The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots [Archive] - Page 3

Sarcs

5th Nov 2014, 20:09

Either way you cut it the new PMO, much like Skates, has a hell of a job to do when you consider how much Avmed have micro-managed pilot medicals to a point where many pilots are simply giving up the industry in droves.

A good start would be for the new PMO (supported by Skates) to immediately adopt R35 from the ASRR report:

35. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.
Due consideration should also be given to Dr Liddell's clear, succinct overview of the current Avmed regime given in his ASRR submission #69 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/069_r_liddell_24_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)...:D:

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

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.
They should also refer to the following from about 04:50...:D

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

While on the subject of media coverage the Poosham resignation is starting to attract some attention itself and AA online - CASA’s principal medical officer to step down (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/casas-principal-medical-officer-to-step-down/) - also references Dr Liddell plus his ASRR submission..:ok:
As CASA’s principal medical officer, Dr Navathe and his team were responsible for, among other things, the standards and policies regarding medical certification for pilots.

This included the recent move to change standards for colour vision deficiency (CVD), which has angered many pilots who have been flying with some form of CVD for many years but now faced the prospect of being grounded under new regulations.

In June, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) condemned the new rules (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/vipa-labels-new-colour-vision-deficiency-regs-discriminatory/) relating to colour vision deficiency (CVD), saying they discriminated against pilots working in Australia’s major airlines and failed to deliver any better safety outcomes.

“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 on June 19.

“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.”

And on the broader question of CASA’s medical testing regulations, former CASA director of aviation medicine Robert Liddell said he regularly met pilots who were “totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine”.

“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,” Dr Liddell wrote in a submission to the Aviation Regulatory Safety Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/069_r_liddell_24_jan_2014_redacted.pdf). MTF...;)

Kharon

6th Nov 2014, 18:27

Seems we are not able to use the hearing transcript to illustrate a point, but thankfully the PM system works and I snagged the link for the PAIN download. The transcript is an interesting read for many reasons, hopefully the CVD crew will get off their arses and seek the necessary permissions so the MaM can discuss some of the twists and turns, without having to rely on independent, free hand translation. Until then you'll just have to put up with my twiddles for some of the highlights (no whinging, puleese).

Before we go any further, the President, His Honour (HH) should be congratulated; no matter the decision handed down, he ran a tight ship, was IMO fair, even handed and all together sane, safe, sound and reasonable. Nicely played Sir....:D (Can you give a HH a choc frog?)

One of the more fascinating parts of the hearing came on day three, when the May 26 appearance before the Senate inquiry was raised and one Fawcett Esq. was mentioned along with the CAD test. The reaction from Hardly Normal was an instant – "Well, I object"; - you'd think his seat had goosed him, he was up off it so fast. All flustered and angry. HH, cool as a cucumber asks Lawson does he want to press the question; "Oh yes please" chirps young Lawson (for the CVD) with a big smile...:D

Well, Hardly drags in a big one and starts banging on about the Parliamentary Privileges Act, from memory mind you, and bemoaning the fact that while he doesn't have the Act itself about his person; he's bloody sure that drawing context, particularly judicial imperial context is a big no-no. Then he drops Joey Norules in it and expects him to produce that Act, wabbit like, out of his hat (Norules ain't got a hat), while bleating on about working from memory. The HH visage must have been a study – here's a QC, barking about a point of law, without a reference or even a hope of finding one for HH before tea time.

HH displayed his tact and reasonable attitude again and suggested that they move away from that minefield until later, when both sides know what they are talking about. It's fair to say young Lawson didn't have the PP Act in his briefcase either; but then, he didn't expect such a big reaction from Hardly at the mention of Senate or Senator. (Or did he?).

Now you'd expect Hardly to let that go through to the keeper and get his reference about parliamentary stuff then. But no; there is no way he is going to have the Senate dragged into play and he launches into one of those seemingly innocuous, well rehearsed, trusted, venomous soliloquies which have caused the 'other side' so much consternation in the past; he's good at it.

He starts off, looking reasonable and caring only for 'justice' to suggest that perhaps young Lawson could 'work around' mentioning the Senate; then 'sulkily' asks why he has to refer to the Senator at all, seems he can't understand that (wonderful theatre); the last part of the routine ends with a loaded question – imagine Hardly posed one hand on chest, the other extended forward, his ala Lincoln pose, and in a performance worthy of Portia cries (paraphrased) "Oh M'lud, what gravamen it has to quote the words of a political figure, can we not dispense with this foul calumny"; pause, sip, big breath, "I have not; not for four and forty years looked at the PP Act; but I am certain that it's very wrong to refer to any parliamentary doings, very naughty indeed". Pause for effect, sits dramatically to the gentle applause noise (some say wind) emanating from Norules.

Well children, young Lawson just smiled quietly and bowled around the wicket, the point had been made and the whole thing fizzled out; neither side dragged out the PP Act and argued the points of law.

Two things were shown, clear and bright through the murk: CASA don't much like not being able to lead a Senate committee around by the foreskin and they remember that one D. Fawcett Esq. kicked seven bells out them on Night Vision and is lining them up for round two on Colour Vision. Not true you howl; well, he nailed Pooh Shambollocks and provided young Lawson some superior ammunition, which was used wisely.

The CVD issue provides such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the current CASA system and makes the case worthy of the time and effort taken to study it. Best of all, Pooh-Shambollocks will not be there for the return bout; and, perhaps Hardly Normal will take the hint that if CASA want to make a case, the 'evidence' must be beyond reasonable doubt, lest the AAT make another legally unsafe ruling. I think the AAT wise owls have tumbled to the fact that CASA can, does and will continue to rely on their name rather than 'facts and circumstances' to win at any cost; Jones being a prime example. Maybe, those days are over. We can only hope.

Toot toot - NEXT !.

Kharon

10th Nov 2014, 19:53

PS> It's a long transcript and, as we still may not use 'it', it's pointless to draw inference, gauge or speculate on the outcome. But I am concerned that some very persuasive argument has been omitted from the CVD construct. It is to be hoped that this will be included in the final submission, for it would be mistake to leave an important stone unturned.

There is no reference made to manufacturers MEL for Cathode Ray (CRT) screens, these made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale. It is significant that insofar as Airbus and Boeing are concerned there are no operating restrictions related to the lack of 'colour'. This stands as direct evidence of how much weight manufacturers and certifying authorities place on the 'luxury' of colour display as opposed to symbols and annunciators.

One other, IMO important omission was the Night Vision (NVG) display, where not only is 'colour' sacrificed to monochrome green, but 'perspective' is diminished.

Both very sound argument against restricting CVD pilots from operating in a (nice to have) coloured world. Creampuff has nailed down the legal argument very nicely but the 'operational' considerations could have been reinforced, beyond the existing 'proof' to make absolutely certain that the dinosaurs remain extinct.

20driver

13th Nov 2014, 01:32

I got an email from a Dr Thomas Azman who runs the above site.
He has a process where he can fit you special lens or contacts and guarantees you will pass the Ishihara test.

Anyone have any experience with this?

YPJT

13th Nov 2014, 01:46

DAMEs and Opthalmologists are aware to look for these lenses

Arthur Pape

13th Nov 2014, 09:22

Re Colormax lenses:
There are many variations of lenses that will "help you pass the Ishihara" but they ARE ALL IRRELEVANT. Passing the Ishihara or any other colour vision test, has no bearing or relevance to whether or not you can fly an (any) aircraft competently and safely. To get drawn into discussing these lenses only reinforces the false theory that colour matters in the task of flying safely. I have tried several such lenses out of curiosity, and they are fun to try but useless in normal daily activities.

gerry111

13th Nov 2014, 10:19

Dr Arthur Pape wrote:

"To get drawn into discussing these lenses only reinforces the false theory that colour matters in the task of flying safely."

IMHO: I completely agree!

brissypilot

13th Nov 2014, 22:42

Kharon:
There is no reference made to manufacturers MEL for Cathode Ray (CRT) screens, these made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale. It is significant that insofar as Airbus and Boeing are concerned there are no operating restrictions related to the lack of 'colour'. This stands as direct evidence of how much weight manufacturers and certifying authorities place on the 'luxury' of colour display as opposed to symbols and annunciators.Let's not forget that items such as EFIS displays, reaction times and much more were already covered in enormous detail during the Denison v CAA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/1989/84.html) case 25 years ago. A quick refresher:

8. ...We understand that there are a considerable number of other pilots with defective colour vision who have requested the granting of licences which do not contain a condition prohibiting their piloting aircraft at night. For that reason the respondent indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case. Mr Rose, therefore, informed the Tribunal that the respondent intended to present its case in a manner which would encompass not only the applicant's situation but also broader issues relating generally to defective colour vision. At the request of the respondent the Attorney-General granted legal aid to the applicant to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by the respondent presenting his case in that manner. The matters which we have to consider in these proceedings have consequently been extended well beyond those which the applicant originally sought to raise, that is to say whether his defective colour vision made it unsafe for him personally to pilot an aircraft at night. The proceedings have taken 28 hearing days. In order to reach conclusions on those matters raised it is necessary for us to address a number of questions. Because of the amount of evidence given we cannot set all of it out in detail; however, we have taken the whole of it into account in making our decision and in expressing conclusions on the various matters raised for our consideration.Remember, the O'Brien case only had 3 hearing days and essentially picked up where Denison left off. There shouldn't have been any need to re-examine all the issues such as EFIS as these were already found to be a non-issue. No doubt this will be re-emphasised in the written submissions.

59. The respondent arranged for the Tribunal to see the reproduction of the cockpit of a Boeing 767 aircraft in a flight simulator and to have the use of the instruments demonstrated to us in simulated flight by Captain J. R. Rhind. Characteristics of modern aircraft instrumentation were described to us by Mr Chatfield. He showed a number of photographic slides which demonstrated the general lack of colour in the cockpits of older aircraft and the increasing use of colour, and the greater sophistication of that use, in more modern aircraft. He said that, although initially the new instrumentation had been used principally in larger passenger transport aircraft, lighter aircraft were now being equipped with sophisticated Electronic Flight Instrument Systems ("EFIS").61. The research conducted by Professor Cole and Dr Macdonald was designed to ascertain whether the response time taken by a person with defective colour vision to obtain information from EFIS displays was longer than that taken by persons with normal colour vision. In order to carry out that research they took photographs of part of the EFIS instrumentation in a simulator, namely the Horizontal Situation Indicator ("HSI"); different photographs were taken of the HSI as it was at various stages of a simulated flightI see that CASA have once again trotted Cole out to give evidence this time despite having his research severely discredited in the Denison case:

64. There is one major reason for querying generally whether the research justified any conclusion being drawn in respect of the task of piloting an aircraft. That is that the subjects were not experienced pilots and were shown still photographs not sequentially related to one another. During the flight of an aircraft the pilot is constantly scanning his instruments; he does not suddenly come upon an instrument displaying certain information. He has been seeing that instrument at frequent intervals for however long the flight has lasted. Consequently, whenever he sees it, he does so in the context of the flight. He knows what has gone before and if, as is usual, the flight is being conducted in accordance with a flight plan, what he can reasonably expect to come next. The greater his experience as a pilot using such instrumentation, the greater will be his understanding of its display and consequently his ability to derive from it in the context of the flight the information which he requires in order to fly the aircraft safely.65. ...In the course of the hearing we heard a considerable amount of evidence about the colour coding of that instrumentation, about the other ways in which it conveys information and also about aural warnings which accompany instrumentation displays indicating equipment malfunctions which may be serious. We also heard a good deal of evidence about the weather radar part of the EFIS.74. It was suggested to us that, while we might find that no single difficulty which pilots with defective colour vision might encounter in acquiring information from colour-coded displays would result on its own in a significant risk to the safety of air navigation, the combination of several difficulties experienced together would have that result, as it reduced their ability to take appropriate action sufficiently quickly in a situation of emergency. The delay in acquiring any one piece of information and, therefore, in responding to the situation to which it relates might itself be insignificant. But, if a number of pieces of information had to be acquired and responded to at the same time, the total delay might be significant. Having regard to the nature of emergencies which may arise during the flight of an aircraft, we have come to the conclusion that in practical terms the total delay, if any, will itself be insignificant and that the risk to the safety of air navigation will still not be significant or unacceptable.The above quotes are just a small snapshot of how extensively the tribunal in Denison considered all these sorts of issues and much more (there are actually 15 paragraphs in the decision which discuss EFIS alone).

No doubt the current tribunal will be carefully reading through Denison in the lead up to making a judgement this time around.

Essentially, the only thing that has changed since then is that we now have 25 years of demonstrated safe flying experience by CVD pilots at all levels of the industry who continue to perform no differently to colour normals. There is also of course the backwards thinking soon to be ex-PMO :ugh:

gerry111

14th Nov 2014, 12:12

"...when the colour gun fails and the screen goes to monochrome grey scale."

Whoever came up with that, certainly has no understanding of how colour CRT's actually work.

LeadSled

14th Nov 2014, 13:00

Whoever came up with that, certainly has no understanding of how colour CRT's actually work.

Gerry111,
I have a lot of hours on aircraft where that was a regular occurrence, I do not really care how CRTs work, only that the defect (EADI/EHSI going to grayscales) was covered in the MELs.

Does it occure to you that it might be the signal generators in a (early) glass cockpit, that feed the CRT.

The writer of that post also has many hours on a similar type from the same OEM, same problem and same MEL.

Don't be so quick to jump in and tell people they do not know what they are talking about.

Tootle pip!!

Kharon

14th Nov 2014, 20:44

Well, I'll leave it up to you Gerry old chap – pick one from the list below, one as suits you best.

