what is SAVMO(ADF) anyway? :ugh:

"MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)"

[aroa]

Be very wary of folk like Pooshie that have a big list of unknown acronyms/letters after the name. Suss is the immediate thought
Jack of all trades and master of none??

Proud to have but 3...IOS. Goes with my Anti CAsAist gold badge.

I did have MIBB on my letterhead some years ago ..and after about a decade someone asked what it stood for. Member, Institute of ???
NO
Minimal Involvement in Bureaucratic Bull****. :ok:

If you can be so lucky in this country...being Regulatastan and all that :mad:
Not waving ...drowning in it :mad:

[Bill Smith]

When did he work with the ADF??

Senior Aviation Medical Officer (SAVMO). An AVMO within Defence, with additional qualifications detailed in HD 305. A SAVMO has advanced aviation medicine (AVMED) expertise that will, in addition to performing all the duties of an AVMO:
(1) provide authoritative advice and consultation on Aircrew fitness;

(2) participate in or preside over a Central Aircrew Medical Employment Classification Review;

(3) provide advice to Joint Health Command, Commands and operational units on aviation medicine issues; and

(4) provide technical assistance in the event of Defence aircraft accident.

[Kharon]

Pause for thought – are the only 'letters' that really mean anything here AAT? It's a very strange battle ground and to be avoided if at all humanly possible. There have been some very weird findings made against what should have been 'no-brainers'. Every logical, moral and operational truism mentioned here will not, does not and cannot signify – it's a battle of law; not justice and the opposition are masters of manipulating the AAT rule set. It has been an 'in house' speciality for many, many years and 'they' are very good at it. There are no certainties in an AAT hearing – I won't bore you with details, but I have sat through enough and read many more AAT findings where CASA was involved – and it ain't a pretty picture.

I have no idea how to avoid this conflict – Sen. Fawcett is, for my money, on the right track. The notion of an 'inquiry' rather than a 'hearing' has much merit. I hear a whisper that funding such an event may prove' problematic; despite the fact that it will cost less than the CASA legal bill and produce much more.

If DPM Wuss is serious about reform, perhaps it's a good time for him to put our money where his mouth is – stop this fiasco before irreparable damage is done. This matter is a perfect, mirror image in miniature of what industry has to endure. I do worry the AAT hearing will reflect, as it has done so many times in the past, that CASA is above any law not subservient to their current 'policy'. To retain that control they will happily destroy the aspirations of both industry and the individuals hope for fairness at law; any notion of 'justice' being served an irrelevant side issue. AAT has, on many occasions served to support the CASA claimed omnipotence...Delay is an ally, perhaps a new DAS and PMO will eventually turn up and an appeal for sanity may be heard with 'open ears'.

If the AAT hearing cannot be prevented then the 'legal' team must be of the trained killer variety and be as prepared as the opposition to bypass fair play and not to scruple about getting their hands (or conscience) dirty in a good cause. The Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply in an AAT refereed street fight.

This pony-pooh Shambollic argument is not so much about CVD but control, power and ego. Brother Creampuff has provided an excellent place to start, but don't forget a very skilled, practiced crew of AAT manipulators are sitting in the other corner awaiting the bell for round 1 and when the seconds are out of the ring they will, from the off, not be sparring but seeking to destroy any challenge to their title; preferably before the bell for end of round 1.

FWIW – if you must fight a man (or city hall) be sure you have as much foreknowledge of the tactics likely to be used; Harvey has his pugmarks over many of the CASA 'victories' and his 'style' is easily assessed. It's all there in transcript – but you must know the strengths and weakness of the opposition, better than you know your own; if you want to win in the AAT arena that is. Oh, and learn to keep an eye on the referee, just in case your toes are stood on – accidental like – as you have a good punch lined up.

Selah.

C_Steve – I'd like to think there'll come a day when all involved can have a few beers together, red football Guernsey's and green hats – (or 'tuher way around no difference). Creampuff shall have his beers as we toast John for his courage, Arthur for all his work and, with a bit of luck, the end of a dark, unenlightened era. We may even invite the new DAS along; if he's a good lad....(or ladette)...

Toot toot -

[Creampuff]

it's a battle of law; not justice Correct. are the only 'letters' that really mean anything here AAT?Maybe not. The Federal Court may have an inevitable role to play.

My WAG is that the key issues in the AAT will include:

- whether the AAT has jurisdiction to decide that the determination of the CAD test is not a valid determination for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), because the CAD test does not ‘simulate an operational situation’, and

- whether the AAT has jurisdiction to determine its own test and subject the applicant to that test, and find that he is able to pass that test (in which case all this unnecessary stupidity goes away).

My WAG is that CASA will argue that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to do either and therefore - so the argument will continue - the AAT cannot find anything other than that the applicant has failed the test determined by CASA. The inevitable consequence – so the argument will continue – is that the applicant does not meet the colour perception standard. (The war is not lost there for the applicant, by the way, but the aim must be to try to make the entire stupidity go away by getting CASA to determine tests that simulate operational situations.)

As anyone with any aeronautical experience knows, the CAD test doesn’t ‘simulate’ ****, just as the Ishihara plate test doesn’t simulate ****. (No…. wait, I remember now: On a standard ILS approach, a bunch of pink marshmallow shapes with coloured numbers in the middle appear in the windscreen to tell you your height …)

The CAD test is just another glorified colour vision test.

However, CASA is evidently going to try to defend the CAD test as a test that simulates an operational situation in accordance with CASR 67.150(6)(c). That suggests to me either that:

- the PMO is stubbornly refusing to accept advice to the effect that the CAD test doesn’t simulate ****

- the people advising the PMO do not have sufficient aeronautical experience to know that the CAD test doesn’t simulate ****, or

- everyone’s too scared, proud or embarrassed to revoke the determination of the CAD test and instead determine some tests that actually simulate actual operational situations.

(Must feel comfy to be able to spend all that time and (other people’s) money defending the indefensible, while putting all current and aspiring pilots with colour vision deficiencies through unnecessary trauma in the interim.)

If it turns out that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to find the CAD test is not a valid test and determine its own test, that’s not the AAT’s fault. Its jurisdiction is not a matter of its choice or discretion.

However, as I said, all is not lost if that happens.

First, it is still open to the AAT to find that there should be no “no ATPL” condition on the applicant’s medical certificate, even if the AAT is bound to find the applicant is, as a consequence of the operation of CASR 67.150(6), effectively deemed not to meet the colour perception standard.

Secondly, the Federal Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to make orders prohibiting CASA from using the CAD Test and requiring CASA to determine tests that actually simulate operational situations, if the Court can be convinced that the CAD test does not simulate an operational situation in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c). That shouldn’t be too hard. A few pilots with a century or so and a hundred thousand hours or so of combined experience across the aeronautical spectrum averring to the fact that the CAD test doesn’t simulate any operational situation in which they’ve ever been involved, should do it. (What pilot with even a modicum of aeronautical experience would be prepared to swear an affidavit that says the CAD test simulates an operational situation? What would that operational situation be? Watching a youtube video of the old ‘pong’ computer game, while high on LSD? Online Ping Pong Game,Free Internet Arcade Games for Kids to play on computer (http://www.learn4good.com/games/arcade/ping_pong.htm) )

Hopefully, if and by the time the Federal Court option becomes inevitable, someone will have given CASA advice to the effect that its prospects of success in defending the CAD test as test that ‘simulates an operational situation’ in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c) are somewhere between buckley’s and none, and someone in CASA will listen to that advice. It shouldn’t have to get that far, but it seems to me that the relevant decision maker in CASA is currently oblivious to what CASR 67.150(6)(c) means.

[Kharon]

Creamy – your WAG? – is it Wild Ass Guess or something slightly more elegant; refined like?? Do tell – driving me nuts. Ta...

[Creampuff]

No elegance in me.

Your guess as to what my use of WAG means is correct!

[Frank Arouet]

Redefining white. Or what happened at the AVMED Christmas party.


We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels 'cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
But the crowd called out for more
The room was humming harder
As the ceiling flew away
When we called out for another drink
And the waiter brought a tray

And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale

She said, "There is no reason
And the truth is plain to see."
But I wandered through my playing cards
And they would not let her be
One of sixteen vestal virgins
Who were leaving for the coast
And although my eyes were open wide
They might have just as well been closed

And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale

She said, "I'm here on a shore leave,"
Though we were miles at sea.
I pointed out this detail
And forced her to agree,
Saying, "You must be the mermaid
Who took King Neptune for a ride."
And she smiled at me so sweetly
That my anger straightway died.

And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale

If music be the food of love
Then laughter is it's queen
And likewise if behind is in front
Then dirt in truth is clean
My mouth by then like cardboard
Seemed to slip straight through my head
So we crash-dived straightway quickly
And attacked the ocean bed

And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale.


Thanks to Procol Harum. Sums it up nicely I thought.

[Fantome]

In May 2012 when Duncan Kerr was sworn in as head of the AAT
there were things said that promised the appellant representing
himself a better go. It is worth a read, if only to shine some light
on a man whose roots and work for the man in the street over the
years deserve more than a perfunctory nod.

Ceremonial Sitting of the Tribunal for the Swearing In and Welcome of the Honourable Justice Kerr as President (http://www.aat.gov.au/Publications/SpeechesAndPapers/Kerr/SwearingInAndWelcome16May2012.htm)

[004wercras]

Sarcs, thanks for the laugh with the video :ok:
Senator MacDonald was on fire. I especially enjoyed it when Heff wanted a piece of the Skull and the dapper Nick held him back! It was also exciting to see Hampton sitting in the front row and having some input, however I was sure I could hear JPY's "Love is in the Air" playing! Terry sat there as usual like a store shop front mannequin and Pumpkin Head sat there with his giant head at one point resting in his hand. And what about the Skull making sure he mentioned that 'he and two of his cronies' took time out on a Saturday to attend a meeting'! Oh how terrible, a man on $500k per year, and then some, having to work on a single Saturday, heaven forbid!!! Yep, bureaucrats disconnected from reality.The fact is this - CAsA has a legacy of bullying. Sen MacDonald provided an example of it, and it was the very top person in CAsA who did it. You don't need much more proof than that. If it starts at the top it certainly transcends down the line, but we already knew that. CAsA's top secret 'star chamber training program for managers' ensures that the IOS are dealt with in an expedient manner with no mercy.

How does this link in with CVD? CAsA's nonchalant arrogant manner in dealing with Pilots over the CVD issue is indicative of how they behave. Pooshan is totally incorrect, Ferreday has been a disgrace in this, and so has the executive tier who are supportive of the letter that was sent out. This is CAsA 101. They would rather see the world annihilated in a nuclear holocaust 10 times over than admit they got it wrong, and fix the problem...and as long as this is allowed to continue, it proves the government supports and sanctions CAsA's actions.