"[these} made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale." Or:

"[these} made for when the colour 'gun' fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale." Or:

"[these} made for when the colour fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale."

Not that it would have any relevance to the CVD issue, but it may amuse the odd pedant or two; those with a penchant for semantics.

Fire away - :rolleyes:

gerry111

15th Nov 2014, 14:03

LeadSled wrote:

"Don't be so quick to jump in and tell people that they do not know what they are talking about."

I'd only ever do that LeadSled, if I had a pretty good reason to do so.

Gentlemen, no offence was meant! Surely, you all do realise that I'm a firm supporter of Dr Arthur Pape and the whole issue regarding CVD?

But as Clinton McKenzie (thankfully) notes, Colour Cathode Ray Tubes are something with which I've had a fair bit of professional experience over a rather long period of time. That's 39 years.

So LeadSled and Kharon, I wasn't picking a fight with you nor any others. I simply believe that in order to have a credible argument, facts are rather important.

I'm quite happy to explain to you all the technical theory about colour CRT's. But I can absolutely promise you one thing. If your colour CRT suddenly goes to monochrome, the fault is definitely NOT THE CRT!

A colour CRT has three colour guns. Red Green and Blue.

Good fault finding, LeadSled! The problem would sure be within the electronics driving the colour CRT.

But as previously mentioned, this is irrelevant to where we are at.

Fueldrum

16th Nov 2014, 07:30

A CRT is a cathode ray tube. These were the first coloured screens used in glass cockpits. Most glass cockpits nowadays use LCD displays but the principle is the same.

I would draw attention to this fact; if an aeroplane's instruments cannot be safely interpreted by a pilot whose colour vision just meets current standards, then that aircraft is unairworthy.

The pilots who won the second world war, won it on black and white instruments.

cockney steve

19th Nov 2014, 09:16

The pilots who won the second world war, won it on black and white instruments.
But they didn't have a load of lawyers and beaurocrats to keep a gravy-train rolling for.

Agree, re-" colour gun" Use a crap, ill-founded term and you destroy your argument and your credibility.

The issue is, "if colour-generation fails, the display becomes greyscale."

(which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.)
OTOH, CASA seemed to have blundered into another farce,with Jabiru.

They really know how to turn the searchlight on their owni ncompetence!

F.Nose

19th Nov 2014, 11:23

CVD people do not see everything in grey scale.

LeadSled

22nd Nov 2014, 02:45

CVD people do not see everything in grey scale. F.Nose,
I was not implying they do, the point was that the Type Certificate holders of the aircraft, and the FAA do not regard the colour EFIS of such importance that loss of colour should restrict the operation of the aircraft.
Hence, it cannot be said that standard colour vision is required to operate the aircraft "safely", whatever "safely" means.
More accurately, loss of colour (or non-standard colour perception) does not materially inject any additional risk into the operation of the aircraft.

Gerry 111,
As a matter of fact, the CRTs referred to were, in domestic use, called Sony Trinitron tubes. Our tecs. reckoned that the very expensive Approved Replacement Parts differed from the commercially available tubes only in having a part number and a serial number on a sticker on the tube, plus associated 8130.3 or equivalent paperwork.

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: re-" colour gun" Use a crap, ill-founded term and you destroy your argument and your credibility.C.Steve,
Absolute rubbish.

which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.Absolute rubbish, I guess that destroys your argument and your credibility.

PS2:

Many moons ago, BOAC ( predecessor to BA) bought some second hand B707-320, that were fitted with Collins FD-108 FDS. Said instruments had pretty colours, like the blue of the sky and the brown of the land, and sundry red warning flags, each of which also said what the flag was, in black. BOAC pulled all these instruments out, and replaced them with "proper" black and white Smiths equivalents.

F.Nose

22nd Nov 2014, 06:29

I understand your point LeadSled and totally agree. Most operators also have exemptions to operate into aerodromes with unserviceable slope guidance so the same argument could be applied to the influence of CVD on PAPI.

My comment however was in relation to that of cockney steve's.

The issue is, "if colour-generation fails, the display becomes greyscale."

(which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.)

We don't need to create wrong impressions here.

cockney steve

22nd Nov 2014, 09:45

Gentlemen, thank you for the clarification.

It was stated, unchallenged, earlier in the thread, that displays reverted to greyscale.
I can see that happening with a "colour- generation" fault. However, a CRT relies on 3 different guns each of which fires it's electron beam through a hole in a Shadow.Mask (a sheet of perforated gauze) to illuminate "it's" 1/3-portion of a compound phosphor dot printed on the inside of the screen......
So, if A (not "the" A colour-gun fails, you will get different, distorted colours to those intended (or nothing, if the part of the display was intendedin that gun's pure part of the spectrum.
. The Trinitron tube differed from a conventional tube only in that it's shadow-mask had slits instead of circular holes and the phosphor "dot" was thus a 3-part strip. The guns still had to align accurately to fire their beams through the slit and illuminate the correct bit of phosphor.
A super quality product, the domestic TV's were sold with a 3-year guarantee inthe UK, making it as cheap to buy over 3 years , than renting...Every year after that was a "free" TV.

@ LEADSLED Before you rip into me, please note I said "APPARENTLY"... I am not at all familiar with the actual manifestations of CVD, apart from the odd colour-blind individual I have questioned. I got the impression they all saw their colour-deficient part of the spectrum in grey and were thus able to make a fair guess as to what,if any colour was present.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all and expand on this ?

Absolute rubbish refuted, can I have my credibility back now? pretty please.:8:}

gerry111

23rd Nov 2014, 12:30

Cockney Steve, I very closely agree with your understanding of how Sony Trinitron colour CRTs work.

You are correct that if one of the colour guns fail, the displayed picture will be anything but monochrome.

(For example: If the red gun fails, the pix will be cyan. If the green gun fails, the pix will be magenta. If the blue gun fails, the pix will be yellow.)

The same goes for an old analogue television with any type of colour CRT.

LeadSled, I'm rather unsurprised that a relatively low cost consumer product, (In this case a Sony Trinitron colour CRT) found its way into the commercial aviation market at much greater cost! The Sony Trinitrons are a little unusual from other colour CRTs in that they were made from lead crystal glass. And so are pretty heavy.

A 1967 Bonanza (with which I am a little bit familiar) needed a new PA speaker. The owner discovered that it was actually a rear speaker from a sixties General Motors vehicle. So a search found a brand new old stock automotive part. It is the same item! Of course, the old faulty part remains fitted as lives could be in jeopardy if we were to fit the new one!

My apologies for thread drift! Back to CVD.

Kharon

23rd Nov 2014, 19:20

Just won a beer and I get to add this thread to my ignore list. The bet ?; that before the end of the page, the irresistible urge, to produce a pointless diatribe on the irrelevant technical details of the archaic CRT would just have to be provided.

Hoy-day, what a sweep of vanity comes this way! (Timon)

Ta ta..

aerospace11

24th Nov 2014, 03:21

any update on cvd case? was not today the 24th november the final day of hearing?

aerospace11

24th Nov 2014, 21:02

was the 24th november meant to be final day of cvd hearing? if so how did it go and when is the result likely? or has it already come? would appreciate a response

Creampuff

24th Nov 2014, 21:29

Irrespective of the outcome (which, at least in the short term, is in the hands of the AAT), I note that my opinion, based on the content of CASA’s submissions, is that CASA is an organisation that has lost both its moral and intellectual compasses.

brissypilot

25th Nov 2014, 07:36

was the 24th november meant to be final day of cvd hearing? if so how did it go and when is the result likely? or has it already come? would appreciate a responseWord is that the final day of hearings went as good as could be expected yesterday. Apparently (and predictably) Harvey continued to run the line that Australia is already well ahead of the rest of the world and that for the tribunal to set aside CAsA's decision would imply that the rest of the world has got it wrong. You bet the rest of the world has got it wrong! No other country in the world has a mechanism for pilots to appeal bureaucratic decisions like Australia does with the AAT. If it wasn't for the AAT and the landmark 28 day Denison test case, which to this day remains as the largest, independent examination of CVD in aviation, then Australia wouldn't be where it was today either.

Apparently CAsA have an overwhelming body of 'evidence' from 'experts'. What they actually have is an overwhelming body of opinions mostly from non-pilot optometrists who've never empirically assessed how CVD pilots perform in actual operational environments.

Hopefully the AAT will carefully look at the facts, the safety case and take comfort in knowing that the Denison case already examined the very same issues that CAsA now seek to conveniently disregard, just because it doesn't suit their objective to bring us into line with ICAO.

Apparently the result won't be known until early next year sometime.

Creampuff:
Irrespective of the outcome (which, at least in the short term, is in the hands of the AAT), I note that my opinion, based on the content of CASA’s submissions, is that CASA is an organisation that has lost both its moral and intellectual compasses.It was good to see AOPA putting in their two cents worth today as well :ok:

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/AOPAtoActingDAS_zps0b8ff30f.png (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/AOPAtoActingDAS_zps0b8ff30f.png.html)

:D:D

aerospace11

19th Jan 2015, 10:19

just wondering if there has been any update on a result of the cvd case or if there is an indication of when the result is likely due even the slightest update if possible would be appreciable

brissypilot

21st Jan 2015, 07:51

just wondering if there has been any update on a result of the cvd case or if there is an indication of when the result is likely due even the slightest update if possible would be appreciableThe result should be known by next month sometime apparently :ok:

Unfortunately, the AAT refused permission for the hearing transcripts to be published on CVDPA's website, so looks like we'll have to wait for the decision to be published instead.

There's also a nasty rumour going around that AvMed have now started refusing to issue Class 1's entirely to new pilots who fail the CVD testing, leaving them with no option except to appeal at the AAT. :mad:

One would've hoped that the resignation of the PMO and a new DAS may have led to a fresh and consultative approach, but it seems that optimism was a little too premature. Any guesses as to when the new PMO is going to be announced??

Lets hope that AOPA's recommendation of Dr Liddell or someone else of his calibre is given the chance to takeover the reigns and give AvMed a much needed cleanout before they have a chance to destroy anymore of this industry.

Dr Liddell published an article ('Medical Exodus') in the Dec/Jan edition of AOPA's Australian Pilot magazine. Last two paragraphs reproduced below.

'The micromanagement of every recreational pilot with type 2 diabetes has driven many of them out of the industry, increased the costs of regulation with extra staff and resources to pore over the submitted daily blood sugar results,(which have already been checked by the DAME), and achieved nothing for aviation safety.

Like the rest of the population who trust their doctors, CASA needs to trust its' medical examiners, and stop wasting funds on over-regulation of private pilots. If they diverted the savings into teaching pilots about airmanship and sound decision making, only then might there be a positive effect on aviation safety' :D

aerospace11

11th Feb 2015, 02:05

from what i understand the result of the cvd case was meant to be found out by this month and so was wondering if so far there has been any update?

Scion

11th Feb 2015, 19:26

on a personal note, my consultant endocrinologist when he saw the CASA AVMED requirements for my diet only in control diabetes could not help but laugh.
This is perhaps more significant in numbers affected than the CVD problem.

brissypilot

11th Feb 2015, 21:50

aerospace11,

It shouldn't be too much longer. A result is expected this month sometime. :ok:

megle2

14th Feb 2015, 19:42

Scion, that's interesting, I've not come across Casa advising on diet
Do they set you out a weekly / monthly plan

Up-into-the-air

14th Feb 2015, 22:07

More micro management control???

Frank Arouet

15th Feb 2015, 00:10

To be fair it's more likely to be in response to type 2 diabetes.

Scion

15th Feb 2015, 18:48

Brissypilot,

no they do not set out a plan, they leave that to the endocrinologist otherwise they would have to submit it to their legal team and it would be incomprehensible.

Creampuff

18th Feb 2015, 22:45

I’d overlooked this relatively recent decision of the AAT in which CASA’s behaviour was described as “most inappropriate”: Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/292.html) As a final comment on the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in situations where an applicants’ licence or certificate has expired, the Tribunal considers, notwithstanding the legality of their submission, that CASA’s timing in bringing to the attention of the applicant and the Tribunal notice of the certificate’s expiration was most inappropriate. In knowing the likely ramifications, CASA ought to have raised this issue well in advance so the applicant and the Tribunal could have responded accordingly and in a timely manner.The Applicant in the matter was 75 years old and had been flying since 1977. CASA suspended the Applicant’s Class 1 and Class 2 medical certificates in May 2013, because the Applicant had been diagnosed with melanoma. The Applicant applied to the AAT for a review of that decision.

By the time the substance of the matter came to be dealt with by the AAT, the Applicant’s certificate had expired, but CASA hadn’t told the AAT. Instead, CASA stumped up and said, in effect: “Nyanie Nyanie Nyah Nyah: His certificate has expired so your review is legally pointless!”

Way to go, CASA. Way to treat a 75 year old citizen and the AAT. It’s just about the law. Your opinions about matters medical are, of course, objective truths that must be enforced with a crusader’s zeal. I feel so much safer.

brissypilot

19th Feb 2015, 03:53

It was nice to see the responses to October's questions on notice were finally published yesterday, only 2 months past the due date :ugh:

ATSB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/Answers/ATSB.pdf)
Question No. 238

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put this on notice: in the period since last estimates, how many safety related incidents have there been that ATSB has investigated? As a subset of that, how many, if any, relate to a pilot who had a colour vision deficiency?
Mr Dolan: I am not aware, but I think we can safely say that we have not investigated anything that relates to an occurrence notified to us relating to a colour vision deficiency.
Senator FAWCETT: That does not surprise me, but if you could still come back to me with a number that would be great, thank you.
Mr Dolan: We will confirm that on notice

Answer:
• The ATSB has initiated 59 investigations of safety incidents and accidents since the last Senate Estimates.
• None of these 59 relate to a pilot who had a colour vision deficiency.CASA: (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf)
Question No. 242

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Farquharson, can you tell me how many pilots who have a colour vision deficiency have lost privileges of their licence as a result of having to sit the CAD test, since the last estimates?
Mr Farquharson: I cannot directly inform you of that.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take that on notice. Could you also find out how many initial applicants for an aircrew medical have been required to sit the CAD test as the third level of testing and have subsequently failed and been denied an aircrew medical?