[Kharon]

Last, but by no means least – the CVD tribe – who's woes are set to continue, unabated. Seems McComic is determined to continue his assault on the industry he loathes until the last minute. Driven by only the gods know what and terrified of 'liability' issues (not medical but legal it seems), he continues to use his willing accomplice to present the 'real' issues. The fact that Pooshams tenuous hold on any sort of reputation will be totally destroyed; whichever way it turns out is of no importance to the 49'ers Nemesis. I doubt the PMO can see past his well flattered ego and work this out. Word on the street is some of the McComic acolytes already carry 'show cause' notices and facing the future, 'grimly'; banished from the Sleepy Hollow sheltered workshops; perhaps the PMO can join them, maybe they will care about his woes...

Aye; I'd like to think Karma was real and active. Anyone got her number?, someone should ring and tell her there's real work to be done in the sun burnt country, lots of it.

[Fantome]

maybe Creammie . . . . you more like ELEGANT MESS?

you want digression? .. . . I give you digression . . . . ok?

( better even than the best from our carousing cohort . .. the incomparable unincriminatable K.)

Bugs crashes Rocky's birthday party

Narrator: The boys decided to throw a party celebrating Rocky's birthday and the removal of

Agent Mess. (camera shows cake and gangsters surrounding Rocky) Among those attending... were Jack "Legs" Rhinstone, "Baby Face Half" Nelson, "Pizza Puss" Lasagna, "Pistol Nose" Pringle, and "Teeth" Malloy.


(Mugsy stands up)
Mugsy: Uh, Rocky, we'd like to present you a token of our esteem.


(Bugs Bunny pops out of cake, disguised as a flapper)


Bugs: (in flapper's voice) Hiya, suckers!


Rocky: Who's da broad?


Mugsy: (goo-goo eyed) She's some looker, eh Rocky? (nudges Rocky so that Rocky and chair fall over. Mugsy looks down) Duh, what happen, Rocky?


Rocky: (punches Mugsy up the jaw) You bonehead. (walks over to Bugs) You know, you're a lucky broad. I like you. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw) Stop the music. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw again, making him drop his guns) Stop... Stop the music! (Bugs kicks Rocky a third time, shoving him up his hat so he can't see. Rocky feels the floor for his guns) STOP! THE MUSIC!


(Rocky picks up guns and fires. Bugs flees out of his disguise. Rocky ceases firing)


Rocky: (turning to gangsters) Dat dame's not a dame! Quick! Don't just stand there gapin', go get 'im!
(Gangsters fall dead to the floor. Rocky gasps)


Mugsy: Gee, Rocky, you made a boo-boo.


Bugs: (disguised as a police inspector) Yeah, and I'm bookin' ya for moider.


Rocky: Oh yeah? Well, I'm da bookie around here and I'll do the bookin'. (whips out revolver)


Bugs: (whips out carrot) Stick 'em up, you're under arrest!


Rocky: Heh, heh, heh! Look Mugsy, He's gonna shoot us with a carrot! Heh, heh, heh... (carrot end opens up and blasts Rocky and Mugsy in the face) Heh...heh...ooooohhh.
(Bugs pulls hidden trigger on carrot only to make clicking noises)


Bugs: Dat's the trouble with carrots: Dey're only good once.


(Rocky fires revolver, causing Bugs to flee and begin the chase through the ACME Cereal Factory)

[Frank Arouet]

No matter what way you look at things, there's always a wascally wabbit in the plot with a loaded carrot. (or a NCN).

[brissypilot]

It seems the PMO can't stick to a decision about CVD pilot applicants.... The FAQ (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_91593) section of the CAsA website has been changed yet again today :=

In April we had...
You would have noticed that your recent medical certificate had a condition 13 which read "Limited to flights conducted inside Australian territory" instead of the earlier "Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1".

Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.

On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.

Aviation Medicine

In May we had...
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass, as per Part 67. If all tests are failed, the class 1 certificate is refused.

In June we had....
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Today we have...
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD. To satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150, the applicant must first attempt the Ishihara test. If they fail that test, they must then undertake the Farnsworth Lantern test. If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken. Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant’s CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.

There is also the debacle of Bill Smith's ATPL privileges being withdrawn (http://www.pprune.org/8526959-post197.html) then re-instated (http://www.pprune.org/8536163-post242.html).

Perhaps it's time for the PMO to resign and let someone else assume the role who can at least be consistent with their decisions? Perhaps someone who respects the advice of those who are more qualified and capable of making judgements?

McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2014/119.html)
50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other.

56. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions.

How much longer will this bureaucrat be allowed to continue to destroy pilot's livelihoods and send them (and the taxpayer!) broke through the AAT before enough is enough? :ugh:

I see Senator Fawcett is asking the same question in a written QON (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/QoN_Index_Infrastructure.pdf) published a few days ago:

273
244
CASA
FAWCETT

Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;

As Creampuff has eloquently highlighted, the CVD matter is boiling down to the PMO's inability to interpret CASR 67.150(6)(c).

The CAD Test does not "simulate" anything, much less an "operational situation" remotely connected to aviation. Therefore, the CAD Test is not a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.160(6)(c).

The PMO needs to brush up on his comprehension skills and look up the words "simulate", "operational" and "situation" in the dictionary. The phrase "simulates an operational situation" has an obvious and uncontroversial meaning.

He could even start by looking up some of the definitions in the new Part 61. It may give him a few hints on the meanings of those tricky words. :rolleyes:

CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2013 (NO. 1) - REG 61.010 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/calar20131464/s61.010.html)

"operational endorsement" means any of the following endorsements:
(a) an aerial application endorsement;
(b) a flight activity endorsement;
(c) a flight examiner endorsement;
(d) an instrument endorsement;
(e) a low-level endorsement;
(f) a night VFR endorsement;
(g) a night vision imaging system endorsement;
(h) a private instrument endorsement;
(i) a training endorsement;
(j) a flight engineer examiner endorsement;
(k) a flight engineer training endorsement.

"operational rating" means any of the following ratings:
(a) an aerial application rating;
(b) an examiner rating;
(c) an instructor rating;
(d) an instrument rating;
(e) a low-level rating;
(f) a night VFR rating;
(g) a night vision imaging system rating;
(h) a private instrument rating.

"simulated flight" time means time spent in a flight simulation training device during which a pilot is performing the duties of a pilot.

"simulated IMC" means flight in an aircraft or flight simulation training device during which the pilot is prevented from viewing the external horizon.

:ok:

[Creampuff]

Today we have ... Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD.Why do these people appear to be unable to understand what the law says, when they presume to expect others to comply?

The relevant requirement is not that the candidate "be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD."

The relevant requirement is, unsurprisingly, what the law says.

The law says the requirement is:(e) either:

(i) the applicant meets the relevant medical standard; or

(ii) if the applicant does not meet that medical standard—the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation;[See CAR 67.180(2)(e). My bolding]

The requirement is not that the applicant "not pose a danger to safety". The requirement is that the applicant is "not likely to endanger" the safety of air navigation.

The test stated by CASA - "not pose" - is binary: Zero danger. The test stated in the law is a probability: "not likely". There is a profound difference.

Were CASA not blinded by prejudice, it would comprehend the reason for the requirement being a probability: Everyone and everything is danger to safety, but the probabilities and consequences are infinitely variable. The world is a dangerous place and life is full of risk. Witness the fact that most aviation accidents and incidents are caused by humans with perfect colour perception.

It's simple, CASA: Just apply and comply with the law in its terms.

[thorn bird]

Hear Bloody hear creamie.

[No Hoper]

Witness the fact that most aviation accidents and incidents are caused by humans with perfect colour perception. And that is the fact of the matter, maybe Creampuff should represent Mr. O'brien at the AAT

[Creampuff]

Maybe you CASA people should learn and comply with the law.

[No Hoper]

Not you CASA people, the CASA regulators. That was meant as a compliment Creampuff, but as the kids say - whatever.

[brissypilot]

The poor PMO's not having a good run this year in the AAT...

It's interesting in para 46 of the second decision how he stresses the importance of "evidence based medicine". He's certainly not looking at any of the evidence in the CVD matter. :ugh:

Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2014/494.html)

The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that a condition requiring the provision to the respondent of alcohol screening tests on a quarterly basis not be imposed on the applicant’s class 1 or class 2 medical certificates.

1. The applicant, Mr Peter Ryan, is a commercial pilot by occupation. He holds a commercial pilot (helicopter) licence and a private pilot (fixed wing) licence. The respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, is of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse. In February 2014, when the Authority renewed his aviation medical certificate, it imposed a condition which required him to undertake quarterly alcohol screening tests and to forward the results of those tests to the Authority.

2. Mr Ryan objects to the imposition of the condition. He says that it is unnecessary and unwarranted. He seeks a review of the Authority's decision to impose the condition.

3. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Ryan is correct. The evidence does not warrant the imposition of such a condition.

22. The case for the Authority relies upon studies that show an increased risk of alcohol-related accidents or incidents in pilots who had been convicted of drink-driving. These studies led Dr Pooshan Navathe, the Authority's Principal Medical Officer and the decision maker in the present case, to conclude:

1. A history of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is a serious issue from an aviation perspective.

Whether that is so or not seems to me not to matter. The issue in the present case is whether the material establishes that Mr Ryan engaged in, or had a personal history of, the problematic use of alcohol. In my view it does not. That being so, I conclude that Mr Ryan satisfies the only criteria in issue in these proceedings and thus meets the medical standard for class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.


Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/292.html)

The Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 31 May 2013 to cancel Mr Hoore's medical certificates.

The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that at the time of the reviewable decision the extent to which the applicant did not meet the medical standards for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation if the following conditions are imposed..."

35. A/Prod Navathe went on to explain in oral testimony the possible consequences of a seizure of a pilot in the cockpit. During a seizure the person can have sometimes quite violent spasms, contractures of the body and limbs and would become incapacitated. In a single pilot operation this would be obviously disastrous. In a dual control cockpit with two pilots, a fitting pilot could interfere with the controls such as the rudder or the control column. An unconscious pilot could slump forward onto the control column. In addition the second pilot could find the situation distracting, which could be dangerous if in a critical stage of flight.

36. Mr Hoore does not contest this but highlights an inconsistency in the respondent's argument, pointing out that CASA does not regulate the health of passengers who can sit in the second control seat in dual control aircraft. Such passengers could be subject to seizures with the same potential outcome.

46. The respondent points out that every decision is made case-by-case and is based on individual circumstances. No two situations are the same. A/Prof Navathe explained in considerable detail the regulatory medical decision-making process in his written submission[5] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/292.html#fn5) and in oral testimony. He stressed the role of evidence based medicine and the collegial nature of the decision making process. He explained the medical staff of CASA are experienced in aviation medicine and many of the doctors hold pilots licences and are experienced pilots. A/Prof Navathe explained that before a decision is made to suspend a medical certificate, the case is referred to the Complex Case Management (CCM) Committee to gain a broader opinion from his colleagues in the medical branch of CASA. This process was followed for Mr Hoore and notes of the CCM of 29 May 2013 are included in evidence.