Answer:
• Two candidates have fail results. The applicants have been notified of the intent to issue licences with the restriction “Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flying only”. One certificate has been issued with applicant agreement. One certificate is pending applicant response.
• No initial applicants for an aircrew medical have been required to sit the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test.CAsA's new practice of issuing Day VFR medicals to those who fail the tests goes completely against the findings of the Denison AAT test case (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/1989/84.html) - and not to mention the legal requirements in CASR 67.150 (6)(c) that Creamie has eloquently highlighted in his past posts. These newbies are now being denied careers even in GA that many others before them have been able to enjoy over the past 25 years. What's the point of investing in a CPL now if AvMed won't even let you fly at night or IFR?

Hopefully it won't be too much longer now before the AAT publishes its latest decision. No doubt it'll be another interesting read!

For anyone who's interested, the next round of Estimates is happening late Tues night (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/add1415/rrat.pdf) :ok:

brissypilot

20th Feb 2015, 05:23

That is absolutely disgusting. How dare they fly in the face of the Denison ruling? How can they get away with this? They have no authority to do that. If they don't reverse these decisions, heads, acting or not, must rollAnd that's not all. I'm reliably informed that at least one person has been refused a class 1 medical entirely due to his CVD... :ugh:

LeadSled

20th Feb 2015, 12:06

---- they seem to have gone from the most enlightened Cleared to enter,

Said in jest, I trust!!

Just in case you were/are serious, CASA's predecessor expected to win Denison, and was most put out at the loss, but it took up until the arrival of the current management for CASA to have a team that was prepared to thumb their nose at Denison.

CASA is very mired in a "winners" and "losers" mindset, and any success by "the industry", a "win", is seen as a "loss" to CASA, and a score to be settled.

A "loss" is never accepted as CASA might have got it wrong.

As a former DAS said to the National Press Club, some years ago:"Judges get it wrong". That is the mindset, CASA is never wrong.

Tootle pi

Creampuff

21st Feb 2015, 02:33

C'mon Leaddie: Air 'safety' is always the winner.

"AIR SAFETY!" is emblazoned on the shield CASA Avmed carries in its crusade.

CASA's opinions are objective truths: why else would they have been given the weapons to enforce them on others?

Our regulatory saviours are merely earthly messengers for the Holy Annexes. (Blessed be our regulatory saviours.)

Any unbeliever or dissenter - or worse, any inconvenient data - casting doubt on the veracity of the Holy Annexes is obviously A DANGER TO AIR SAFETY! and to be ignored and dispatched with merciful beneficence by our regulatory saviours. (Blessed be our regulatory saviours.) Mere mortals who suffer the consequential stress, heartache, expense and disappointment are just a small but necessary price to pay for the greater good: AIR SAFETY!

Yea and verily, ATPLs with CVD are an ABOMINATION BEFORE THE HOLY ANNEXES and therefore, by definition, DANGEROUS!

The depth of CASA's beneficence is such that it can decide on differences from the Holy Annexes! When CASA decides on differences from the Holy Annexes, it is always on the basis of SAFETY and is never on the basis of politics, sectional interests or self-interest. Never.

The beneficent CASA Avmed is merely doing the right thing - just ask them - in the face of the Denison HERESY! Yea and verily, the operational record of pilots with CVD subsequent to the Denison decision is merely a temptation by the danger-devil: a trick! A trick to distract the weak from the obvious doom that will be met by unsuspecting innocents in a 30,000' death plunge. CASA Avmed must therefore resist setting tests that properly simulate real operational situations, because the danger-devil will ensure that candidates pass them. A woman who does not drown is evidently a witch; A CVD pilot who passes tests that properly simulate real operational situations is evidently dangerous. CASA Avmed knows this.

There endeth the lesson.

nzrv8

21st Feb 2015, 21:02

Hi all, I am currently going through the Class 1 process (initial issue) for converting an NZ CPL to Aus. I have failed the first two stages of colour vision testing (Ishihara, Farnsworth etc) and CASA have sent me a letter stating I can either have a restricted Class 1 - Day VFR only, or undergo further testing at my expense, a "Colour Assessment and Diagnosis" test which is only available in Sydney. I'm not sure yet if I want to throw ~1500 or more for a day in Sydney. It is frustrating to think that if I had applied for a medical 12 months ago, it would have been issued without these restrictions.
As a side note - I have no problems with PAPI, but I do have some difficulty with tower lights.

papakurapilot

21st Feb 2015, 21:50

NZRV8,

Just wait another week or two mate before you spend the cash, if you failed the lantern test chances are you will fail the CAD. Once this result comes out you could then lodge an application to have the restrictions removed, provided it's a positive outcome of course.

nzrv8

21st Feb 2015, 21:52

Wilco. It took CASA 3 months to get me to this stage, so another few weeks won't hurt :)
Papakurapilot - Do you fly out of Ardmore?

Fantome

22nd Feb 2015, 01:27

Creamie . .. . thank you for that eloquent sermon on the mouth

we heretics raised in the Anglican tradition find perverse pleasure satirising the
good book

HEBREWS 13.8

(Jesus Christ . . . the same . . . yesterday. . . .today .. ...and forever. )

papakurapilot

22nd Feb 2015, 02:26

NZRV8 check your Pms

LeadSled

22nd Feb 2015, 08:19

Creamie,
As Laurence Welk would have said: Wunnerful, Wunnerful, I love it!!
Tootle pip!!

outofwhack

22nd Feb 2015, 09:14

John O'Brien has won his case at the AAT !!!

Late on Friday 20th February the Australian Appeals Tribunal handed down their decision after over 2 months of deliberation following the standoff between John O'Brien backed by the CVDPA and pilot unions against CASA.

John can now make use of his ATPL qualifications and upgrade to Captain of a multi-crew airliner - something he and his employer have been wanting to do for a considerable time. The statement 'Not for ATPL use' on his Class 1 medical certificate will have to be lifted by CASA.

John, a protanope, has been unable to pass any colour vision testing (Ishihara, Farnsworth, CAD and Tower Signal Light) but has defeated CASA by proving in court and in the air [via the normal line check and training] that he is able to perform all tasks at least as safely as any colour normal pilot. He is a 5000 hour+ DASH 8 co-pilot with an outstanding record (in Oz a copilot only needs a CPL)

Protanopes were left out of the 1989 test case 'Denison' which ruled that deuteranopes were no risk to safety.

Over the last 24 years CASA has stubbornly insisted a CVD pilot still pass the tower light gun test in order to be de-restricted. Many CVDs pass this test as the wavelengths used in the workplace are not confusing to CVD people - we pilots have never had a problem. Its only the lab tests that use wavelengths of red, green and white on the confusion lines for CVD people.

This is a landmark decision by the AAT effectively making all colour vision testing of pilots redundant.

For a copy of the decision see http://www.CVDPA.com

Sunfish

22nd Feb 2015, 19:08

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mack44

22nd Feb 2015, 19:58

Well done John, Arthur and all the CVDP team. Great news to start the day with:)
Best regards,
Peter

YPJT

22nd Feb 2015, 22:07

Well done to Arthur Pape and all the CVDP concerned. A quick glance through the document last night it states that the decision should not be treated as a test case so is it correct to say that anyone else who cannot pass the Ishihara or Farnsworth tests is still excluded from holding an ATPL?

Frank Arouet

22nd Feb 2015, 22:20

I'm uncertain what the reference to test case means. I do know there is funding available,(or was), for public interest and test cases through the Attorney Generals Department and such funding had to be repaid through Court decisions on costs. By declaring it a non test case perhaps this allows the individual to be indemnified from such repayment if indeed this scheme was used. I think it rates as a precedent however. Perhaps creampuff can enlighten us?

brissypilot

22nd Feb 2015, 22:26

Here's CVDPA's initial analysis of the result and what is means. I'm sure Creamie will be able to offer his thoughts as well.

John wins AAT challenge allowing use of ATPL privileges! (http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=13796d2120f98c0a77a806143&id=8c2ba1aa04&e=55cc17169a)

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

After a long and anxious wait, we received news late on Friday of John’s favourable Administrative Appeals Tribunal result. After a 15 year wait, he can now finally exercise his ATPL privileges. The tribunal's full 50 page decision is available via the link to our website below:

Re O'Brien and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/aat-decision-2015-02.pdf)

The tribunal found that despite John’s severe protanope form of CVD, he is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation in the role of captain. The result is a major victory and essentially means that he can now progress his career to the fullest extent with any domestic airline within Australia.

The tribunal did still leave a number of restrictions in place as outlined below:

The class 1 medical certificate is only valid for operations within Australia;
The applicant is not permitted to conduct night time operations other than as or with a qualified co-pilot; and
The applicant must disclose to his employer, any person lawfully training, assessing, endorsing or re-endorsing him on any aircraft in respect of his Air Transport Pilot Licence, and other assigned flight crew members of his colour vision deficiency.

Several times, we have proposed a condition similar to (3) as an acceptable means of compromising with CASA for CVD pilots seeking to operate in an ATPL environment. From a practical point of view, this restriction poses no major obstacles.

Condition (1) is largely based on political and policy issues due to Australia’s (until recently) evidence based-CVD standards compared to the rest of the world. It is a restriction which may still take some time to fully overcome. There has been some confusion regarding the wording of this particular restriction, as many pilots also have a medical certificate which states “Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1.” CASA’s website (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101574) states that this restriction allows the pilot to operate overseas provided they seek advance permission from the appropriate regulatory authority of that country.

We will be seeking more clarification on the wording of restriction (1) in the coming days and weeks. Ultimately, until such a time as CASA starts becoming proactive and leading the world on CVD issues, rather than following, CVD pilots like John will potentially still be limited to Australian airspace.

Condition (2), while not ideal, does not have any effect on John operating at night (or IFR) in a multi-crew environment. At first glance, it appears as though the tribunal may have overlooked the fact that under his previous CPL privileges, he was able to fly unrestricted at night in a single pilot environment and for more than a decade until early 2014. Early last year, John was forced by CASA to undergo the CAD test which he failed and as a result, this particular night restriction was added to his medical certificate. From reading the decision, it appears that the tribunal focused their attention primarily on the ATPL side of things. Perhaps inadvertently, they may have assumed that he would only ever be flying in a two-pilot airline cockpit and therefore this particular restriction posed no burden. Possibly, this is without having fully considered the consequences as they related to his CPL in the event that he ever wishes or needs to return to general aviation single pilot operations in the future.

We will also be seeking more clarification on restriction (2), given that it does appear to contradict the tribunal’s acceptance that the earlier 1989 Denison decision was conducted as a test case that related to commercial pilots. We continue to believe that all CVD pilots (including deutans and protans) should be allowed to operate unrestricted at night, as has been the practice since the Denison decision and until CASA’s regressive actions began last year. We will continue to fight hard to ensure this occurs.

While the tribunal was at pains to point out that they did not view John’s case as a test case, it is most certainly a major victory in the overall scheme of things. Comparisons can be drawn to the earlier Pape and Denison AAT decisions:

“The success of my own appeal was a just reward for a great deal of hard work and wide support, but the victory was bitter-sweet, as the Authority of the day refused to let the benefit of my success flow to any other pilot with the colour vision problem. That in turn led to a second far more comprehensive appeal for all the colour defective pilots of Australia. This case was nominally on behalf of Jonathon Denison, a young colour defective commercial pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited from night flight in Australia. By mutual agreement between the parties, it was decided by the AAT to treat the Denison appeal as a wide-sweeping test case.” – Dr Arthur Pape

While John’s result is not 100% perfect, it is a massive leap forward given that it is the first time in the world that a protanope CVD pilot has successfully challenged an aviation authority in respect to being allowed to fly as a captain in an airline environment. While this is a good victory and sets a precedent, the war is far from over and we must continue to fight hard to ensure that all CVD pilots receive the justice they deserve. Whether that happens with subsequent legal challenges in the future or with political pressure remains to be seen. None of this is a quick or easy process but we remain as resolute and committed as ever.

Senator David Fawcett has already been informed of the result and we will be having further discussions with him to see what else might be able to be done to further advance our campaign both in Australia and abroad.

We will provide more updates again in the coming weeks and months, but for now, thank you to all who have supported John’s case. This result would not have been possible without each and every one of you!

Up-into-the-air

23rd Feb 2015, 01:00

Well done, but no relaxing by the industry.

Decision is here. (http://vocasupport.com/casa-loses-the-cvd-case/)

Creampuff

23rd Feb 2015, 04:24

Although I’m very happy and unsurprised by John O’Brien’s overall success in this case, I’d urge caution for others who assume CASA will cease its crusade.

CASA’s submissions and contentions in the O’Brien matter were exactly as would be expected from zealots on a crusade, and it remains to be seen whether Dr Navanthe was the chief and only CASA zealot, or merely the chief zealot of a bunch that remain. The Tribunal had little choice but to confine its substantive decision to John O’Brien’s specific circumstances. If CASA puts subsequent applicants through what John O’Brien had to go through, you’ll have your answer.