50. Mr Hoore also questioned the consistency of CASA's own regulations in relation to their risk analysis on the second pilot in his case. In his submission[7] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/292.html#fn7) he referred to CASR Part 61.405 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/index.html#p61.405) that provides pilots with the option of having a drivers medical certificate, which he sees as being of a lesser standard but more easily achievable. This is evidenced by the restriction placed on such pilots by the regulation, that they can carry no more than one passenger. However, this restriction is lifted if there is a licenced pilot in the second control seat. This he asserts is clear evidence that CASA accepts the ameliorating effect a second pilot has on the risk to air safety.

63. We have concluded, and indeed it was never a contentious issue, that Mr Hoore does not meet the medical standard for the issue of either a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. The extent to which Mr Hoore fails to meet the standard is unlikely to endanger the safety of air navigation with conditions imposed to ameliorate that situation. The respondent believes no such conditions exist. We disagree with this determination. We have accordingly imposed conditions, which require, inter alia, that the applicant fly at all times with an appropriately qualified and rated pilot.

:=

[Kharon]

Is it rapidly getting to the stage where every bloody medical needs a trip to the AAT to settle? What is it with these guys?. The Ryan ruling is pertinent and sets them straight sets them straight. I know of one poor bugger, never been even DUI...Ah, what the hell..

Looks like someone found Karma's number and 'dropped a dime', as the US boys say. She is slow, but oh boy, what a bitch kitty.

[Creampuff]

It's a fascinating pathology. I wonder whether a PMO's appointment is subject to a condition requiring the appointee to undergo regular pyschological and psychiatric examinations.

I also wonder when someone will get around to conducting a study into the risks to aviation safety caused by the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade. :=

[Fantome]

ALL I CAN HEAR CREAMIE IS . .. . . . "INCONCEIVABLE".

".... as I told you . . .it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways . . inconceivable."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ)

[Kharon]

Just reading through and pondering on the Ryan decision, the ignominious, invasive medical pro-forma and the kingdom of Shambollocks medical ethics. So, OK, you get done DUI and then, truthfully put that information on the medical form; the Pooh-Shambollic system grabs your signed confession, which it translates into "[is] of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse." (my bold).

You would think that going from the "may have" supposition, to the absolutely proven "has" would have some bearing. But no, off to the AAT ($5000 minimum) to get a ruling so that only the system may determine, from quarterly blood tests whether or not Ryan can hold his ticket, this all to be done without reference to 'independent' impartial advice.

It's a flawed argument, based on supposition, deceit, and quite possibly 'entrapment'.

It's poor medicine, it's punishment without proof that physiologically and psychologically, beyond reasonable doubt that one (or even two) DUI a dipsomaniac makes. However, once your brief has been pulled, rehabilitation is your problem. Now the amount of 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence you must provide to regain your licence (AAT) bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the pathetic "may have" supposition used to take it away.

Deputy President P E Hack is to be complimented on having enough nouse to throw the silly little bugger out of court, 'research' and all; a flea in his ear would have been just great, but I'll take the win. The deeper I look into the Avmed rock pool, the more alarmed I become; there really are some true 'horror stories' out there in the kingdom of Shambollocks.

Toot toot

[4dogs]

after reading Ryan I was just stunned...

Creamie's comment about "...the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade." seems to go to the heart of the real medical threat to aviation safety.

And the little gem about the consequences of reporting a DUI conviction (unconfirmed but inferentially a singular event):

That disclosure prompted the Authority to require him to provide an assessment by a psychiatrist in relation to his alcohol consumption and its associated risk.

also stunned me, not only for the potential for an immediate effect on open reporting but also for the reasoning that would allow the imposition of the cost and inconvenience of a psychiatric assessment which, prima facie, would seem extremely unlikely to serve any useful purpose.

Methinks the PMO has exceeded his usefulness in that role... :*

Stay Alive,

[Creampuff]

Maybe this is the problem:‘Madness in great ones must not unwatched go’. So says King Claudius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I was reminded of the phrase when reading David Owen’s fascinating book, The Hubris Syndrome. Lord Owen was Britain’s youngest foreign secretary in the late 1970s, then leader of a new political party, the Social Democratic Party, so he has seen most of the world’s top leaders at close quarters. He was also a doctor before he became a politician, so he neatly combines medical and political insights.

His thesis, in a nutshell, is that the ‘hubris syndrome’ –over-confidence leading to self-destruction - is a particular kind of mental illness which affects not just politicians but military commanders and heads of large companies. The idea that power goes to people’s heads is not of course new. Lord Acton gave the thought classical expression when he remarked that ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. But Owen has taken exceptional care to identify ‘patterns of behaviour’ which are evidence of the existence of this illness in leaders.

Symptoms include over-ambition; obsession with presentation and the need to occupy centre-stage; self-identification with the state; a messianic sense of mission; the belief that one is accountable only to God or history; loss of contact with reality; a tendency to allow the ‘broad vision’ to overcome practical considerations; and inattention to detail leading to incompetence in execution. Surprisingly Owen omits what I would regard as the chief symptom of a leader’s hubris: his belief in his own indispensability.

The disease grows the longer the leader stays in power. ... This excessive self-confidence leads him into misinterpreting the reality round him and into making mistakes. Eventually he gets his come pence and meets his nemesis which destroys him’.

[Lookleft]

I think it would also fit quite nicely as a cut and paste in the AJ thread.

[Kharon]

The Ryan case set me to thinking about how Avmed (CASA) could deal with the 'false' or lay accusation of substance abuse; clearly some form of response is required. So, digging down a little further I wondered how Avmed is or could be alerted to a potential problem, and what is the 'best' option (solution) – for everyone. There are countless scenarios but, just for this exercise:

The easy one. Caught on the job; a staff member turns up, someone thinks it's time for a DAMP test; positive=clear path; negative=same-same. Proof positive on the spot, not of history – but of the instance. This seems to be a relatively straight forward process; positive? medical 'suspended'; do the tests and there is a clear trail from start to finish of a 'fair and reasonable' process. The random 'on the job' filter and the 'Booze bus' are reasonable deterrents to 'honest folk'.

The tricky one. Take the Ryan example, were there 'reasonable' grounds for suspending? Given the history offered, it may, conceivably be reasonable to ask for an independent, external 'expert' evaluation. Ryan made a signed confession of DUI etc, but as subsequent testing identified 'no chronic or future' problems, that should have been an end of it; even a 'blood test' specified at the next routine medical would have been acceptable (to be sure, to be sure). Ryan honestly admitted the incident, Avmed acted reasonably in the first instance. The twisted logic which got him to the AAT is where the system fails; additional unwarranted testing not only decries the 'expert' opinion, it presumes that Avmed knows better. If indeed Avmed do know better, why then the farce of demanding 'external' opinion from experts. Same thing with 'sugar' and 'cardiac' issues – where expert, self funded opinion is simply brushed aside – does Mummy always know best?

The evil one. There is a fellah over at – Tiger (http://www.pprune.org/8589667-post1479.html) - who has (allegedly) been 'accused' of narcotics abuse (Cocaine is the rumour). (Sorry - there have been some posts before my effort removed, so it's a bit disjointed). As presented, there is no, non whatsoever substantive proof or empirical evidence (that we know of), just a vague reference to 'someone' informing the ATSB, the CASA and the parent company that the Captain (Guy for ease) was 'using'. Say you were at company 'management' level, supervising Guy and the accusation (not allegation) was anonymously slipped under your door, or whispered in a corridor, how would you treat it?. If the 'accusation' was sent through company channels, how would you deal with it?: if CASA out of the blue suspended Guy's medical on a 'tip off', what then? Where to start?

A browse through the return statistics from DAMP and a couple of other 'authoritative' studies indicate that mathematically at least, the chances of having a dipsomaniac or drug fiend on the books are pretty remote. Government have spent a small fortune to establish this as 'fact'. A look back through Guy's track record and circumstances would give a clearer indication of 'character', a chat with his colleagues would lead to further detail being revealed.

In short, before the company suspended Guy and made it 'official', a whole world of 'investigation' and protocol would be gone through. IF there was an identified problem, company DAMP policy would swing in and the road to rehabilitation taken. If there was no problem identified, then the exonerated Guy should be returned to duty. A professional pilot would (should) understand the reasons for company 'caution' and whereas feathers may be ruffled; no serious lasting harm has been done, his mates will always support; his enemies will always slip one in; the neutrals will just get on with life.

But it's a bit rum, when an anonymous complaint has been vindictively made and CASA weigh in without a skerrick of 'proof' to aid and abet what is essentially an unfounded rumour, made by a layman. Then, having been proven wrong, take steps to protect the accuser from righteous indignation and civil action. You can't accuse a kid of lifting a bag of lolly's without 'proof', beyond reasonable doubt, let alone a senior Captain of being a drug fiend...

It is, without test results difficult to prove. The question is of course, why did the 'complainant' not demand a DAMP test AT THE TIME? – why the delay?– why was the company system not alerted before Avmed got involved? Two options, either the company system is so flawed that only direct contact with 'authorities' could guarantee that action would be taken, which implies 'everyone' knew but did nothing. Alternatively, this was a cowardly, vicious personal attack executed as an underhand act with much malice and aforethought.

It is easy for the layman to become an instant 'expert' on – DRUGS (http://www.addictions.com/cocaine/commonly-missed-cocaine-addiction-symptoms/) – and – BOOZE (http://blogs.psychcentral.com/addiction-recovery/2012/02/high-functioning-addict/) – easy to arrive at a wrong conclusion and easier again to make an accusation without foundation. I can see why, with a failed DAMP, the company would suspend; I could even understand why the company would suspend against a genuine 'suspicion', properly lodged and supported. What beats me (without all the data) is why? an unsubstantiated 'accusation', without clear proof, is so completely supported and protected by the regulator.

Just imagine the "the risks to aviation safety caused by the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade". CP.

How about the case where the 'regulator' failed to demand a DAMP test against a 'suspicion' when all facilities and witnesses were freely and readily available; then waited for six months to lodge a 'complaint' in a very disingenuous fashion asking for and receiving the maximum punitive action that could be taken at a critical time. No failed test evidence was provided, lies were told (and discovered) and Avmed were encouraged to and happily obliged in enforcing a further 24 months of quarterly testing; despite clear, qualified, expert evidence there was not, never had been or was there likely to be, a problem. No matter, the Chinese whisper is much more effective than evidence anyway.

The Ryan finding is a most satisfactory ruling – but will it stop Avmed from colluding with every rag bag complaint which hits their email? Apparently not. Must we all now accept that the era of psychic testing, by ESP has arrived?. I'm certain there is much 'research' to support the construct..

End Sunday ramble. FWIW. How do you turn off the curiosity thingummybob?

Selah.

[thorn bird]

Was not a fully paid up member of the "Iron Ring" overheard remarking to a Pollie "But minister if we had to provide proof, we'd need to employ another hundred people"??..says it all really.