According to CASA, it’s a new and much more complicated and scary world compared to the olden days of the Pape and Denison decisions. According to CASA, there’s a greater awareness of the safety risk posed by pilots with CVD based upon conclusions drawn from accident and incident investigations. Fortunately the Tribunal perceived a rather obvious flaw in these contentions – obvious, at least, to someone who’s objective:It is significant that in all of those years when many pilots with various forms of CVD have flown there has been little research made available to us upon which that contention was based.CASA’s submission was that the CAD test is “a simulation of an aspect of a task required in an operational situation”. However, CASA had little choice but to concede, in its submissions, that the expert they called had acknowledged that the CAD test “does not simulate an aviation task”. But that concession was only in a footnote in the submissions. In my opinion, downplaying inconvenient truths isn’t the behaviour of an organisation with a properly calibrated moral compass.

More importantly in my opinion, CASA’s submission was also that even if the CAD test is not one that can reasonably fall within the description of a test that “simulates an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c):

- the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review CASA’s decision to determine the CAD test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c); and

- the Applicant still hasn’t passed any of the prescribed tests.

In other words, CASA said that even if the CAD test does not simulate an operational situation as required by the law: Too bad; too sad. The AAT cannot do anything about it and the Applicant’s career certainty, and other people in like circumstances, can go hang.

My opinion is that these are not the submissions of an organisation with a properly calibrated moral compass.

I ask myself: What would I do if I were working in CASA I were considering the question: “What if we have this wrong and the CAD test is not a test that simulates an operational situation in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c)?”

I would have a cold chill down my spine, because I would be wondering how much stress might have been caused, and how many careers might have been put in disarray, if CASA has it wrong.

I would have this nagging feeling that perhaps the operational reality of the tens of thousands of hours flown safely in fact by pilots with colour vision deficiencies may mean that they are being treated unfairly by not having the chance to demonstrate compliance with the colour vision standard through the administration of a test that does simulate an operational situation, as stated in the law.

I would wonder what valid objection there could be to setting a test that simulates a real aviation situation in which the identification of the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured was a safety-critical activity, to see if the applicant could manage the situation as safely as his or her colleagues without CVD.

I would be submitting that if the AAT came to the view that the CAD test does not “simulate an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c), I would be acting immediately to determine a proper test and reducing the stress and uncertainty for pilots and aspiring pilots, whether or not the AAT had jurisdiction to review the decision. That would seem to me to be the fair and honourable thing to do.

But that’s just me.

It is fascinating to read CASA and its experts’ convolutions to avoid the inconvenient truth that John O’Brien has no problems with PAPI approaches and other tasks in reality. Some highlights from the Tribunal’s decision:The information obtained by CASA from [CAD] testing of Mr O’Brien is little more than that to which they were already aware, having had the diagnosis of protanopia confirmed in previous tests.
…
In their paper 2006/04, the UK CAA identified two tasks as being the most safety critical, demanding of colour vision and without redundancies. These were the coloured red green parking lights for positioning a plane at an aerobridge and the PAPI lights.

… Mr. O'Brien pointed out that he had no trouble seeing these lights and in any case, explained that most airports are now moving to a different system which involved symbols instead of colour. [My comment: Whoops, how inconvenient - first-hand evidence of facts. Perhaps the aviation colour environment is becoming simpler, not more complex...]

The UK CAA also decided that the PAPI lights were the more demanding and more safety critical of the two and decided to set the performance criteria of their new CAD on successful performance by subjects in a simulated PAPI test.
…
The evidence of Professor John Barbur is that the PAPI is the most appropriate test of colour recognition for pilots as it is very demanding in terms of colour vision and there is little or no redundancy in that system which is, in essence, a redundant system to the primary systems in any event.

Professor Barbur’s evidence was clear and it seemed to be accepted by the experts from CASA and by Associate Professor Geoffrey Stuart.
…
There was some disconnect in the evidence of Professor Barbur. Initially he said pilots who pass the CAD test or just missed out should be given the PAPI test but later said that pilots who fail the CAD test should be excluded in terms of pilots.
…
The evidence of Mr O’Brien was that he has never had difficulty identifying the PAPI light guidance throughout his years of flying; he said he had never incorrectly identified the lights. [My comment: Whoops, more inconvenient first-hand evidence of facts.] The concern raised by CASA was in the context of low visibility close to the runway, such as in the FedEx accident or at 5 km. This is in the context that the PAPI is an additional aid to the primary system within the aircraft, and presumably an aid to a pilot’s visual identification of the runway during approach and landing. [My comment: I’ll return to the FedEx accident later.]

[After 8 more paragraphs of analysis of the various theories and positions of various experts, we come to this rather startling turnaround:] Professor Barbur and others urged us not to become overly focused on the PAPI test, reminding us that there are many other colour demanding tasks for the pilot.In other words, if a candidate with CVD passes “the most appropriate test of colour” - the PAPI test – we should just forget that and look over there at all those confusing colours.

It’s almost as if they’ve decided the outcome, and they just move the goal posts as necessary to achieve that outcome. There’s a word for that.

This was my favourite bit on this issue:Professor Barbur also pointed out that performance on the PAPI test could be variable amongst subjects for reasons other than their level of CVD. Some examples of these variables include:

(a) Experienced pilots may perform better because they have learnt to use cues such as luminance differences between the reds and whites of the test and there is also a natural variability between subjects in their ability to do this. …You see: There has to be explanation for the inconvenient truth of candidates passing the test, and it cannot be that the candidate performs just as well as someone without CVD.

A couple of CASA FOIs gave written evidence about how confusingly colourful modern cockpits have become and the scary situations in which complete power failures on the ground have resulted in control towers having to use light signals. At this point of the submissions I thought: At last! Someone from CASA is going to provide some factual evidence about the actual performance of actual pilots with CVD in these real-life circumstances.

Perhaps, at last, someone from CASA was going to provide first-hand evidence of the substantially slower performance of pilots with CVD, compared to pilots without CVD, in these confusingly colourful modern cockpits. First-hand evidence to show that despite the design and redundancy of these modern cockpits, and despite their training and experience, pilots with CVD are substantially slower and less effective and efficient than their non-CVD colleagues in those cockpits. Things called “facts” about the performance of CVD pilots in a thing called “reality”.

Perhaps, at last, someone from CASA was going to provide evidence of the actual mayhem caused when pilots with CVD were thrust into circumstances in which a control tower could not communicate through VHF and the CVD pilots were unable to arrange separation with other aircraft, use other means of communication with the tower (mobile phone/sat phone), see whether a runway is clear to land and otherwise operate safely. Things called “facts” about the performance of CVD pilots in a thing called “reality”.

But, so far as I can tell, no first-hand evidence of those facts was provided by CASA.

Now to the FedEx accident.

A copy of the NTSB report of the investigation into the FedEX accident is here: http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/reports/US/20020726-0_B722_N497FE.pdf The Executive Summary states, among other things, that (my bolding):The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the captain’s and first officer’s failure to establish and maintain a proper glidepath during the night visual approach to landing. Contributing to the accident was a combination of the captain’s and first officer’s fatigue, the captain’s and first officer’s failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captain’s and flight engineer’s failure to monitor the approach, and the first officer’s color vision deficiency.I’d commend the entire report. I’d just note a couple of paras of the Analysis, at pages 53 and 55, bolding mine: During postaccident interviews, all three pilots reported observing red and white lights on the PAPI display, consistent with normal PAPI operation. [My note: the Flight Engineer was a qualified pilot on type. Hence the reference to “all three pilots”.] Although the flight engineer and captain reported seeing a pink PAPI signal on one of the four PAPI lights at some time during the approach, they also reported seeing red and/or white lights (which would have provided appropriate glidepath guidance) at the same time.
…
In postaccident statements, the flight crew and ground observers indicated that there were no obstructions to visibility along the approach path. However, the comments made by the first officer (“gonna lose the end of the runway”) and captain (“disappear a little”) suggest that they may have encountered a temporary obstruction to visibility (for example, clouds or mist) as they approached runway 9. If such an obstruction existed, it may also have obscured the PAPI lights. Although a temporary obstruction might help explain the flight crew’s failure to recognize the PAPI guidance while that obstruction was present, it does not explain why the three pilots failed to recognize the presence of four red PAPI lights throughout the rest of the approach. Further, according to FedEx procedures (and FAA regulations), if the approach end of the runway became obscured at any time during the visual approach, the pilots should have performed a go-around.Who reckons the FedEx accident would not have happened if the first officer had had no CVD?

CASA’s crusade on CVD is, objectively, a focus on the easy trivia at the expense of dealing with the substantial and far greater risks to aviation safety. Easy targets versus hard problems.

Of course, it makes no difference to CASA, because they get paid the same either way.

outofwhack

23rd Feb 2015, 06:14

Great Post :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

brissypilot

24th Feb 2015, 12:09

Yes - great analysis Creamy :D:D:D

Some good coverage about the result on the ABC tonight:

Queensland pilot wins right to captain airliner despite poor colour vision - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-24/pilot-wins-right-to-captain-airliner-despite-poor-colour-vision/6251102)

4uqAfbG_KM4

gerry111

24th Feb 2015, 13:06

"CASA's considering a counter appeal."

What a pack of you know what's!:ugh:

LeadSled

24th Feb 2015, 13:58

Folks,
Skidmore's response to the O'Brien AAT decision was very disappointing in tonight's Senate RRAT hearing, it gives substance to Creamie's warnings.

Skidmore's immediate response to carefully worded question by Senator Fawcett which asked, in effect, after two AAT losses, and no demonstrated safety issues etc, would CASA be changing their approach to CVD, Skidmore was almost off his chair with a snap answer:

" We still have time to appeal" or words to that effect.

Interesting body language. He then made it very clear that the O'Brien AAT decision was not a precedent -- so tough, all you other guys ('cause it is mostly guys, not girls) with the problem.

Seems the departure of Dr. Navathe has not made much difference.

His attitude to Angel Flight was similar -- "We are not going to take action at this time, but will continue surveillance" --- or words to that effect.

It was clear, in my opinion, that Mr. Skidmore is multilingual, he speaks fluent Bureaucratese as well as English. Senator Heffernan felt he had the gab to front Jimmy Sharman's boxing tent at the Show, and said so. It will be interesting to see what Hansard says there.

All in all, a very disappointing (unless you are a member of the CASA Iron Ring) first appearance before the RRAT.

Tootle pip!!

Creampuff

24th Feb 2015, 19:32

On the basis of his appearance before the Committee last night, I continue to have no confidence that Mr Skidmore will produce any substantially different outcome than his precedessor. But then again, I always knew that the next Messiah would be like the previous.

I will post the relevant extracts from the Hansard, but I was left in no doubt that:

1. CASA is considering whether to appeal the AAT's decision in relation to John O'Brien.

2. CASA's position is that the AAT's decision is applicable only to John O'Brien.

So anyone who thinks that the departure of Dr Navanthe would result in CASA calling off its crusade, think again.

Candidates with CVD are just too easy a target for a regulator. Just imagine how much busy-work will be created by putting every candidate through what John O'Brien had to go through. It's like the regulatory reform program: no-risk, low-stress work for bureaucrats, indefinitely.

All in the name of "air safety" of course. CVD is, after all, such a big safety issue.

(Mr Skidmore's statements about the response to the Forsyth report were also instructive. I was reminded of Mr Byron's February 2005 statement about hoping to have a plan soon. Mr Skidmore's comments about Forsyth report findings about CASA's relationship with the industry were particularly interesting. For anyone who thinks the report is going to do anything other than gather dust: I have some cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge.)

brissypilot

24th Feb 2015, 20:03

Definitely a concerning response from Skidmore.

alBi8-k_FBY

Let's not forget, it's not two AAT losses that CASA have had on CVD. This is the 3rd AAT loss after the earlier Pape and Denison appeals. When will these guys accept that they've got it wrong?

"The success of my own appeal was a just reward for a great deal of hard work and wide support, but the victory was bitter-sweet, as the Authority of the day refused to let the benefit of my success flow to any other pilot with the colour vision problem. That in turn led to a second far more comprehensive appeal for all the colour defective pilots of Australia. This case was nominally on behalf of Jonathon Denison, a young colour defective commercial pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited from night flight in Australia. By mutual agreement between the parties, it was decided by the AAT to treat the Denison appeal as a wide-sweeping test case." – Dr Arthur Pape

déjà vu? :ugh:

Creampuff

25th Feb 2015, 00:11

But Brissy, according to CASA, it’s a new and much more complicated and scary world compared to the olden days of the Pape and Denison decisions: all those confusing colours in those airport gate signals and complicated modern cockpits. According to CASA, there’s a greater awareness of the safety risk posed by pilots with CVD based upon conclusions drawn from accident and incident investigations.

All that’s really changed is that Part 67 now gives CASA all sorts of powers to intrude into the private and medical lives of individuals. As I said earlier, the busy-work of putting individuals under the medical microscope is no-risk, low-stress employment for bureaucratic do-gooders, indefinitely. All in the name of "air safety" of course.

Meanwhile, almost all, if not all, of the aviation accidents ‘caused’ by pilots have nothing to do with CVD or medical problems.

But why bother taking on the real problems of aviation safety when there's the busy-work of picking off easy targets. CASA gets paid the same, either way.