[brissypilot]

Just received the below email broadcast from AOPA containing a response from the Minister's office addressing their concerns raised over the CVD issue:

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/TrussResponse_zpsb6996fe1.jpg (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/TrussResponse_zpsb6996fe1.jpg.html)

It seems the Minister is being poorly advised by his department and isn't comprehending the full story. Here's a thought - wouldn't it be nice if he listened to Senator Fawcett instead? :ugh:

if any changes are proposed to CVD regulations and practices in the future there will be full consultation with the industry before any changes are made.

...any proposals for future changes would be consistent with CASA's ongoing commitment to the use of safety cases to support such changes and involve detailed consultation with the aviation industry in the consideration of any change proposals.

Minister, CASA have already changed the "practices" and without any consultation. Where is the "safety case" to support such changes? :ugh:

Even their own website makes this clear under the Medical FAQ (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593) section:

How does CASA deal with pilots with a colour vision deficiency?

CASA has reviewed the application of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 – which covers the medical certification of pilots - as it relates to pilots with colour vision deficiency (CVD).

CASA is not changing the regulations relating to CVD but is putting in place new procedures to better align with the existing regulations.

There will be no impact on existing pilots as the new procedures will relate to new applicants only.

If the Ishihara test is failed, a certificate will be offered restricted to day VFR only. If the applicant wants this restriction removed, they must pass one of the tests as per Part 67.

If you're a brand new pilot going for either a Class 1 or 2 medical today and you fail the three levels of CVD tests, you will be restricted to daytime VFR flight only. This is a very definite change in "practice" to what has occurred in Australia since 1989. You will no longer be able to have a career in Australia even if you are issued with a Class 1 medical with those two restrictions. Who is going to want to employ a pilot who can only fly in the daylight in good weather, especially after all the letters sent to AOC holders suggesting they posed a safety risk?

Although CAsA maintains that existing pilots will not be affected, we all know where the PMO's crusade is headed if he is allowed to continue in his role any longer.

PMO, it's time to resign so that a level of mutual trust can be restored between pilots and AvMed. How can you "regulate" safety when you have been responsible for developing a culture of fear amongst the pilots every time they go for their medical renewal?

As Kharon says, it's rapidly getting to the stage where every time there's a medical issue it needs a trip to the AAT to resolve it, simply because of the PMO's "unique" medical opinions, which fly in the face of all the evidence and external opinions of those who really matter.

Minister, it's time to act.

[YPJT]

Ha! AOPA didn't get a response from the minister. They merely had their details inserted on exactly the same letter that I and anyone else who was naïve enough to write to the minister received.

Don't waste your time on Truss. Our only hope is with Senators, Xenophon and Fawcett.

As for the PMO, it is quite interesting speaking to DAMEs off the record and getting their views on what they really think of this clown.

[Creampuff]

If the Ishihara test is failed, a certificate will be offered restricted to day VFR only. If the applicant wants this restriction removed, they must pass one of the tests as per Part 67.That is a failure by CASA to comply with the law. Pure and simple.

An applicant who passes any one of the tests in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. Full stop.

(Keep an eye on that website text, brissyp. I anticipate that it will magically change, shortly.)

It's obvious to me that Avmed has one too many zealots on a medical crusade, unhindered by mere trivialities like compliance with the law.

It's no wonder the AAT decisions are so simple.

[LeadSled]

Was not a fully paid up member of the "Iron Ring" overheard remarking to a Pollie "But minister if we had to provide proof, we'd need to employ another hundred people"??..says it all really.

Folks,
The then CASA DAS/CEO no less. This was not long after the one and the same told the National Press Club that, effectively, CASA should be subject to "different" rules, in part because, "some times, Judges got it wrong" , by which he meant that "not guilty" verdicts in aviation matters were unacceptable.

Tootle pip!!

[brissypilot]

CASA Briefing: August 2014 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102132)

From the Director of Aviation Safety John McCormick

This is the last time I will be communicating with the aviation community in my role as CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety. My slightly extended term as Director is completed at the end of August 2014. The last five and a half years have been challenging, satisfying and at times difficult. I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world. Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes. In 2014 I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair. Safe skies for all is the goal that drives CASA.

Never-the-less I know CASA and myself in particular have our critics. Some of the critics offer constructive criticism and this is welcomed and indeed valued. I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety. Right through my term I have encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate. I know this work to get the best possible safety outcomes through joint efforts by CASA and the aviation community will continue. However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgements, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety. Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency. It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position. Sadly when some of CASA’s critics have not got their own way the debate has degenerated and become personal, which is not constructive and does nothing for aviation safety. It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves.

The future for CASA will be positive. Our people are committed to their work, their organisation and Australian aviation. I am sure any changes made to CASA in the future will further strengthen the organisation and the outcomes it delivers for all Australians. I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers.

Best regards
John F McCormick

Perhaps we've missed something, but where's the 'consultation' been with the CVD pilots in Australia prior to the significant changes AvMed announced in June?

Where's the 'evidence' and the 'solid data' that proves that CVD pilots are a safety risk, despite not a single related incident or accident here in 25 years?

Where's the 'sound processes and procedures' and the 'fairness and transparency' in forcing many pilots over the last few years to appeal decisions in the AAT at great financial and personal cost?

Why is it that the AvMed department and in particular the decisions of the PMO have been proved 'wrong' numerous times in the AAT and yet nothing ever changes?

Perhaps the soon to be ex-DAS can take the PMO with him out the door when he leaves next week? :ok:

[triton140]

just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position

I'm assuming that includes the AAT and expert clinicians .....

Talk about judge and jury :ugh:

[Creampuff]

Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.Which is why your treatment of pilots with colour vision deficiencies has been particularly egregious, Mr McCormick. :=

[cockney steve]

Hasn't your Pilot's Union any balls?
That knobber has just published a string of lies, falsehoods and dishonest ,misleading statements.......he has made a good case against himself for dereliction of dutyand malicious misuse of office. I am sure that Aussie, with it's renowned sense of "fair goes" coulf field a solicitor capable of dragging the fellow to Court to face the public whom he has cheated.
He needs publically shaming .

[Kharon]

CS - Hasn't your Pilot's Union any balls?

Oh, if it were only that simple. Steve I'm going to try and answer your question, to do so briefly means adjusting your thinking – slightly. The UK and to some extent the USA 'systems' are complex, rigid and on occasion difficult to deal with – it's the nature of the beast. A frisson of friction between regulator and regulated is to be expected. I think that 'tension' is a sign of a 'healthy' system, provided there is discourse, sanity and no fear of retribution. Australia is decidedly different, although the difference is difficult to detect with the naked Mark 1 eye-ball:

For starters, the regulator is a bitterly divided camp 'white hats' v 'black hats'. The internal politics are vicious, conducted clandestinely and played without any notion of honour, dignity, probity or indeed loyalty to whoever is the latest 'second best mate'; although some small groups 'stick together' making certain their pig-a-back system works.

For example; before McComic a few of the less desirable units were parked in the pencil sharpening and document shedding cupboards; never to be set loose on industry. The public statement for 'elevating' the undesirables was "If they have managed upset the industry so badly, they are the ones doing their jobs properly" (words to that effect). So we have a big black hat paving the way and encouraging some of the most abhorrent, never exposed behavioural misfits, all fully supported by the top floor. There are many fully documented cases where outright lies; manipulated evidence and other unspeakable methods have been wilfully used to 'enforce' a predetermined outcome; which stand alone is despicable. What is not fully documented is the ongoing vendetta against individuals. Take a careful look at the John Quadrio case; or PM me – I'll send you all the 'facts and circumstances'. The case is not isolated; it one of several cases which must be openly examined by reasonable men, as part of any meaningful reform. It is truly disgusting; but, entirely typical of what the 'Empire black hats' have been encouraged and supported to inflict on industry and individuals, all in the name of safety of course.

For example; most operators at the smaller end of town **** blue lights when CASA come a knocking, particularly if the CASA are of the 'black hat' variety. The solution is to 'go along to get along'; there have been some serious operational 'fairy stories' hammered into SOP, then ruthlessly and rigidly enforced. The operator/chief pilot left with little option but to just nod, agree and make the best of it; just to get out from under and to be left to trade in peace. The culture of fear has allowed some of the worst operational nonsense to be cast in stone; forcing a subculture into existence "say nothing"; "write less", "minimum compliance" and (whispered) don't let CASA catch you doing it the company way; if they do, you are on your own hook.

For example; Naw!! – it just goes on and on, I'll stop there. There are enough 'black hats' now promoted within the system to ensure the McComic philosophy remains. Unless the white hats are given enough encouragement to regain control; that means political will from the minuscule, down to the board flowing outward into the regional office managers and the troops they manage. The CVD issue gives you a tiny chink through which you may catch a small, fleeting glimpse of just how low the unique Australian regulatory system has sunk and how much power the black hats have, and will continue to hold if something doesn't change. Logic, facts and reasoned arguments – water off the ducks back.

Is it unacceptable? – Oh yes.

Can anything be done? – Not a snowflake in hell chance; at least not at the moment.

Real reform, with malice and aforethought is required. Leadership from the DAS and board support is needed. The industry will, (with a huge sigh of relief) as always assist as best it may. Students of Australian industry history will confirm this as unlikely; but hope springs eternal.

Selah.

[brissypilot]

Looks like the CVDPA folk have been able to get a reproduced copy of Australian Aviation's article this month:

Tone Deaf and Colour Blind (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Tone%20Deaf%20and%20Colour%20Blind%20Article.pdf)

With the ink barely dry on a scathing review of its performance, CASA finds itself in another controversy
　
WRITER: MICHAEL GISICK

Though CASA has made no public comment about the Aviation Safety Regulation Review released at the end of May, the results of the government-ordered inquiry could hardly have been received as a compliment. Appearing to foreshadow a significant overhaul of the air safety regulator, the review described CASA as inappropriately adversarial, a poor communicator, and so out of touch with the industry it oversees that its leadership was only dimly aware of how deeply it was resented.

If those judgments left CASA feeling chastised, however, it didn’t immediately show. Barely a week after the review was released, the agency was back in the news over an episode that, to critics, displayed exactly the kind of heavy-handed touch for which it had just been criticised.

At issue were regulations governing pilots with colour vision deficiency, or CVD, often referred to as colour blindness but, in fact, a spectrum of conditions affecting an estimated one-tenth of the male population who are able to perceive a smaller number of colours than most people. Among Australia’s roughly 36,000 licensed pilots, about 400 have a color vision deficiency of some measure, including around 140 commercial pilots.

For almost two decades, Australia has had some of the most flexible regulations in the world regarding such pilots, but based on letters sent by CASA to air operators in early June, that position appeared to be shifting.

The letters referred to "recent medical research" that, according to CASA, "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be." As a result, the letter said, CASA was "reviewing the situation" and operators were urged to do the same.

"I write to you now, as the holder of an air operator’s certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flightcrew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA’s further determination of the matter," the letter, signed by Peter Fereday, CASA’s executive manager for industry permissions, read.

Though the letter did not specify what medical research it referred to, it is understood the reference was to a recent study conducted by New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority principal medical officer Dougal Watson. Published in the February edition of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, an academic journal, the study compared how 78 countries assess and regulate CVD pilots. Despite International Civil Aviation Organization requirements that pilots be able to perceive colours "necessary for the safe performance in duties," Watson’s study found no clear definition of what that standard meant and wide discrepancies between how it was applied from one country to the next.

At one extreme, the study found, an applicant making a single error on a standard colour perception test, known as an Ishihara plate, would be disqualified from a Class 1 medical assessment. At the other end of the spectrum, a pilot "failing every color vision test required by the regulatory authority may be issued a medical assessment allowing commercial and airline copilot privileges," Watson wrote. Such wide divergence, Watson warned, could encouraged "aeromedical tourism" where pilots might shop around for the country with the most lax regulations.

The paper does not, however, appear to include significant new evidence of safety risks associated with CVD pilots, as CASA seemed to claim in its letter to AOCs. In the study, Watson acknowledged a "paucity" of aviation mishaps to which the colour vision deficiency of pilots had been identified as a contributing factor. Watson also acknowledged a lack of adequate research regarding the degree of colour perception required for safe aircraft operations, or which colours mattered most. The research, in short, identified a problem – a lack of uniform standards – but not the problem CASA seemed to claim.

To say that CASA is a frequent target of conspiracy theories is putting it strongly. It is fair to say, however, that to its many critics the agency’s perceived lack of transparency and fair dealing are often seen as cover for an agenda that, if not exactly hidden, is less than openly stated. This produces theories with an often rather conspiratorial appearance.
Thus, in this case, the apparent disconnect between the new medical research and the argument CASA seemed to be making on its basis, and the opaque manner with which CASA presented that research in a letter that didn’t make clear what it was referring to, has led critics to alternative explanations for CASA’s renewed interest in CVD.

The most common one is a case pending before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal brought by John O’Brien, a regional airline pilot with CVD who is challenging a decision barring him from becoming a captain. Dr Arthur Pape, an aeromedical examiner and colour deficient pilot whose own 1987 appeal before the Tribunal led to the current regulations allowing CVD pilots, said the O’Brien case, set to be heard on July 21, had produced a "tsunami of hysterical and irrational activity" within CASA. That tempest had been further inflamed by an "unprecedented interrogation of CASA on this topic in the Australian Senate" during Senate Estimates in late May.

Indeed, Pape and others point to comments by CASA director John McCormick before a Senate Estimates committee as presaging the June letter to AOCs. During the hearing, McCormick told the committee that Australia’s liberal policies with regard to CVD were at odds with those of most other countries.

"When we get to the point where we are pushing the boundaries, where we are pushing the science, looking for other ways to get around what could possibly be indicated from the clinical side is a dangerous thing to do, we are starting to impact on my ability to discharge my duties under section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act, and that is to provide safety," McCormick said.
Needless to say, the safety of passengers trumps the right of anyone in particular to pilot an aircraft, and that most other countries have more restrictive regulation with regard to colour vision might seem a reasonable cause for concern. But Pape and others say there remains no evidence that CVD pilots pose a risk – and plenty that they do not.

The 1987 Tribunal case brought by Pape after he was refused an endorsement to fly at night included what is widely seen as the most comprehensive assessment ever undertaken of the role of colour vision in flight. The Tribunal’s ruling in favour of Pape was based largely on the argument that most colour cues in the cockpit were redundant. For example, indicator lights for landing gear, usually red, turned green when the gear was deployed, but there were generally three green lights and only one red light. Colour deficient pilots could still perceive differing intensity of light, and while they might see red as orange, they could still tell it was different than white, or no light at all. Two years after the Pape case, the tribunal reaffirmed its decision, this time with regard to a commercial pilot.

As Pape and others are quick to point out, in the years since no flight incidents in Australia have been attributed to the colour vision deficiency of a pilot, despite hundreds of such pilots having had successful careers. The only known incident overseas, the 2002 crash of a Boeing 727 freighter that hit trees on its approach to landing in the United States, remains a subject of some dispute. Though the first officer’s CVD was listed as a contributing factor in the crew’s failure to establish a proper glidepath, a report by the NTSB largely blamed crew fatigue and the failure of the captain and flight engineer to monitor the approach. According to Pape, the report contains no discussion of the role the first officer’s CVD played in the accident.

"It is my view that CASA’s actions and the responses by the director and the principal medical officer to the Senate Estimates Hearings reflect an absurd and indefensible position," Pape wrote in an online commentary. "Claims of ‘medical evidence’ by both in support of their stance cannot be substantiated because such evidence does not exist."

That view has received the backing of pilot unions, with the Virgin Independent Pilots Association weighing in against what it described as a discriminatory move. "Whilst VIPA always recognises that aviation safety remains paramount, we condemn CASA’s new procedures relating to CVD pilots," VIPA executive director Simon O’Hara said. "The fact is, there are hundreds of commercial pilots with CVD who have passed check and line training requirements and subsequently have thousands of hours flying without incident, who will be impacted by these restrictive practices."

In a letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss, the Australian and International Pilots Association also linked CASA’s position to the upcoming tribunal case and said its bellicose approach undermined whatever hope for change had come from the recent review Truss had ordered.

"In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the [Tribunal] to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review," AIPA wrote.

"Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry."

For its part, CASA sought to dial down the controversy after an initial round of news reports suggested it might be moving to ground colour deficient pilots. The agency’s spokesman, Peter Gibson, told the ABC no such grounding was in the works.

"We’re not grounding any pilots, we’re not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we’re simply saying there is some new information out there which we’re considering," Gibson told the national broadcaster. Any future changes, Gibson added, would only come after months or years of consultation.

Perhaps, as Gibson seemed to suggest, this was all being blown out of proportion. But if nothing else, the incident was yet more evidence of how little stock most of the industry places in CASA’s idea of consultation.
Well done Mr Gisick :D

[Bill Smith]

Here's hoping that common sense prevails over the coming months.
:ok:

[Arthur Pape]

I am compelled to clarify something that keeps on popping up in the various commentaries over recent months, and its source is the PMO, whose logic is questionable. The numbers he has given don't add up. The fact is about 10% of males and 1% of females have CVD. Secondly, if we accept that there are some 36000 licenced pilots, and we make a crude estimate that at least half will be males (the actual ratio is likely to be much higher for males to females), then 10% of 18000 is 1800. 1% of the 18000 females is 180. So the combined figure for a conservative estimate of the total pilot population that has a colour vision defect is around 1980, not "400" as quoted originally by the PMO. I have heard him try to explain the numbers of "400 CVD pilots in total, with 140 CVD commercial pilots" and it gives me a headache trying to fathom his logic. I doubt he really knows the real stats, but I am certain that his figures are wrong. It no doubt serves the PMO's objectives to understate the numbers of pilots victimised by his actions.
AP

[ausdoc]

As much as I wasn't going to add any more to this thread....I think you'll find that the numbers quoted are those who have waivers. There are a whole lot of pilots who don't have normal colour vision, who have been granted completely unrestricted licences.

Remember that if you can pass any one of the Ishihara, Farnsworth or Tower signal light tests (or potentially now the CAD, which passes more people than the lantern tests), you meet the standard. It is only those who can't pass any of those that are considered to be "CVD pilots", which is a far lower number than the prevalence of abnormal colour vision in the population.

[Kharon]

Lies, damned lies and statistics is oft quoted; lots of wriggle room for the Shambollic system there. Add a dash of 'safety' fear, a veiled 'responsibility' threat one large dollop of 'vaunting ego' and you have an original Pony-pooh Shambollic pie. Thing is, without someone to pull the strings and give the CVD distraction event oxygen, the man from muddy river is left holding the baby and no bus fare.

It will be a great entertainment to watch as the PMO extricates his tits from the mangle, without being emasculated. Will we watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhyApkkMhMg); of course we will....:D

Ho ho ho. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhyApkkMhMg)

[Arthur Pape]

What is a waiver? The word doesn’t appear in the Regs. In the USA the FAA grants waivers against the colour vision standard if someone has demonstrated they can identify relevant lights in a practical test. They are issued with a “SODA” which stands for “Certificate of Demonstrated Ability”. The SODA is carried in the same wallet as the medical certificate, which still has a statement of not meeting the standard.
In contrast, in Australia, if a pilot has passed the control tower signal gun test or the “practical lantern test”, they are deemed to have met the standard, and the mention of CVD disappears from the medical certificate forever. Using my own case as an example, in spite of the fact I am severely colour vision defective, with a diagnosis of deuteranopia, I have passed the colour perception standard because I passed the signal gun test. I suspect that I would not be included in the PMO’s group of 400 CVD pilots. I have no mention of colour vison on my medical. The same goes for the many significantly CVD pilots who have passed one of the abovementioned tests and who are gainfully (and safely) employed in senior airline positions. They are not counted as CVD by the PMO.
So who are the 400 pilots and the 140 commercial pilots the PMO is quoting to us? Truth is, nobody knows, and likely, neither does the PMO. Does he mean that there are 260 private pilots, and 140 class 1 medical holders who have not met the standard? Do these numbers represent the pilots who have failed the CTSG and PLT? It seems unlikely, because there is absolutely no reason why a PPL would need to do either of the tests unless they had aspirations of going for the ATPL. In the PMO’s terminology, do these numbers refer to the CVD “unsafe” group?
My point is, the numbers are meaningless without definition.
Conservatively estimated, there should be at least 1980 pilots who have a clinical condition of colour vision defective (as defined by a “fail” on the Ishihara). The number is likely to be closer to 3000, depending on the ratio of male to female in the pilot population. What would be interesting would be the numbers who have done the Farnsworth Lantern Test and passed it. Of those who have failed the Farnsworth, how many have taken the CTSG and passed or failed, and likewise, how many have done the Practical Lantern Test and passed or failed. Then there is a group who have not taken either of these tests and who nevertheless have medical certificate enabling them to use their ATPL, and some have limitations while others don’t. What are the stats on this group?
These numbers should not be too complex for a computerised department like CASA to provide with clarity. Until that is done, we should treat the quoted numbers with great suspicion.
AP

[YPJT]

I am just wondering if the stats are skewed somewhat compared to the overall percentage of colour defective males because many who know of their condition do not try and pursue aviation activities in the first place on the misunderstanding that they would be excluded totally?

I wonder if the term CVD is appropriate when having discussions in a medical sense? Many doctors I have spoke to, when they see these letters think it is referring to cardio vascular disease.

[Creampuff]

Remember that if you can pass any one of the Ishihara, Farnsworth or Tower signal light tests (or potentially now the CAD, which passes more people than the lantern tests), you meet the standard. It is only those who can't pass any of those that are considered to be "CVD pilots", which is a far lower number than the prevalence of abnormal colour vision in the population.Not quite, but you’ll get there eventually, ausdoc.

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 operational situation.