LeadSled

25th Feb 2015, 06:23

It has been long standing CASA policy that our standards development processes should ensure that regulations are necessary, risk based, cost effective, and that no unnecessary cost burdens are put on the aviation community. Late in 2013 the Government announced the Deregulation agenda which puts additional emphasis on the CASA policy and further extends it. The Deregulation agenda involves significant red tape reduction requirements and also requires any new regulatory costs to be offset, although not necessarily from the same regulated sector.

I recently wrote to all Industry and CASA SCC subcommittee co-chairs, asking them to ensure that these aspects of the Deregulation agenda are considered in the course of subcommittee deliberations. Working groups struck by the subcommittees should similarly be required to take these Government requirements into account. Industry and CASA members are requested to assist in identifying how regulatory costs can be reduced, either as a result of removing unnecessary regulations, modifying inefficient regulations, or by simplifying and streamlining CASA’s administrative processes, including systems and procedures used for the issue of civil aviation authorisations, application forms and the role of industry delegates.

In addition to the discussions on these matters that will be held at the SCC and subcommittee levels, it would assist us if you could send your proposals for improving the efficiency of our regulations and processes to [email protected] so a full listing of these can be maintained.

Thanks to all for assisting with this important initiative.

Standards Division
CASA

Folks,

The above was distributed throughout CASA (in one form or another) several days ago.

An opportunity to have an input ??

Should solve all the problems, and herald a glorious new beginning in the annals of the adventures in aviation regulation.

Yeah!! Verily!! the start of a Golden Age in Aviation Regulation, all the problems of a recalcitrant industry will be swept away - literally -- as most of the industry is an entirely unnecessary impediment to achieving aviation safety heaven, where:

Safety Is Our First Priority !!!! according the Holy Scriptures Chapter S.9A(1).

Or am I being just a teensy weensy little bit cynical??

Tootle pip!!

triadic

25th Feb 2015, 08:33

One of the major problems that CASA has is one of trust. Very few folk in this business trust the regulator. If Mr Skidmore can fix that we might see some change(?)

Oh, and a complete review of the Act would certainly help.

Fighting the CVD issue is a waste of money and certainly not in proportion to any perceive safety benefit!

YPJT

25th Feb 2015, 11:55

from a purely layman's point of view we now have a system where pilots have the following:

1. A medical that is valid for day - pvt - VFR operations only,
2. A medical that says valid up to CPL and within Australian Airspace only. So NVFR, CIR, CPL are all good, or
3. A medical that says the holder does not meet certain ICAO requirements.

The more CASA get into this, the bigger mess they make of it.

Creampuff

25th Feb 2015, 21:01

But surely you feel ‘safer’, YPJT, as a consequence of the beneficent intervention of our regulatory saviours (blessed be our regulatory saviours).

LeadSled

26th Feb 2015, 03:59

One of the major problems that CASA has is one of trust

Sadly, it is but one of a very long list of major problems, some of which (but by no means all) have been touched on by the ASRR (Forsyth) report.

Sadly, I do not see much changing for the better.

Tootle pip!!

triadic

27th Feb 2015, 06:05

And Just Culture does not work without a high level of Trust!:ugh:

Creampuff

28th Feb 2015, 05:15

I thought that this, from the Tribunal's decision, gives an extraordinarily revealing insight into the mindset of Dr Navanthe (at least):The evidence of Associate Professor Navathe was that a pilot’s licence goes on forever, but it is the medical certificate which enables the person to use the licence.You see: The only barrier that prevents medically malfunctioning pilots from killing punters in a 30,000' death plunge is Avmed and its certificates.

It is a mindset that that is, evidently, almost completely uninformed - if not completely uniformed - by any knowledge of operational reality. But for the blessed intervention of the zealots on a medical crusade, apparently all of those doped up, drunk, sick, hungover and otherwise medically malfunctioning pilots would go undetected - unnoticed by colleagues, training and checking systems, ATOs during mandatory periodic checks, air traffic controllers who listen and watch them, and miraculously avoiding making a smoking hole in the ground.

Of course CASA never suspends or revokes pilots licences using administrative powers: It's left to Avmed to wield its holy certification sword as the one and only line of defence against licences that go on 'forever'.

It's therefore no wonder to me that Avmed is labouring under the misconception that their efforts are essential and make a positive difference to aviation safety.

The pilot in command of a 787 recently collapsed at the controls and died soon after in hospital. That tragedy helps to remind us what a Class 1 Medical Certificate really means: it really means that the holder has the same probabilities of suffering sudden incapacitation as the general population, CVD or no CVD.

triadic

28th Feb 2015, 06:02

One should be aware that the ordinary run of the mill GP has little specific knowledge of aviation medicine. The other thing to be careful of, is that your DAME will normally only consider those matters on the renewal checklist. Therefore there is no assurance that a real or potential problem may be picked up. I know of some that will ask you to schedule another appointment ($$) if you wish to discuss something not on the checklist.
DOING A REGULAR MEDICAL IS LITLE ASSURANCE THAT YOU DONT HAVE ANY ISSUES (that may be outside the checklist).

Radix

28th Feb 2015, 11:49

.............

LeadSled

1st Mar 2015, 04:21

And Just Culture does not work without a high level of Trust!:ugh:

Folks,
And the only parallels between the ICAO "just culture" and the legalistic and prescriptive CASA version of a "just culture" (which doesn't apply if the very human mistake you have just made is an offense under the regulations) is entirely accidental and unintended.

The "Australian" policy very firmly remains that those irresponsible enough to commit aviation must be regulated to within an inch of their aeronautical life.

As I have noted on a previous thread, only one FAA Administrator has visited Australia, Donald Engen. Only here for a few days, he nailed the "CASA Culture" in one:

"In the USA, because a person is a pilot, we trust them. In Australia, because a person is a pilot, you mistrust them".

Tootle pip!!

Creampuff

1st Mar 2015, 07:09

There is no such thing as "grandfathering" or equivalent concepts in medical certification.

They'll all be picked off, one by one

Arthur Pape

1st Mar 2015, 08:51

The John O’Brien result is indeed bitter-sweet. John has had a victory of sorts and indeed most of the decision is such that it will enable him to progress his career, but with considerable operational restrictions . As to the rest of the CVD population, there is still a big dark cloud hanging over them. At a big meeting of aviation medical people in Melbourne this last Saturday, the O’Brien decision got a cursory mention. My take home impression was that existing CVD certificate holders would continue with what they now have, but that new applicants would be subjected to the standard three levels of colour vision screening in accordance with the existing ASR 67.150 (a), (b) and (c), where the CAD would be the standard test for the purpose of (c). A fail at all three levels will result in the refusal of ANY Class 1 medical and a Class 2 confined to Day VFR only. The attendees at the meeting were instructed that the Chatham House Rules were to be observed, whereby one could report but not attribute to any given speaker or attendee. Further, the meeting offered no opportunity at all to question, discuss or debate on any topic, and in particular the topic of CVD.
The use the CAD was falsely claimed to be a progressive step that would enable the rate of meeting the colour vision standard by pilot applicants to increase from about 95% to 97%. This claim is profoundly absurd. This entire project involving the CAD will send colour vision policy back to the Stone Age (i.e. pre WW2). CVD pilots who were unable to pass any of the levels of colour vision testing have nevertheless routinely been entitled to the Class 1 medical (with restrictions) for at least sixty years.
The implementation of this draconian measure by CASA is based on absolutely no credible evidence that supports the prediction that CVD are likely to perform their duties in any measure of unsafe manner. The real significance of the O’Brien decision is that the AAT accepted John’s impeccable safety history and outstanding reputation as a competent and highly regarded pilot.
CASA successfully objected to the submission of evidence that other individual CVD pilots, just like John O’Brien, had progressed to the highest levels of commercial aircraft operations with equally impressive and impeccable safety records.

To illustrate that CASA is determined to execute its new draconian measures, I will briefly outline the story of a very keen intelligent young man who is fresh out of year 12 at school and, in short, he has had his aspirations of a commercial flying career denied by CASA, and all this in the last few weeks, even as we awaited the O’Brien decision by the AAT. He has had a formal refusal of his application for a Class 1 medical certificate on the basis of his failures on the Ishihara, the Farnsworth and finally the CAD. In the letter of refusal from CASA he has been offered a Class 2 certificate valid for VFR Daytime only. He was advised that he could appeal to either CASA internally, or to the AAT. I am advised, but with little extra detail, that he has lodged with the AAT and that his first conciliation conference is scheduled for April.

So, in summary, the departure of the last PMO, it appears, will have little influence on the path CASA seems determined to follow. The issue of morality is bouncing around in my head. Indeed, there is a big battle ahead; the O’Brien case was never going to be the end of it!

Creampuff

3rd Mar 2015, 07:35

How can CASA continue to get away with wasting so much taxpayers money on prejudice and inequity on the basis of a spurious CVD testing methods being used to weed out those who can and cannot fly? There are decades of real experience that show the opposite?Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".

All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.

Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous.

Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving of Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.

The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.

But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.

Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!

And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.

The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel's view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
...
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator. ...Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.

Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):Senator XENOPHON: So you do concede that there have been, in the past, barriers between industry and CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I am aware the ASRR put that forward as a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are attempting to redress that view?

Mr Skidmore: I will attempt to redress a view of that perception. I cannot say, because I was not involved in that discussion, whether it was actually occurring or not.You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?

outofwhack

3rd Mar 2015, 12:40

How can the 1989 Denison test case be ignored by CASA? Don't CASA have to abide by the judges decision?

That ruling decided all deuteranopes were no added risk to aviation safety. Albeit leaving out protanopes like Jon Obrien - hence the recent case.

So if CASA now refuse issuing a class 1 to a deuteranope shouldn't the applicant refer this to the AAT for them to force CASA to follow that ruling?

OOW

Bill Smith

3rd Mar 2015, 14:35

I will first apologise to those who wrote to their respective members and those who donated to help Johns AAT case. To the rest Creamy is right, the support was extremely disappointing. I imagine this will end up in the federal court at some stage whilst a few may help, most will ride on the coat tails of others. I'm alright "Jack", until it affects me, is alive and well.

YPJT

8th Mar 2015, 04:13

Just thinking about the comments above. CASA's argument at the AAT seemed to mainly focus on a pilot with defective colour vision being able to accurately determine PAPI indications. So that, to my thinking anyway, should not give them cause to target all the pilots out there who are only exercising CPL or PPL IR and NVFR. Am I being naïve?

Bill Smith

9th Mar 2015, 02:02

Don't lose sight of the big picture. Have no doubt in your mind Avmed was going to come after CVD's anyway. This started long before John's case was even thought about.

LeadSled

9th Mar 2015, 14:32

CASA's argument at the AAT seemed to mainly focus on a pilot with defective colour vision being able to accurately determine PAPI indications

And this was comprehensively refuted on scientifically supportable grounds, unlike the CASA "evidence".

Tootle pip!!

YPJT

9th Mar 2015, 23:17

Clearedtoreenter,
Does this mean instigating another fight at the AAT to restore the rights for pilots that was won all those years ago?

Not denying for one second John's right to take his case to the AAT so he could get his ATPL but I had a sick feeling in my gut that sticking our heads above the parapet would have CASA going on a bit of a witch hunt.

Arthur Pape

10th Mar 2015, 02:19

The fact is that the former PMO foreshadowed as far back as 2008 that he would "sort out the colour vision problem", in an address to the 2008 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine held in Darwin. He was then new to the job, and he had his targets well and truly selected even then. He tried to withdraw the ATPL privileges of one of our members, privileges that had been legally and reasonably granted by the earlier PMO Rob Liddell. We have access to case records and information under FOI that are compelling evidence of the zealous nature of Associate Professor PN's plans. What was clear then, and remains true today, that he was one of several of the team in AVMED that had CVD pilots in their sights. Hence, it comes as no surprise to me that the current incumbents are carrying on the campaign with equal vigour.

As said earlier, there are further cases proceeding to AAT appeals. The fundamental issue remains clear: the colour perception standard has no scientific basis and the exclusion of any person, including ab-initio pilots, on the basis of their colour vision is pure and simple discrimination. More people are "getting it" and supporting our cause. As to the suggestion that we should have kept our heads below the parapet, that is not how intelligent people should behave when they are being discriminated against.

YPJT

10th Mar 2015, 11:30

Arthur,
I did not mean to offend with my comment about keeping heads down. I certainly wasn't aware of Navathe's personal little war on the matter.

Has there been anything communicated by AVMED of an intention to apply the current restrictions to those already exercising CPL, IR or NVFR privileges?

Arthur Pape

10th Mar 2015, 11:36

No offence taken!!

YPJT

10th Mar 2015, 11:50

Interestingly a colleague of mine was at a dinner with Mr Skidmore last week. His impression was that the director came across as someone who really wants to see change in CASA's culture. Time will tell I guess.

aroa

10th Mar 2015, 12:01

Any legal eagle able to say if.... all those CVD folk . now and future that are being discriminated against, on the basis of CAsA's non scientific whimsy, take an action against the regulator.??:ok:
It would seem to me that those in AVmeddle with their axe grinding dont really have a case and are just ignoring all the evidence and AAT outcomes. :mad:

LeadSled

11th Mar 2015, 12:40

------ wants to see change in CASA's culture.

YPJT,
If that is the case, he did not make a good start when answering the CVD question, in effect he aggressively supported the new AvMed "Back to the Stone Age" approach.
You will find a link to the video on one of the other threads, or maybe earlier on this thread.
He has done the same thing on a matter concerning CAR 166 -- the more you talk on the radio, the safer you are doubtless being.
Tootle pip!!

YPJT

11th Mar 2015, 13:07

Leadsled,
Yes I saw his response to the AAT finding. Just saying what my colleague, who is a non pilot thought of him..
I too will be interested on the opinions of our more learned PPRUNERs to aora's suggestion of a class action. It could well come to that if CASA try a wind back on the current CVD CPLs.