The CAD test does not simulate an operational situation. Once the zealots on a medical crusade in Avmed are dragged into compliance with the law and determine tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that do, in fact, simulate an operational situation, all of the pilots who’ve been unnecessarily stuffed around will be able to get on with their lives and careers.

As to the numbers of pilots with CVD, I have to say that I was appalled by the implications of Mr McCormick’s statement that there are “only” X of “them”.

What difference does the number make?

If CASA decided that pilots with black skin may, as a consequence of the colour of their skin, be a danger to the safety of air navigation, would the fact that there are “only” 3 or 30 or 300 of “them” make any difference to the validity of a medical crusade to save the world from potential dangers of pilots with black skin?

It’s appalling. :yuk:

[Creampuff]

Next time you apply for a certificate, you should insist that CASA apply and comply with the provisions of 67.150(6). If you pass any one of the 3 tests listed in 67.150(6) you have demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. Provided you meet the other aspects of the medical standard, you are entitled to a ‘clean’ certificate.

Any note on your certificate in those circumstances is as relevant and valid as a note that says “The holder is left handed”.

[Creampuff]

Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research. :ok:

[brissypilot]

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. :ugh::ugh::ugh: 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 (http://www.pprune.org/8526959-post197.html).

A few months later, Pooshan once again reverses his decision (http://www.pprune.org/8536163-post242.html) 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? :ugh:

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? :rolleyes:

[ausdoc]

What is a waiver? The word doesn’t appear in the Regs.

You're right Arthur, but it is a commonly used term to describe when someone is issued a certificate with restrictions when they don't meet the standards. Perhaps you could ask Clearedtoreenter who said, not that long ago, When my waiver was issued years ago,.

[ausdoc]

Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research.

Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could. :ok:

[Kharon]

Michael Gisik is to be thanked and congratulated, twice. Once for taking the time to 'investigate' and 'journalate'. It's one of the very few aviation related articles which provides a balanced offering allowing the reader to form an opinion or, interest piqued, dig a little deeper....:D

The second for a nicely crafted article which shames the MSM spin doctors mouthpieces, rehash jokers and press release trolls. Gisik stands alongside Phelan and Sandilands on my 'always read' list.....:D

The magazine deserves a thank you for not only having the courage and commitment to publish but for the editorial commitment to 'reporting' rather than promoting. Kudos for an independent report rather than just publishing the spoon fed slop dished out. :D...:ok:

It's a rare treat to have something good to say about Australian aviation media. Well done all and thank you.

[Frank Arouet]

QUOTE Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA QUOTE.


I've been trying to ring "my mates" in CAsA for months now, but nobody's answering the phone.


(we're from CAsA and we're here to help).

[Creampuff]

Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could.But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.

Surely if there is "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be", the research would be published and a person with your expertise would be aware of it and be able to cite and quote from it.

Given the profound consequences for the careers of pilots and aspiring pilots, and the disruption caused by the correspondence with AOC holders, CASA would not merely invent or exaggerate the implications of some "recent medical research". That would not only be intellectually dishonest: it would be unlawful.

It is passing strange that CASA has yet to quote one syllable from the recent medical research to which CASA refers, to support the assertions made by CASA about the implications of that research.

[ausdoc]

But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.


Not me. That's a pretty big (and incorrect) assumption to make. There are a number of colour vision experts in this country, and I'm not one of them.

[Creampuff]

That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area. ... Where possible, colour should not be used as a stand-alone indicator (like in the PAPI) because all sorts of things can disrupt the signal, even for colour "normals". I agree wholeheartedly with Arthur on this one, that the T-VASIS was a much better system, as it was not reliant on normal perception of colour, and was less likely to be corrupted by atmospheric conditions/dirty lenses etc. That doesn't mean that colour coding should be removed altogether, as it provides very useful additional information.

The aviation colour environment is far more complex than a tower signal lamp or a PAPI.And still not a syllable quoted from the "recent medical research".

[ausdoc]

That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area.

Indeed.....although there is quite a difference between having a degree of background knowledge and an opinion, and having expertise.

There are quite a lot of posters on PPruNe who post like they think they have expertise.

You may recall that I simply suggested a possible explanation to Arthur's question over pilot numbers, and you again try to make it personal. If you think the explanation was wrong, how about explaining why you think that. The repetitive "what is the recent medical research" thing is just getting a bit boring.

[Creampuff]

The "recent medical research thing" that is "getting a bit boring" for you is the basis on which the regulator has purported to cast doubt on the safety of pilots who fly to feed their families. The fact that the focus of your concern is the affront to you, personally, of being asked perfectly reasonable questions, while appearing oblivious to the fact that this matter is intensely personal for the people whose careers the zealots on a medical crusade treat as playthings, says much about what is going on in your head.

[ausdoc]

And again the twisting of words, selective quoting, and personal attacks. Nothing substantive to offer then.

What I said was that your persistently asking the same question, when I have over and over again told you I don't have any more information than you, is getting a bit boring. Perhaps you think that if you ask enough times you'll get a different answer.

A large part of my professional life is devoted to keeping pilots flying with all sorts of medical conditions. It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you could turn your keen legal mind (probably better than your amateur psychiatry) to getting the regulations changed, as you are obviously very passionate about it. You appear to have expertise in aviation law. That would be of far greater use to the CVD pilots than calling names and playing word games on here.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.

That appears to be the key issue. Based on evidence casa accepted that CVD pilots were not unsafe and therefore an acceptable risk. Yet, it appears that based on the same evidence they or individuals within the organization have now changed their mind. As Creampuff and others keep asking show us this new evidence that supports casa change of position. Still waiting! It is the fundamental point. Support your case with empirical evidence. If they can't it smacks of bullying, harassment and victimization of CVD pilots.

[Kharon]

CP # 486 –"Given the profound consequences for the careers of pilots and aspiring pilots, and the disruption caused by the correspondence with AOC holders, CASA would not merely invent or exaggerate the implications of some "recent medical research". That would not only be intellectually dishonest: it would be unlawful."
Half Baked " If they can't it smacks of bullying, harassment and victimization of CVD pilots.

One of the more subtle, even subliminal side effects of this 'smear' campaign the Pooh-Shambollic system is trying to run are the 'residuals'. Two candidates for a position – one CVD; subconscious memory "Oh, wasn't there some issues with CVD pilots raised by CASA a while back, best not stir that pot". FLICK. The culture of fear is deeply ingrained; an office wallah would have no concept of the arguments or issues; simply two facts CVD plus CASA = Trouble.

It's bad enough that there is an overt grab for glory; but once that is caned, the residual notions will unfairly discriminate against a CVD pilot. The construct supporting a 'clean' medical certificate, issued on the spot by the DAME has real merit.

While I'm 'at it'; the entire 'application' form is in need of an overhaul; the signed confession is discriminatory and readily lends it's self to a deteriorating safety standard. An honest, responsible man (or mannette) may confidentially own up to recurrent in-grown toe nails and seek the advice of the medico; but is this any business of the 'administrator'?. No; so why the invasive 'questions' – what a doctor treats a patient for is strictly 'private'. All the administrator needs to know – is the candidate fit to fly (Yes or No) pick one. If Yes, pay the fee, place certificate in wallet and bugger off; if No, take the tablets and go into the desert; come back when you feel better.

To have that 'private' information available to the Hoi Polloi clerical staff and to have someone, not your doctor pawing through your record and deciding whether or not any condition precludes safe operations is risible, an invasion of privacy and a poke in the eye to your own, qualified, accredited DAME who is not trusted it seems to issue your license. The tension generated by the two month wait, after the examination to see if you have been issued a certificate is a constant niggle; (Q) "Can you fly next Monday?" – (A) "Dunno, medical extension expires Sunday, I'll let you know when (if) it arrives in time". The next hour is spent on the telephone pleading for your paperwork to be delivered. This is a bollocks - it's a money making racket, built into an incompetent, bureaucratic, Shambollic empire, by a self serving, self aggrandising megalomaniac.

There, better now.....

[Creampuff]

It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them.And there, writ large, is the fundamental error made by the zealots on a medical crusade.

The risk that is acceptable is already built into the regulations and does not require anything to be acceptable or unnaceptable to anyone in CASA. If they actually read the regulations and complied with them, the zealots on a medical crusade would realise that there is actually no role to play for any medical expert in the process of demonstrating compliance with the colour perception standard.

Let's remind ourselves of what the actual rule about demonstrating compliance with the colour perception standard actually says:(6) A person must demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion in item 1.39 of table 67.150 by:

(a) in daylight, or artificial light of similar luminosity, readily identifying a series of pseudo‑isochromatic plates of the Ishihara 24‑plate type, making no more than 2 errors; or

(b) for somebody who makes more than 2 errors in a test mentioned in paragraph (a), readily identifying aviation coloured lights displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour‑perception lantern, making:

(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or

(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of lights; or

(c) for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.A person who passes the Ishihara test in (a) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test can be administered by a trained monkey.

A person who passes the Falent test in (b) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test can be administered by a trained monkey.

A person who passes the simulated operational situation test in (c) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test cannot be administered by a trained monkey. It must be administered by a person with operational expertise.

The test for the purposes of (c) can't be determined by a medical expert. It must be determind by an operational expert. The point of the test is not to find out whether the candidate has a defect in colour perception: We already know that s/he does. The point of the test is to find out whether the candidate is able to perform simulated safety-critical operational tasks that depend on the identification of the meaning of lights that are coloured, as effectively and efficiently as candidates who don't have colour vision deficiency. Medical experts wouldn't have a clue about that. It's been proved: The CAD test doesn't simulate sh*t.

But because zealots on a medical crusade are superior and need to save the world, mere trivialities like the law are but a minor irritation. It's all about them and what's "acceptable" to them. (That's why they need to pry into and know everything about your personal life, Kharon.)

[dubbleyew eight]

creampuff has highlighted the essence of the insanity that CAsA has become.

you cannot predict the future.

you can have a good guess at it but the inherent randomness of life is always a confounding factor.

What the semantic weakness in the act has done is cause the "we know safety" nutters in CAsA to try to force the future.

"safety" and "luck" are exactly analogous. neither is an actual entity in itself. they are descriptions applied to the successful outcome of some activity.

if the act was changed so that the Western Australian Lotteries commission was charged with assuring that every person who bought a lotto ticket won the lotto you would immediately see the stupidity.
Mix a bit of the fear of death in and CAsA is charged with an impossible undertaking. Nobody seems to see the idiocy built into the Act. You cannot predict the future.

The people with colour vision differences are not deficient.
Look at them. 25 years of safe aviation and they are all healthy individuals.

CAsA on the other hand are demonstrably insane.

[Kharon]

WF.."Now if only more people would think like you in Europe, the cad test would be just confined to a museum..."

This is perhaps one of the worst, among the many travesties the current PMO has committed against the aviation community. When the Denison 'test' case findings were handed down the Avmed crew at the time were determined to expand the research and promote the findings. After 25 years the world could have adopted the Australian standard, at least for civil pilots, the relaxed ruling supported by facts and research.