Creampuff

11th Mar 2015, 23:46

There is probably scope for a representative action (in the vernacular – a ‘class action’) on the grounds of disability discrimination, given the broad definition of ‘disability’ in the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. However, it would be a very expensive piece of litigation, noting that there would be a conga line of taxpayer-funded lawyers, medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough ranged against the claimants. Also, the Disability Discrimination Act itself notes that “subsection 98(6B) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which allows regulations made under that Act to contain provisions that are inconsistent with this Act if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.” Of course, that merely begs the question, but it would be a very expensive route to get an authoritative answer.

Seems to me the weak point continues to be the CAD test, because everyone knows it doesn’t simulate operational sh*t.

In John O’Brien’s case, CASA’s submission to the AAT was that the CAD test is “a simulation of an aspect of a task required in an operational situation”. However, CASA also had little choice but to concede, in its submissions, that the expert they called had acknowledged that the CAD test “does not simulate an aviation task”. The AAT observed that: The information obtained by CASA from [CAD] testing of Mr O’Brien is little more than that to which they were already aware, having had the diagnosis of protanopia confirmed in previous tests.However, as predicted, CASA submitted and the AAT had little choice but to accept that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review CASA’s decision to determine the CAD test.

CASA’s submission was that even if the CAD test is not one that can reasonably fall within the description of a test that “simulates an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c):

- the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review CASA’s decision to determine the CAD test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c); and

- the Applicant still hadn’t passed any of the prescribed tests.

In other words, CASA said that even if the CAD test does not simulate an operational situation as required by the law: Too bad; too sad. The AAT cannot do anything about it and the Applicant’s career certainty, and other people in like circumstances, can go hang.

The only clear path to review of the decision to determine the CAD test seems to me to be judicial review in the Federal Court. All that is required is the Court to declare that the determination of the CAD test is not a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) in one applicant’s case, and that declaration is effective in respect of all applicants in similar circumstances. If an applicant can knock the CAD test over, that would be a major step forward (really a repositioning close to where we were before the zealots started their recent crusade).

The question whether the CAD test falls within the description of a test that “simulates an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c) shouldn’t be one that requires a conga line of taxpayer-funded lawyers, medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough to answer. That question is one on which the opinion of operational experts, not medical experts, is relevant. And we know what any objective operational expert would say about what operational situation the CAD test simulates.

Of course a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) needs to involve coloured lights. But we already know what the most safety-critical operational situation involving coloured lights is for pilots: PAPI. Even the medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough acknowledge this (but change the goalposts to ‘prove’ their pre-judgement, in the face of evidence that pilots with CVD handle PAPI approaches as well as, and as badly as, the non-CVD pilot population.)

So if the Court:

- declared the CAD test not to be a test validly determined for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) in the case of pilot applicants; and

- ordered CASA to determine a PAPI simulation or real PAPI approaches for those purposes

the required standard would be restored to an evidence-based standard.

The battle then would be to prevent the medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough from designing something called a PAPI simulation but in fact, like the CAD test, merely a glorified colour vision test. A proper simulation needs realistic environmental integrity.

Fueldrum

12th Mar 2015, 02:54

One issue to be aware of.

The disability discrimination act requires parties (including CASA and all airport owners) to modify their equipment as much as reasonably possible to accommodate workers with disabilities. This would clearly encompass removal of PAPIs and replacement with T-VASIS systems. The official reason why most airports removed the PAPI and replaced it with the T-VASIS was to save money.

If the PAPI is the only system in aviation that CVD pilots demonstrably can't use, then under legislation it is the PAPI, not the disabled workers, that must go.

CASA must show that the requirement for good colour vision is an unavoidable, inherent concomitant of aviation, not just the need to interpret one solitary instrument that could easily be replaced. They can't legally discriminate solely on the basis that a simulated test shows that the pilot can't use the PAPI.

Even if such a simulated test existed, which it currently does not.

And even if CASA could show that CVD pilots can't use the PAPI, which CASA cannot.

Creampuff

12th Mar 2015, 05:14

Indeed.

But the regulator has already made its mind up, unperturbed by an objective analysis of the evidence. And it is practically unconstrained in the resources it can bring to bear in its crusade to save the world from the dangers of CVD.

Therefore, it’s just a battle of resources. Best to use the meagre resources of industry for the greatest potential effect, because the regulator has no compunction in bleeding it dry.

All necessary for the safety of air navigation, don’t you know.

Arthur Pape

12th Mar 2015, 06:43

Creampuff, once again and in a most eloquent and concise manner, you have hit the nail right on the head. I fully concur with your assessment in regard to the CAD and especially in regard to the “medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough” description. As already stated earlier, there are new appeals that have been lodged at the AAT on the CVD issue, and I have no doubt that CASA would roll out the same medical zealots and experts to once again sing the praises of the CAD, hoping that this time they might get a different outcome. OR, they could have the CASRs changed to have the reference to “simulates an operational situation” removed from CASR 67.150(6)(c). As written, CASR 67.150(6)(c) is the Achilles Heel of the aviation colour perception standard as legislated in Australian law. I may be wrong, but I believe no other ICAO state has the option of a “simulation of an operational situation” in their version of the relevant CVD legislation.
I am of the belief that the way forward is in a Federal Court challenge to the narrow question of whether the CAD test (which I thoroughly endorse as a very smart and reliable test of colour vision) meets any criteria that qualify it as a test of “correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation”, which is what the law requires. My feeling is that such a narrow challenge should not cost the earth, and a dedicated group of people could make this happen at not too great an expense. This is something I am looking into at the present moment. Once I have an estimate of costs, we can start planning the challenge. Thanks again, Creampuff. You are a genius!

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Mar 2015, 09:37

Not really relevant to this thread. The new head of ICAO is Fang Liu not John McCormick according to China Daily and Wall Street Journal.

Up-into-the-air

12th Mar 2015, 09:59

yep and a read of the release is here (http://vocasupport.com/no-to-mccormick-as-chief-of-icao/)

Creampuff

12th Mar 2015, 20:26

Genius? Far from it.

The prospects of success of a challenge to the validity of the determination by CASA of the CAD test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) are not certain, and CASA will still want to turn it into an argument about how scary dangerous CVD pilots are.

In essense (and there are deeper complexities) the applicants would have show that the determination of the CAD test is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would determine it. Still, given that the CAD test doesn't simulate operational sh*t, it's not impossible.

Creampuff

13th Mar 2015, 05:45

A quick squiz at the pommie rules indicates why they use the CAD test: They are stuck in the Dark Ages (to which CASA is trying to return Australia).

The pommie rules point to Annex IV to the EASA Aircrew Regulation. In relation to colour vision, that Annex says: MED.B.075 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.
…Straight out of the 19th Century Big Book of Ship Sailing!

The rule assumes as true that which used to be true but has been proved to be untrue in modern aviation. The ability to perceive actual colours is no longer necessary for the safe performance of pilot duties.

What the EASA rule would say, if it were based on evidence, is that applicants must demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the meanings of signals, symbols and indications that may be coloured and are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

As I’ve observed before, the current rule is just like the language test that used to be imposed on potential immigrants to Australia to ensure the ‘wrong ones’ were filtered out: “Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to understand readily the languages that are necessary to become a good Aussie citizen.” The prejudice was dressed up as an objective criterion for achieving an unassailably important policy outcome.

This language test is necessary for the preservation of the fabric of our nation! Who would want to risk weakening the fabric of our nation?

Well, as a matter of fact, the test was not necessary for the preservation of the fabric of the nation, but rather the product of narrow-minded, paranoid bigotry.

The ability to perceive colours readily is necessary for the safety of air navigation! Who would want to risk the safety of air navigation?

Well, as a matter of fact, the ability to perceive colours readily isn’t necessary for the safety of air navigation.

MED.B.075 of the EASA Aircrew Regulation goes on to say:(b) Examination

(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.

(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
…Because the basic rule is that the applicant must be able to perceive colours readily, it’s no wonder that they’ve opted for the CAD test, because the CAD test is just a glorified colour vision test which, as noted by the AAT, just tells us what we already know: The applicant doesn’t have the ability to perceive the colours that a proper, red-blooded, patriotic pilot can perceive, so the applicant must be a danger to the safety of air navigation. Who could argue with that?

PS: For the person who PM'd me but whose inbox is now full, the UK CAA medical assessment review and appeal process is explained here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/20150106MedicalAppealsProcedureWithHearingV6.pdf

aerospace11

23rd Mar 2015, 22:49

hi guys just wondering whats basically the next process step in terms of the cvd situation?

Creampuff

24th Mar 2015, 22:20

Assisted by the disunity and weakness of the aviation industry, and encouraged by governments who’ve abdicated responsibility for anything other than their own political interests, CASA will continue to pick off and wear into the ground all existing CVD pilots with privileges beyond day VFR, and only issue certificates restricted to day VFR to new applicants.

All in the name of “air safety” of course. Pilots with CVD are scary-dangerous.

thorn bird

25th Mar 2015, 06:47

"All in the name of “air safety” of course. Pilots with CVD are scary-dangerous."

Creamie you cynical old basket you!!

Used to fly with a guy years ago, profoundly colour blind. He used to pass the Inshalla, oops Ishihara test by learning the pages off by heart. Best damn pilot and safest I ever flew with. Its a Crock!!

Creampuff

25th Mar 2015, 07:34

Of course it's a crock.

But it's also a trough of low-risk, stress-free, busy-work for bureaucrats and a rich vein being mined by the CVD industry.

Who cares if some people's careers or career aspirations are destroyed?

Think about the hundreds of people killed in 'heavy metal' incidents in just the last few years. If only the pilots had been CVD-free.

Australopithecus

25th Mar 2015, 09:06

I fly a plane full of white, and some blue and amber switch lights on the overhead panel. The colours are supposed to indicate something...but really its the fact of illumination more than the colour.

On a few of ours, some lights that are supposed to be white are amber, three that are supposed to be blue are green. CASA is aware of this, and they are ok with it. So much for colours...

Radix

25th Mar 2015, 11:57

.............

LeadSled

26th Mar 2015, 13:52

Radix,
For a better appreciation of the CVD issue, you should read a selection of the posts by Dr. Arthur Pape, some of which are on this thread.
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff

26th Mar 2015, 20:38

Hang on, we're not making the point here that colours don't matter, are we?Yes we are (or at least I am).

What matters is a whether a person has the ability to perceive readily the meanings of the real-life signals, symbols and indications that are coloured, or depend on the differences between colours, and are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

Don't the focus on the means; focus on the ends.

The conga line of medical zealots and experts with their snout in the CVD industry trough focus on the means: There are coloured lights with meanings. Therefore a pilot with an inability to perceive the colours of those lights is scary-dangerous.

Objective people focus on the ends: Does a pilot perceive readily the meaning of real-life signals, symbols and indications that are coloured, or depend on the differences between colours, and are necessary for the safe performance of duties. If a candidate with CVD perceives, as efficiently and effectively as candidates without CVD, the meaning of those real-life signals, symbols and indications, there is no objective safey basis on which to discriminate against the candidate with CVD.

And we know what the first-hand, real-life evidence shows.

Frank Arouet

26th Mar 2015, 22:52

CVD people may see what we know as green as being brown. However they know it's green because it's the same color as grass which everyone knows is green. It's a matter of perception being reality. Oh, and somebody told them that when they were kids.
ASI's are coded with both color and numbers. That argument doesn't count.
The CAsA stance is flawed in both science and common sense. It's a crock.

brissypilot

27th Mar 2015, 06:03

Redix,

For a good read on the scientific flaws with the ICAO colour perception standard, check out this peer reviewed article written by Dr Pape a few years ago which was published in an aviation medicine journal:

Colour Perception Standards in Aviation: Some implications of the AAT decisions regarding colour perception and aviation
(http://cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/implicationsofaatdecision.pdf)
On another note, DAS Skidmore has just announced a review of the CASA AvMed department:

CASA Briefing - March 2015
(http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102447)
The management of aviation medical certificates is an issue of interest to many pilots and air traffic controllers. I recognise some people have strong views about CASA’s aviation medical system, the decision making processes and medical rulings. This is not surprising as we process more than 25,000 medical applications each year. But the debate about CASA’s medical system needs to be put in context – in 2014 we refused 102 applications out of 25,855 and in the second half of the year there were 13 official complaints. Despite this low level of complaints and medical refusals I believe we can do better and the relatively small number of complaints we receive can be reduced. That is why I have initiated a full review of CASA’s AvMed capabilities. This review is now underway and I expect it will be completed in the second half of 2015. It is looking at our strategic approach to aviation medicine policy standards and clinical practice development, options for the better delivery of medical services in the future and the recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced aviation medicine doctors. Our bottom line is to find ways to improve medical service delivery, ensure our decision making processes are transparent and evidence-based, as well as improving the management of complex medical matters.

In addition to the broad review of aviation medicine CASA will undertake a review of the arrangements that currently allow approved Designated Aviation Medical Examiners to issue and renew class 2 medicals. The results of this review will facilitate an examination of the potential for DAMEs to renew class 1 and class 3 medical certificates in the future. I will ensure CASA consults widely and effectively with the aviation community during the course of these aviation medical reviews. Where criticism is warranted I will make sure the causes of problems are identified and addressed as quickly as possible.

I believe the aviation community and CASA need to build a closer working relationship based on our mutual interest in achieving the best safety outcomes. This relationship must be based on respect and trust. CASA is open and committed to an appropriate ‘safety partnership’ with the aviation community and I am devoting a good deal of time and energy towards working to the achievement of this goal. Of course a closer relationship between the aviation community and the regulator does not mean CASA can agree to every proposal or view put to us. Not everyone will get what they want and consensus may not always be possible. However, I will make sure we are listening to your views and criticisms and we respond in a considered and respectful way to your comments, questions, concerns and complaints.

You can read my speech on the way forward in aviation medicine (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102417) which was recently delivered to the aviation Medical Society of Victoria.

Safe flying
Mark Skidmore AMIf the new DAS is truly serious about making sure AvMed decisions are "evidence based", he would be well placed to look at Australia's 25 year history of CVD pilots operating safely and to take notice of the AAT's findings in CASA's three CVD losses (Pape, Denison & O'Brien) at the tribunal.

If he is serious about "consulting" with the aviation industry, a good starting point would also be for him to actually meet with Dr Pape and some of the many CVD professional pilots operating in this country to hear first hand "real life evidence" of their experience and career histories.

Maybe he could then explain why new CVD pilot entrants into the industry are now being denied medicals or having them severely restricted to Day VFR only, when their fellow pilots have been operating safely for decades.

In the speech referred to in his article above, Skidmore makes the following comments on the CVD issue:

My speech won’t be complete if I don’t touch on the delicate subject of CVD. Australia does differ from other countries in relation to the requirements surrounding CVD. Australia is more flexible in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where they record a fail and can issue a medical certificate if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility. For example the UK does not allow for any second chances if an applicant fails their only test, the CAD test. They do not receive a Class 1 medical certificate.

In mid-2014, it was determined that the handling of pilots with CVD had not been in strict accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 (Medical). CASA advised industry of its new process relating to the regulations in June 2014. This was done to provide industry with information to assist in understanding their obligations in relation to the regulations. The new processes related to new applicants only and there were no impacts on existing pilots. In response to some of the correspondence received, CASA updated the CVD information on its website.

In February 2015, CASA had 134 Class 1 medical certificate holders and 252 Class 2 medical certificate holders who have failed the Ishihara test.

CASA is considering the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test as a third-level test. CASA has determined the CAD test is suitable as an aviation specific test for detecting CVD. It is used by the UK and is also available in the US as an option for testing for CVD. CAD provides for colour and diagnostic testing, which can determine the degree of colour deficiency, which is something that is currently not able to be determined by the Ishihara or Farnsworth tests.

Whilst I am not considering further changes to policy or standards at this time, any proposed changes will be consulted through the SCC Medical sub-committee. Pilots with existing CVD restrictions will require no other tests related to CVD, unless other medical reasons determine a need to do so.Mr Skidmore, everyone agrees that the CAD is a brilliant CVD test. However, it doesn't remotely come close to fulfilling the requirements of the third level test under CASR 67.150 (6)(c). CASA still cannot answer the question - "what operational situation does the CAD simulate?" It's a fairly basic and fundamental question...

He also states that they are "considering" using the CAD test as the third level test. This is also a blatant lie, as AvMed are already using it for the third level test. Here's just one example (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/541172-perfect-example-casa-outrageaous-behaviour-5.html#post8526987) from Bill Smith's post last year:

CASA has determined the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) to be an appropriate test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c).In the O'Brien AAT hearings, evidence was also heard that the former PMO wrote to Mr O'Brien prior to his medical renewal last year, refusing to re-issue his Class 1 medical at all, unless he undertook the CAD test. This was despite his medical being renewed repeatedly for the previous 15 years without issue.

Mr Skidmore needs to stop blindly following the advice of the AvMed zealots on their crusade to save the world from CVD pilots. He needs to actually take the time to listen to the other side of the story from pilots with the operational expertise to see what they think should be an appropriate test of an operational situation for the purposes of CASR 67.150 (6)(c). Maybe he might be able to hear first hand examples of why colour useage in aviation is not as important as the AvMed zealots would have him believe.

Perhaps then we can then start leading the world at an ICAO level with our "evidence" on CVD issues, rather than following it based on the "assumptions" of other countries like the UK! :ugh:

Creampuff

27th Mar 2015, 21:00

in 2014 we refused 102 applications out of 25,855 and in the second half of the year there were 13 official complaints. Despite this low level of complaints and medical refusals I believe we can do better and the relatively small number of complaints we receive can be reduced.I wonder whether Mr Skidmore is really so naive as to believe that's anything other than a cynical manipulation of terminology and statistics.

What is an "official" "complaint", Mr Skidmore?

What about all the people who weren't "refused" certificates, but were f*cked around with delays and operational conditions that had to be appealed and overturned through AAT review, Mr Skidmore?

Have you read the submissions to the Forsyth Review, Mr Skidmore? What did AOPA say was the single biggest complaint of its members? What did some of the professional pilot associations' submissions say about Avmed? Do those submissions constitute just one "complaint" each, or no complaints at all?

What about all the people who signed up to the petition on CVD, and wrote letters to the Deputy Prime Minister and local members of parliament, Mr Skidmore?

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you've joined the long line of people who are part of the problem.

Creampuff

29th Mar 2015, 07:31

In case Mr Skidmore hasn't read the submissions to and report of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, here are some quotes.

From pages 10-11 of the submission by that hot-bed of aviation fringe dwellers and risk-takers, the Australian and International Pilots’ Association (AIPA):AIPA’s most frequent and often most frustrating interaction with CASA is through the Aviation Medicine Branch. The frustrations arise due to the inconsistent administration of medical clearances and certificates, the near impossibility of being able to talk to anyone about the administration processes and, most critically, what most members report as the CASA-unique approach of disregarding practicing medical specialists’ advice in favour of “riskbased” decisions made by non-practicing medical bureaucrats.
...
AIPA is most concerned about the immediate uncertainty caused to a member when the often expensive advice and tests are considered to be acceptable by DAMES and specialists but not by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO). Where else are they to turn? The problem is often exacerbated by the turnaround times, the best of which is 28 days, but as the applicant you will rarely be made aware that the clock has not started because some component of the required information is “missing”, at least until you can break through the communication firewall to ask as to what point your certificate has progressed in the administrative sequence.

Paragraph 13 of the submission by the aviation equivalent of base-jumpers, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP):13. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue1. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.

From page 7 of the submission by a representative of notoriously inexperienced aviators, the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia:One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose. The ability of the branch to hide behind the facade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.

AOPA's submission, paragraph 9:9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, rejection of DAMEs opinions, demands for ever more complex specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and which are then frequently ignored by Avmed itself. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience, eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor.

For what purpose? Most GA pilots intend to fly themselves and perhaps a few associates, mostly in VFR during daylight. Motor vehicle licencing is nothing like this, yet driving is only slightly less stressful.

CASA should rely on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.

thorn bird

29th Mar 2015, 07:38

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Not that much I can add to that Creamie.

C206driver

31st Mar 2015, 01:41

Creamie, that is all too true!

CASA should not have the right, nor the power to blatantly disregard the expert medical opinions obtained by the applicants treating doctor.
It is absurd to have a glorified GP in Cantberra destroying careers & livelihood due to this loophole.

Radix

31st Mar 2015, 03:22

..........

jas24zzk

31st Mar 2015, 10:32

It hasn't taken long for Skidmark to prove that the only evidence he will accept, is his pay cheque.

Creampuff

1st Apr 2015, 20:22

Of course does color matter as it is an extra (independent) set of information to interpret information. Imagine a cockpit with lights all colours of the rainbow and one time Yellow meant OK another Red meant OK another Blue meant OK...Funny you should make that point.

An aircraft I fly regularly has a red up and locked light for the undercarriage, a blue flashing light (as well as varying audio tones) for the systems malfunction warning system, an orange alternator failure light and a yellow low battery voltage light on the volt/ammeter. None of those colours, or the differences between them, has any intuitive connection to the meaning or relative importance of the issue annunciated.

I think the safety of NVG operations is the 'lay down misere' answer to the reincarnation of this CVD nonsense, even if we set aside the first-hand evidence of the operational history of pilots with CVD.

thorn bird

3rd Apr 2015, 22:11

Any truth to the rumour that Skidmore has agreed to allow CVD to fly unrestricted provided they wear NVG at night? :}

aerospace11

3rd Apr 2015, 23:10

ey guys any latest news on cvd developments in moving forward
cheers

Arthur Pape

7th Apr 2015, 11:34

We are appraising the current situation in detail, and here is a précis:

Current CVDmedical certificate holders, we are asked to believe, will be left alone, at least for now. It would appear that the political fallout that would follow a continuation of the madness that befell AVMED in June of last year would be suicidal for that elite body.
New CVD candidates for medical certificates are to be dealt with in a manner that can only be described as "pre-historic". Not in living memory have new CVD pilots in Australia been confined to PPL, VFR and daytime only conditions.
CASA appears hell-bent on pressing on with the use of the CAD test in Australia (as well as the sneaky introduction of the Holmes Wright Lantern) in response to the clear requirements of CASR 67. 150. 6 (c) which demands that "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".
Currently, we are making in-depth inquiries into the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of the CAD test in the Federal Court. So far, it appears that such a challenge would carry a healthy prospect of success, but that the cost is likely to be over $200,000, which to me is not a piffling sum of money. We are exploring several ways of raising the money. The maths are not overwhelming. One thousand pilots with or without CVD make a contribution of $200, and we are in the game. The trick is to get a thousand donors to cough up $200 each.
Next, we would need a candidate to figurehead the challenge, and without going into much detail, that candidate would need to be a pilot or wanna-be pilot, who needs to refuse to take the CAD test on the grounds that it is an unlawful test, in the terms in which CASR 67. 150.6(c) is written. In other words, that no reasonable person could view the CAD as a test that simulates any operational situation that any pilot will ever find him/herself in.

I think that will be enough for now to indicate we are actively working on "the way forward", and that once again, progress will be careful and necessarily slow. John O'Brien's recent victory is not the final end point of this project. It is just the stepping stone to the next goal.
Cheers!

gchriste

8th Apr 2015, 01:37

Great to hear. As someone without any CVD issues, I would still be prepared to stump up $200 when the time comes just to help shut down this madness of a rule and organisation.

aroa

8th Apr 2015, 05:13

Would be happy to contribute to the cause to bring sanity into safety, and help put this issue to bed once and for all.:ok:

Not CVD myself but getting it.... CAsA induced by the bastardry of other issues...its called Creating Violent Disposition.:mad:

IFEZ

8th Apr 2015, 05:29

I'm with you gc. Despite the rhetoric contained in the latest DAS statement, his response to Senator Fawcetts CVD question at Senate Estimates shows his true colours (pardon the pun) on the matter. Why CASA and avmed cannot/will not see reason on this matter is beyond me. :ugh: If the CVD guys are willing to take the fight to them, then I believe it is in all our best interests to contribute to the cause, whether you're CVD or not. As others have said previously, this could be the thin edge of the wedge. What's the next target after CVD..? I shudder to think. :( Count me in for the $200.

Creampuff

8th Apr 2015, 06:40

What's the next target after CVD..?Best for all the Jacks and Jills out there who think they’re alright to think again, really hard, about where Avmed continues to head beyond just the CVD issue. Think hard about the ease with which the safety of air navigation can be invoked to justify just about anything, safe in the knowledge that scared punters are always going to scream to be saved from any pilot with any hint of any physical or mental problem. Sooner or later, if not already, someone will also figure out what damage a rogue air traffic controller could do, and scared punters will scream to be saved from any ATC’er with any hint of any problem as well.

If you’re ordinary, you’re next. Ordinary now justifies intrusion and requires confession and absolution, at the whim and to the satisfaction of a beneficent, all-knowing regulator.

LeadSled

8th Apr 2015, 11:17

Think hard about the ease with which the safety of air navigation can be invoked to justify just about anything, safe in the knowledge that scared punters are always going to scream to be saved from any pilot with any hint of any physical or mental problem

Folks,
It's all called the "mystique of air safety", identified many years ago in the Lane Report, a a technique used by aviation bureaucrats to scare the living bejesus out of politicians, thereby justifying more/new/harsher "safety" regulation and more money.

The record must have been the day, during the Morris inquiry, when CASA produced 13 press releases (in one day) all calling for more money to solve non-existent air safety problems.

If you think Avmed is a problem, and Part 61 is an operational and financial disaster, you ain't seen nuttin' yet, wait till you see Parts 91/121/135. All the new restrictions simply ignore the Government policy on red rape reduction, and don't comply with the preamble to NPRMs, let alone the mandatory requirement of The Australian Government Guide to Regulation.

But ----- what are you all going to do about it?? Wait for "somebody else" to "do something"????

Tootle pip!!

Radix

8th Apr 2015, 13:37

.............

jas24zzk

8th Apr 2015, 14:24

Isn't it more the point that CVD people have grown up with their condition and as such have adapted to what they see?

I deal with 2 youngsters with cochlear implants. I'm sure what they hear isn't the same as you an I hear.

What CVD's see is as normal to them as is what we see.

Creampuff

8th Apr 2015, 22:28

See if you can get the gentle hint in this story in today's Canberra TimesAir Safety Staff set to join unrest...

The nation's air safety bureaucrats are set to join unrest sweeping the Commonwealth government ...

But unions representing staff at CASA say they will not compromise passenger safety ...Phew! Bless the nation's air safety bureaucrats.[A union official] said his members at CASA were anxious not to cause disruption that might jeopardise passenger safety.

But the union official said the dispute might escalate if CASA's management did not make a pay offer soon.