Creamy – lets suppose a meeting with the minuscule could be arranged to discuss the subject; (i) What do we 'want' from the meeting? < and (ii) what could we realistically expect the minuscule do? (if indeed he could be persuaded to 'do' anything).

The notion you suggest of simply abiding by the rules seems to be a 'sound' solution and goes to the heart of real 'reform' in both spirit and intent. Is that enough? what's to stop the old Pooh-Shambollic regime from finding a back door and setting off on the same regressive journey again. A simple solution would be to fire the buggers as part of the reform package and start again, gods know Avmed needs an overhaul. The department taken back to 'tors' and performing original design function would save a shed load, keeping Avmed out of the AAT would save another; especially if DAME were trusted to sign off the certificate.

It's a strange little excursion this CVD thing, I still can't quite define the "Why" of it. But then again; I'm easily puzzled.

Exeunt: stage right, scratching head and mumbling.

[Creampuff]

The Minister doesn't care enough to lift a finger to change anything. A meeting with the Minister would therefore be pointless.

The AAT and Federal Court are now the only hope on the CVD front.

If you want any substantial change, stop electing Laborials.

[Kharon]

Some days it's worth getting out bed and opening the mail; I don't do a lot of 'warm and fuzzy' in the normal way of things, but this started my day with definite feel good vibe.

Media Release (http://medianet.com.au/releases/release-details?id=809497): 3 September, 2014.

Which starts with:

In a formal Submission to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) claims the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has mounted a coordinated and vigorous campaign to discriminate against pilots who have colour vision deficiency (CVD).

Members of the VIPA Executive, along with the President of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA), will meet with Minister Truss today to highlight how, despite assurances from CASA, changes to CVD practices have been introduced without full industry consultation.

And ends with:

“CVD pilots are just the latest group to be targeted by the PMO and their plight highlights the reason why VIPA and many in the industry are calling for an urgent overhaul of the AvMed section of CASA.”

Mr O’Hara will be joined by the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) President, Nathan Safe, along with Senator David Fawcett, Mr O’Brien and Dr Arthur Pape, an authority in CVD, at today’s meeting with Minister Truss in Parliament House.

The words are mundane enough but the brilliant Fawcett, the doughty O'Hara and the stalwart Safe; in combination with Pape could make a stone idol blink. Truss is acting PM and to get into his office, let alone a 20 minute audience is not a shabby effort. Well done all, Bravo...:D... Chocolate frogs in the mail; hell I might even send the DPM one.

Toot toot...:ok:

[Bill Smith]

Brilliant :D:D:D:D:D

[Soteria]

“CVD pilots are just the latest group to be targeted by the PMO and their plight highlights the reason why VIPA and many in the industry are calling for an urgent overhaul of the AvMed section of CASA.”
Mr O’Hara will be joined by the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) President, Nathan Safe, along with Senator David Fawcett, Mr O’Brien and Dr Arthur Pape, an authority in CVD, at today’s meeting with Minister Truss in Parliament House.That would have been a very strange experience for Truss. Being surrounded by actual aviation technical experts! For once he wasn't being fed mountains of spin, bull**** and long winded tales of 'everything is just peachey' by the likes of CASA hierarchy, Board members, Mr MrDak, Credlin and others. Nope, he would have heard a couple of home truths I imagine.
But the Ministwr won't be happy having to be the one extending the olive branch, that's what his bobble heads are paid to do! Interesting to see. Maybe he is starting to worry that, as Creampuff says, the threat of non laborials scoring some points might be actually becoming a distant concern? After all it's amazing what mayhem a couple of oddballs like PUP has been able to do with just a couple of stalled votes :E

[Kharon]

Funny you should say that, there were many things to think on within the press release; because it was a 'million dollar' meeting. Just the simple fact that Fawcett was not only there, took the lead and the boys had enough sense to let him set the tone was 'the' major victory. The very able support of the AIPA and VIPA presidents added an almost tangible dynamic to the 'credibility gap', Doc Pape and John O'Brien providing a sane, competent face to the discussion. All of this makes the meeting a very real milestone, not just for CVD, but for the return of sanity to Sleepy Hollow. None of this has any intrinsic value I might add.

Once I got past the meat and potatoes, the thought 'wonder what Truss made of it' crept in. He's been at his job a long time and must be inured to folks 'wanting' or selling something within his power and is probably immune to the slobbering of those creatures from the swamps who try to curry favour. But he seems to have a problem seeing through the CASA smoke and mirrors; if ever there was crew to remove those rose coloured glasses, he just met them. I'd hazard a beer he found the experience of 'truth' and the tang of rock solid, professional competence refreshing; and, another to say that with the evidence piling up and CASA credibility crumbling around him; the decisions he must make are becoming much easier, day by day.

The portents and omens are good; if only he could just crack on, preferably before the end of the century. Truss could save himself a lot of time, trouble, heartache and public money if he just let it happen, as it must. Perhaps a quick check of the - scorecard (http://www.pprune.org/8639316-post1215.html) – will galvanise action; it's not looking too good just now.

Toot toot..

[brissypilot]

Well done VIPA and AIPA :D

Follow up media from the meeting...

VIPA meets with Acting PM over CVD (http://australia.etbnews.com/224502/vipa-meets-acting-pm-cvd/)

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) has raised its ongoing concerns about new regulations for pilots with colour vision deficiency (CVD), in a briefing with the Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss.

Executive Director, Simon O’Hara, said yesterday’s meeting with Mr Truss in Canberra, allowed members of the VIPA Executive to “set the record straight” on changes to CVD testing.

“VIPA thanks the Acting Prime Minister for allowing us the opportunity to outline the long list of issues impacting CVD pilots across Australia, as a result of CASA introducing these unfair policy changes without consulting industry,” Mr O’Hara said today.

“We demonstrated how the colour assessment and diagnostic test (CAD) works and how there is actually no evidence to support CASA’s claims relating to the safety-related implications of the abilities of CVD pilots.

“The fact is, since the early ‘90s, several thousand CVD pilots have reached the highest levels of aviation across Australia with unblemished safety records after CASA previously accepted passes in practical flight and simulator testing.”

The Acting Prime Minister heard first-hand from CVD regional airline pilot, John O’Brien, who lodged an appeal in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), against a refusal by CASA to permit him to become a Captain. The new policy was “discriminating” against CVD pilots like Mr O’Brien.

Dr Arthur Pape, an authority in CVD, the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) President Nathan Safe and Senator David Fawcett, also attended the briefing with the Acting Prime Minister.

“Unless the Government intervenes, we are extremely concerned these new policy changes will see an increasing number of CVD pilots abandoning the industry altogether,” Mr O’Hara explained.

“VIPA and other industry stakeholders will continue to work together with Mr Truss to address the issues contained in our Submission and we were further encouraged by his agreement that CASA won’t make any further changes to CVD regulations without consulting industry.”

[triton140]

... we were further encouraged by his agreement that CAsA won’t make any further changes to CVD regulations without consulting industry.

Oh how I wish I could be reassured by that statement. But consultation comes in many guises :(

Good on them for getting to Truss, and a great team to confront him. But he's yesterday's man, and has consistently failed to address the issues. And when it all turns to tears, he'll be well gone.

[outofwhack]

This must be the lull before the storm......

John Obriens AAT court hearing is next month

[Kharon]

I can't believe there has been no delay called for, or that good sense has not prevailed. But, then again, I can't believe the whole thing ever got started. Pooh-Shambollic fighting for his professional credibility on Watson's faux photographs..:rolleyes: (he went to some trouble in Brisbane recently to tell everyone (this time) that the "newspaper" headlines were a phoney and a product of his heated ego) versus John armed with 25 years of solid proof, supported by some very heavyweight folk. We shall watch with interest.

Big breaths?

Yeth and I'm only 16.

Toot toot..:D..:D

[brissypilot]

Less than a week to go now until the AAT Hearings.

For anyone interested in attending to show support, it'll be held at the AAT's Brisbane registry from Tues 21st - Fri 24th Oct at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building (entry on Tank Street).

More precise details including times and the hearing room number is updated daily on the tribunal's website:

AAT Daily Listings (http://www.aat.gov.au/hrlist/qld/current.htm)

:ok:

[outofwhack]

I hope the chairs in the public area are comfy

[Bill Smith]

Here's to common sense, empirical evidence and no Bullsh#t getting in the way of the non issue that this is.

[papakurapilot]

Hi Guys,

Anyone there today? Any idea how we as the public stuck far from QLD can get an update?

[CoftC]

Without saying too much, John did a stellar effort under considerable pressure at times, and CVD pilots throughout the world owe him big time for standing up for what is right, with professionalism and integrity.

The team presented an excellent case and the feeling is positive so far.

[Kharon]

Three points of concern:-

i) The change of 'president' to a family court man; this case demands, at very least, someone who knows which end of an aircraft the smoke comes out of. Late changes are, in all ways, a worry.

ii) The late change of lawyers – off the bench, J. Rule to hold Hardly's jacket may yet cause some 'difficulty'.

iii) Harvey will take this matter away from 'the law' as writ to an esoteric, technical distraction fuax-pas. E.g. Hempel was pure operational, but became a 'medical' bun fight. This is pure law – but will translated into operational or, transmogrified into a 'medical' melodrama.

On the plus side – the 'expert', expensive OS (NZ) CASA support 'specialists' have apparently been cancelled, Fawcett has weighed in, and so far to date no 30K 'death dives' have resulted from CVD. Phew!

Thus far, a 50/50 bet. Logically – a lay down Misère; but at AAT with CASA – an unaffordable Federal court challenge may win the day– but who can afford it?. CASA can, that's who...

Just saying – chickens and eggs – is all...I hope the inestimable Creamy will assuage my misgivings – but; in a life where nothing is certain – It happens...

Gluck boys.

[Des Dimona]

The contradictory statements from CASA about this are breath taking. The classic examples are Gibson's "assurances" that there will be no witch hunt for CVD pilots and the direct contradiction with CASA letters removing ATPL medical privileges (subsequently reversed).

They were caught out about CAD, evidence to the AAT and the senate hearings etc etc

The current head of Aviation Medicine is set on undoing the sensible gains that have been made in many areas over the last 20 years.

His predecessors were honest brokers who were frustrated by the CASA machinery and left, but he is happy to hide behind the bureaucracy.

His testimony and comments across various forums and in the AAT will be viewed by most as misleading and unprofessional. He has been shot down legally on several occasions.

The sooner he is replaced - the better. :mad:

This latest decision by the AAT will be critical not only for CVD, but for other AVMED areas in terms of the message it will create.

[papakurapilot]

Hi Guys,

Any update on the final day? Nerve wreckingly quiet?

Thanks

[aerospace11]

hello was just wondering if anyone has any update on the cvd case? and/or if a result has been reached?

[xjt]

AAT Hearings Report

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

It has been a very busy week!

Thank you to all who were able to attend the AAT in person and support our cause. You would have no doubt found the process both interesting and frustrating, with CASA continue to perpetuate a myth based on unproven assumptions that CVD pilots pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation.

The hearings lasted for 3 days in total before a tribunal consisting of Justice Robert Benjamin and Dr William Isles.

Fortunately, the lawyers managed to reduce the amount of witnesses who were required to give oral evidence. On our side, the tribunal heard practical evidence from regarding how CVD pilots operate. We were also very fortunate to be supported by Associate Professor Geoff Stuart who provided terrific evidence on the numerous scientific flaws associated with the design of the CAD test. He also gave evidence regarding the flaws in CASA’s risk management process that they are adopting with CVD pilots. A. Prof. Stuart has over 30 years’ experience in vision science including studies of colour vision. He is also a human factors specialist and conducts work for a University Accident Research Centre.

On CASA’s side, the Principal Medical Officer Dr Navathe was cross examined and A. Prof. Geoff Stuart also gave concurrent evidence with CASA’s experts, Prof John Parkes and the inventor of the CAD test, Prof John Barbour. We did manage to achieve a number of oral admissions from CASA’s experts, including the fact that the CAD did not simulate an operational situation.

Despite this, there is still a long way to go and victory is by no means certain. CASA’s massive legal firepower was extremely obvious this week, with them being represented by a very experienced external barrister Ian Harvey QC. They are throwing everything they’ve got at this case and it continues to be a “Might” versus “Right” battle.

We are also facing the fact that what we are trying to achieve has never been done anywhere else in the world. Despite recent events this year, Australia continues to remain the most liberal country in the world with respect to aviation colour vision standards. For this reason alone, the tribunal will naturally be very cautious in making a decision which is so drastically different to the standards that are adopted elsewhere. We are fighting an uphill battle, but we are continuing to give this everything we’ve got. We have the emperical evidence to support our case and it's now up to the tribunal to see the light.

We next have until the 14th November to prepare follow up written submissions. This will require us to carefully study the transcripts and dissect the evidence that was given. A final public hearing day is then scheduled for the 24th November. At that point, the tribunal will then retire to consider all the evidence including the numerous experts who gave written statements, but were not required to give oral evidence in person. It could potentially take weeks or months before the ultimate decision is handed down.

We will continue to keep everyone updated throughout this process.

Thanks again for your ongoing enthusiasm and support.

[Fueldrum]

Please note that our standards are not the most liberal in the world. Canada has a very similar air safety task to ours, and their standards are roughly the same as ours.

Of course, that could change if CASA gets their way. I am deeply ashamed to be a member of the same profession as them.

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA’s massive legal firepower was extremely obvious this week, with them being represented by a very experienced external barrister Ian Harvey QC. They are throwing everything they’ve got at this case and it continues to be a “Might” versus “Right” battle.

Ian Harvey is no external barrister, but the person who has instructed and trained casa legal since at least 1999, the furtherest I have traced him so far.

The following quote indicates the distance that casa will go to stop proper investigations and progress that would not be in their interest.

CASA kept ACCC out of the Mobil case (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/08/07/shooting-the-messenger-an-analysis/)

An approach by several operators to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) met with a negative response as the ACCC could only act when [the] lead agency CASA requested such assistance. CASA inaction thus obstructed vital legal assistance under the Trade Practices Act 1974.


I wonder who gave that advice to casa legal??

[tipsy2]

Harvey was also appointed "counsel assisting" in the Lockhart River coronial which seemed to me to be a bit odd given his closeness to CASA at various times.

They say appearances can be deceptive and I may have misinterpreted the appearances!

Tipsy

[Up-into-the-air]

Sorry T, missed saying that!!

Certainly a way forward for casa to hide documents etc. I notice that Shane is still on the case and the following was published: (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/06/01/new-search-ordered-for-missing-casa-documents/)

OAIC [Office of Australian Information Commissioner] wrote to CASA on 27 February 2013 seeking further details of its search for the documents, which the aviation regulator had said it was unable to find. CASA provided a response on 14 March 2013 which OAIC says did not satisfactorily explain why it was unable to locate the documents. OAIC then conducted further enquiries with CASA in late March. CASA’s response to this was still insufficient to show that the documents Mr Urquhart sought did not exist or could not be found.

[Frank Arouet]

Harvey is a hired gun.

[thorn bird]

Your romanticizing him Frank,


He's a bottom feeding scumbag lawyer.

[Brainy]

From the AvMed newsletter today, it seems Pooshan is now Pooshan't be staying on. Fallen on his sword? Told to take his Ishihara plates and p$&@ off?

Changing of the Guard

I have decided that it is time that AvMed is led by a different leader. As we get a new Director, it seems appropriate that we renew this area of CASA as well. Accordingly I will be moving on from CASA in the new year. More details about the arrangements of CASA AvMed are being finalised and I will provide more details in the next newsletter.



Regards,

Pooshan

[brissypilot]

Brilliant news! :D

[gerry111]

Very encouraging news indeed.
But let's not pop the champagne corks just yet..

[Bill Smith]

Hopefully someone with a modern commonsense approach.
Unfortunately, I feel we are being regulated out of existence.

[outofwhack]

That's wonderful news. He won't be missed one bit. I would wager he has been asked to leave. Oow

[Sarcs]

There will be many..many hundreds of pilots, airline operators etc. breathing a huge sigh of relief that the Pooh Shambolic - aviation medico zealot on a mission - has finally fallen on his sword...:D:D

Ever since the Hazelton AAT decision against - closely followed by several other AAT losses - the (soon to be former) PMO has been a dead man walking with his credibility as an expert witness shot in the eyes of the AAT..:{

The final nail however was the O'Brien AAT CVD case when the PMO was forced to admit (from tribunal transcript) that he had been "procedurally unfair":
15 I have another letter dated 23 June 2014, have you seen that letter before?---I have.
You specifically recall that?---I beg your pardon?
20 You have specific recollection of that?---Yes. Yes, I do, but I’m aware of the provenance of those letters. I created those letters to be written and sent to some people.
25 And you’ve mentioned that the decision is on the basis that procedural fairness required CASA to provide you an opportunity to comment on the imposition of the new conditions, which are those conditions in the first letter from CASA?---Where are you reading that, sir?
30 In the first paragraph?---Right, yes. Yes.
And those comments, the reference to those comments, are the two letters from (blank) to yourself, is that correct?---M’mm.
35 And you decided upon considering - well, what’s in the content of the letter you changed your view on Mr (blank) conditions and you allowed him to have an ATPL?---I did not change my view about the safety or not of it. I was - the decision, as it says there, was changed on the basis that procedural fairness had not been afforded. That it was not a safety related decision; it
40 was a procedural decision.
What factors did you take into consideration?---The fact that he had not been accorded procedural fairness. For a legal decision to be made my understanding is that it has to be procedurally fair, and the advice we had was
45 that it was not procedurally fair - - - Another quote perhaps highlights how the current executive crew at Fort Fumble honestly believe that are quite literally above the law...:ugh::
During your examination you indicated that CASA had not yet adopted the CAD test, the formal CAD test. Are you aware that when Mr O’Brien was applying for the ATPL privileges you wrote to him and gave him no other choice but to take the CAD test, and unless he did, you would not be able to progress his application?
---Yes. I wrote that letter, yes. I’m aware of that. If you wish I can explain what I had. The important issue with that is that there is no limit on the test which can be asked for for any person with any kind of disability. There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test. The fact that it may or may not be - when I was talking about policy, I was talking about policy to demonstrate that you meet the standard. Once you do not meet the standard anyone in CASA for any test that they wish which will help to make the determination as to whether or not is, you know, at the extent where it does not affect the aviation safety. So poor old Shambolic was only following executive SOP to the letter...:yuk::yuk:
Now for the other wabbits...

"...Now, may I kindly, and selfishly, ask that those who supported Poohshan's abhorrent decision to inflict untold and unethical damage on our pilot industry - the other two members of the DAS trio, Ferret-a-day, LSD and others also be given their marching orders. The farcical CVD issue was a huge decision and unleashed on industry after many internal high ranking executives jointly agreed to the decision. The pineappling of Poohshan should be just the starting point in this issue. More blood should yet be spilled..."

Well said Soty...;)

TICK..TOCK goes the Playschool clock..:E

MTF...:ok:

Ps Loved this bit from the transcript..
HIS HONOUR: Dare I ask, if CASA believes that Mr O'Brien is a competent pilot as you described, why are we here? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Up-into-the-air]

The following quote from pooshambolic should be remembered for ever:

There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test.

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Bird-and-Frog.bmp

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It is clear from the transcripts of John's case that the (former) PMO still does not understand the "standards" for colour vision in Australian regulation (or ICAO)
As Creamie has laid out, time and again, the standards is that a pilot must be able to operate safely.
The "standard" is NOT that one of a number of tests to determine a candidate's level of colour vision be passed.
Tootle pip!!

[PAIN_NET]

Sorry folks - Transcript no longer available, copyright issues due to AAT permission not being granted.

Regretfully withdrawn.

P106. a.k.a. Red Dog..:ok:

[Creampuff]

The important issue with that is that there is no limit on the test which can be asked for for any person with any kind of disability. There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test. The fact that it may or may not be - when I was talking about policy, I was talking about policy to demonstrate that you meet the standard. Once you do not meet the standard anyone in CASA for any test that they wish which will help to make the determination as to whether or not is, you know, at the extent where it does not affect the aviation safety.Ah, the exquisitely circular reasoning typical of those on a crusade.

Until a candidate has undergone a test that simulates an operational situation, in terms of CAR 67.150(6)(c), you don’t know whether the candidate meets the standard set by law in Australia. And if a candidate passes a test that simulates an operational situation, in terms of CAR 67.150(6)(c), the candidate has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard set by law in Australia. Full-stop. Irrespective of the opinion of any zealot on a medical crusade.

By law, you can’t impose “any” test. There is, in law, a “limit”.

The law says the test must simulate an operational situation. That means what it says.

What it doesn’t say, and what it doesn’t mean, is the CAD test – which doesn’t simulate operational sh*t - or some other glorified colour perception test that bears no semblance to any realistic operational situation encountered in the real world.

The test – as least for pilot candidates – must simulate a safety-critical task involving the identification of the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured, with all of the same cues that would be available in the real world (subject of course to ‘normal’ emergencies), without characteristics that bear no semblance to anything encountered in the real world. The pass standard must be that achieved by the pilot population without colour vision deficiency, in the same test. Otherwise, the test is just another glorified game to find out what is already known.

My ongoing worry is that, notwithstanding Dr N’s departure, there remain people in CASA who understand all of this, perfectly, but who may have encouraged or assisted, either positively or by acquiescence, the CVD crusade so far.

[outofwhack]

Creamy,

I would contend that the parties most encouraging Dr Ns
medical crusade are actually overseas.
I'll bet my bottom dollar it's the UK CAA (and ICAO) driving
Poosham. The UK CAA have always
denied colour defectives flight at night and therefore a career.

They have never allowed a practical test and are probably
the most restrictive country with regard
to cvd pilots.


OOW