"Members have looked at lower forms of action because they don't want to compromise their general duties, ensuring that aircraft around the country are airworthy," [the union official said]. "But if this is not resolved ...Oh no! If they don't get a pay rise, we're all gonna die because no one will be ensuring that aircraft around the country are airworthy! Please give our saviours a pay rise!

Back to CVD...

Hi Radix

Funny thing is that every non-CVD pilot that flys in the aircraft is confused and distracted by the red up and locked light. It's counter-intuitive (at least for some people).

And pilots with CVD spot and understand, just as quickly as pilots without CVD, the meaning of the illumination of light that means "up", and the meaning of the illumination of the light that means "down", and the meaning of neither light being illuminated.

CoftC

8th Apr 2015, 22:56

[QUOTE]CVD's can see colour and make safe pilots. They struggle with so called colour vision tests, which are far too discriminating and completely unrepresentative of any operational situation. The CAD test is no different in that it discriminates between those who can pass an irrelevant test and those who cannot. /QUOTE]

I can testify to the above.

Being diagnosed with CVD 20 years ago, I have a slight red/green deficiency but I 100% believe I see solid red/green colours (and lights) exactly the same as any colour normal person, but may have issues like finding it a little more difficult to distinguish a small green light from a white light at say 1000m (anyone probably would), yet red lights are very distinct.

In 20 years, with myself, family, friends and work/flying colleagues aware of the condition (I often get them to quiz me), I would struggle to count the instances I have misidentified a colour on one hand, yet I can't "pass" any of the colour vision tests, including the CAD, falling just outside the "acceptable" cutoff.

I have zero issues with road traffic lights, red/amber caution lights, green and red landing gear annunciations, nav lights, instrument placarding, runway (inc threshold, taxi and stop-bar lighting) , obstruction lighting and any fellow pilots can testify to this, yet I still "fail" the "required standard". It is absolutely frustrating.

Despite the above, let's not forget it has also been proven that pilots with severe defects who may not be great at naming colours can still operate aircraft safely!

I have an ATPL (which I can't use), 3000 hours (mostly multi IFR charter) and 500 hrs at night, without incident.

As someone deeply affected (and at times traumatised) by the stance CASA have taken in the last 2 years, a $5000 donation to the next fight would be within my realms at the current time, but obviously a career is worth much more than this amount. Hell, I've already blown over $1500 on two CAD tests:ugh:

Thank you so much to those not affected by CVD willing to part with $200 for the cause, it means a huge amount to us CVDs to have your support!:ok:

p.s just as a side note and a bit of trivia: When you do the maths it works out that there would be around 1 million CVDs in Australia. Go figure

dubbleyew eight

9th Apr 2015, 09:46

the beautiful little homebuilt that I enjoy so much was completed by a 29,000 hour CVD airline pilot.

just where do we send the $200 ?

Arthur Pape

9th Apr 2015, 11:07

Thanks to all for your supportive and encouraging replies. For those who don't know, we have a legal entity called the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)which was set up primarily to act as a focal point for CVD pilots, would-be pilots and others who would want to support the cause. As an entity, we collected about $80,000 from all sources. However, the vast bulk of that has been spent supporting the legal fees for John O'Brien's appeal to the AAT. The money spent made it possible for John's appeal to even happen, and for the successful outcome to become a reality. John is now going ahead in leaps and bounds towards the dream of being an airline captain. While the outcome was a success, it isn't the end-point of the project, just a very big advance towards the ultimate goal. That goal is to end the immoral and unscientific discrimination against a particular group that has a trivial variance from what is considered "normal". In aiming for that goal, we seek to hold CASA accountable for its flawed logic, its misrepresentation of evidence and its flagrant disregard for the law of this country.

The fact that we can even try to achieve these goals is a great reflection on our legal system. In no other country in the world is there the opportunity available to challenge the blind bureaucracy that is behind the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). We are unique in our access to independent and expert review of bureaucratic decisions, and that is the full explanation of why the Aussie version of the ACPS has led the world on the topic, at least until June 2014, when the "Empire" struck back.

Whatever money is or was raised, serves solely to finance legal challenges. No one takes any payments for services. There are small outgoings for accounting services and for court related witness expenses. I personally keep the records for the CVDPA, and those records are supervised by an independent accounting firm in Geelong. All financial records are available to subscribers upon request.

As discussed in an earlier post, our current target is to raise about $200,000 to enable the CVDPA to support a challenge to the lawfulness of the CAD test, under Australian law. It is vital that we raise the bulk of the money before we can engage lawyers to do the detailed preparation for taking this challenge to the Federal Court of Australia. If the appeal fails to reach its target, meaning the case can't go ahead, refunds will be made available to the original donors.

At the CVDPA website (www.cvdpa.com (http://www.cvdpa.com)) individuals or groups can contribute by subscription or by donation and there are a number of means available to make the transactions happen.

You will understand that it is probably unwise to discuss legal strategies in detail in a forum such as this one, but very easily done through a subscription website such as the one the CVDPA has.

Keeping in mind what I have indicated earlier, the donation of $200 by only a thousand pilots would achieve our goal, but that doesn't confine any donor to that amount. All donations, large and small will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Arthur Pape

SIUYA

15th Apr 2015, 06:10

Wonder what CASA's response/reaction will be to this:

UW scientists, biotech firm may have cure for colorblindness | The Seattle Times (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/uw-scientists-biotech-firm-may-have-cure-for-colorblindness/)

:ooh:

Source: HAI Rotor News April 15, 2015

Eddie Dean

15th Apr 2015, 06:56

SIUYA, thanks for the link. Gene therapy opens a new way

Bill Smith

16th Apr 2015, 08:07

In my opinion all these work arounds are great, however it detracts from the core issue that flying with a CVD does not matter!
The empirical evidence shows, over the last 25 years in Australia, that CVD pilots operate to the same levels as their non CVD peers. It would seem that this is over a broad range of CVD's.
Tested over the years, the same as their colleagues, some have continued their careers to the highest levels in Airline transport.
A practical flight test or a test in the same simulator that is used for renewals is being avoided? Maybe this is because it may be subjective to who is conducting the test?
What any practical test should be looking for is can the applicant operate safely despite having a CVD?
It would show the argument, that colour is so critical, is redundant.

Creampuff

16th Apr 2015, 21:16

Gene therapy opens a new wayGene therapy will also stop androgenic alopecia and change black people to white.

That doesn't mean someone should have to go through with it to get a restriction-free medical certificate.

aerospace11

20th Apr 2015, 04:31

ey guys just wondering if there has been any developments on cvd situation
cheers

outofwhack

11th May 2015, 21:12

It may have fallen a little silent on this thread but I know work is being done in the CVDPA on the next logical step in this fight. Any newbie who has failed the ishihara test in an Australian medical and is contemplating the next steps should contact the CVDPA before any further colour vision testing.

brissypilot

20th May 2015, 10:54

For those interested, CASA's response to Senator Fawcett's QON from the February Estimates hearings was released a few days ago:

alBi8-k_FBY

Question no.: 170
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority Topic: AAT Decision and Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page: 96 (24 February 2015)

PDF (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf)

Senator FAWCETT: Sure, I understand that. I will ask you to take this on notice as well. Since the committee last met with you in estimates, the AAT has handed down its decision in the case of Mr John O'Brien, with regard to colour vision deficiency. CASA lost that case. Mr O'Brien has been given the privileges of exercising the airline transport pilot licence on the basis that he has a safe flying history as a co-pilot and they do not anticipate any increase in risk to the travelling public or others with him exercising the privileges of being a captain. I would be interested in your answer, on notice, about how you plan to move forward with this issue, in that this is twice now that the AAT has found against the CASA position. The AAT's judgement recognises, during the very long period under Liddell and Brock and other principal medical officers within CASA, the very proactive and positive approach to enabling people to fly with appropriate individual assessments. I guess I would like you to, on notice, explain to the committee how you plan to respond to not just this judgement about Mr O'Brien as an individual but also the very clear statements that came out of the AAT around their concerns about the broad application of the CAD Test and the fact that, essentially, each individual should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their competence and safety, regardless of the clinical diagnosis of CVD that may be identified through various forms of testing.

Mr Skidmore: You quite correctly identified that we have only just received the response in regard to Mr O'Brien from the AAT. There is still time for us to appeal that response, and we will provide the information you requested in regard to that. But I would state that the AAT response was in regard to Mr O'Brien, and they did say it was in regard to Mr O'Brien only.

Answer:
CASA will be reviewing the implications of the individual judgement made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in relation to Mr O’Brien for its wider assessment of applicants for pilot licences with colour vision deficiency (CVD).

CASA notes the need for consistency in the safety assessment of pilot licence applications while recognising the different individual circumstances of each applicant with CVD and its potentially variable impact on their operating performance.

Radix

21st May 2015, 09:06

.............

averdung

22nd May 2015, 15:15

FAA PPL, no restrictions, passed tower light test, have LOE (FAA Letter Of Evidence stating all restrictions removed despite Ishihara test failure, does not expire). Only FAA test left is OCVT (Operational Color Vision Test) which requires recognizing terrain types from an aircraft, which I need for the CPL.

So... would CASA throw a tantrum? Since I have an "alternative" profession (I grew up in Mexico, which DOES NOT let you fly with CVD, no matter what the FAA says, perhaps even because of the fact the FAA lets you fly with it) I've been considering a move to Oz in the near future, and depending on when I would get there, I would have a FAA CPL with me. Anz chances of cargo/RFD flying for me?

WhiskeyKilo

27th May 2015, 02:47

Anyone had a chance to look at this:

http://enchroma.com

Says on the FAQ that haven't been authorised by regulators but if corrective glasses can be worn then I don't see why these can't.

aerospace11

28th May 2015, 05:13

ey guys any basic update on cvd? even basic information would be ok

Arthur Pape

6th Jul 2015, 03:16

CVDPA Announcement

There have been two significant meetings with the Director of CASA, Mr Mark Skidmore on the topic of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). The first was on June 22nd at Aviation House, Canberra, CASA headquarters. The second was in Queenstown, New Zealand where the CASA Director and his New Zealand counterpart, M Graeme Harris, met jointly with our affiliate group in New Zealand, Colour Vision Aviators (CVA) on June 29th. The CVDPA and the CVA are collaborating closely to fight the discrimination against CVD pilots, as you will see from the attached documentation.
As a result of these encounters with both directors, the CVDPA is left in no doubt that CASA’s act of total bastardry in June 2014 in its assault on CVD pilots will not be reversed in any way by the new director. Of paramount significance were the two points: (1) the CASA Director was shown a film clip of the CAD test and declared that to him the test does simulate an operational situation, and (2) the changes implemented by CASA in June 2014 were just a “clarification of the standard that was already there”. We witnessed what appeared to us to be open disdain and disregard for the AAT decisions and the rational choices of earlier principal medical officers (PMOs) that had placed Australia in a world leadership position in regard to aviation colour vision policy. We heard that the preference would be to be “fast followers” rather than “leaders”, and that the leaders would be ICAO.
The CVDPA has therefore, sadly, come to the conclusion that CASA’s claims of being a “risk based and evidence driven” regulator are mere rhetoric, and we are left with no practical alternative but to litigate in the Federal Court against the lawfulness of the CAD test. The CAD test lies at the heart of the above-said act of bastardry, and demonstrates the blind regulatory prejudice that colour vision defective pilots continue to suffer. Steps are being now taken to set the process in motion.

Documentation:

Submission to CASA Director, Mr Mark Skidmore:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxzmyvyx72d53bb/Submission%20to%20Mark%20Skidmore%20final.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxzmyvyx72d53bb/Submission%20to%20Mark%20Skidmore%20final.docx?dl=0)
Our verbal presentation followed this document closely.

Supplementary material provided to the Director:

A short film clip of an actual CAD test (my own, in fact) being performed:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8c5rmnonu3mr5l/CAD-small%20clip-no%20audio.mp4?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8c5rmnonu3mr5l/CAD-small%20clip-no%20audio.mp4?dl=0)
A copy of the letter from CASA to CVD Pilots:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hawho75efc6fnnh/CASA%20to%20CVD%20Pilots%20-%20June%202014%20-%20Copy.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hawho75efc6fnnh/CASA%20to%20CVD%20Pilots%20-%20June%202014%20-%20Copy.pdf?dl=0)

A copy of the letter sent by CASA to AOC holders:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxwqgudhnd7lrtu/CVD%20Letter%20to%20AOC%20holders%20-%20Copy.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxwqgudhnd7lrtu/CVD%20Letter%20to%20AOC%20holders%20-%20Copy.pdf?dl=0)

A copy of the letter sent to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs) by the former PMO, Dr Pooshan Navathe:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/by27bzdavxllfl1/PMO%20letter%20to%20DAMEs.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/by27bzdavxllfl1/PMO%20letter%20to%20DAMEs.docx?dl=0)

A summary statement by Professor Stuart:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kx606flkf60ptsu/Geoff%20Stuart%20on%20Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%20and%20A viation%20Safety%20-%20Copy.doc?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kx606flkf60ptsu/Geoff%20Stuart%20on%20Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%20and%20A viation%20Safety%20-%20Copy.doc?dl=0)

A copy of a letter to the Editor of the Journal of the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine (JASAM)on the topic of the changes in the implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard in June of 2014:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0lr0seira2nslyk/Pape%20Letter%20to%20Editor%20JASAM%202014.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0lr0seira2nslyk/Pape%20Letter%20to%20Editor%20JASAM%202014.pdf?dl=0)

A copy of the paper by Pape and Crassini published in the JASAM concerning the Crash of Fedex Flight 1478, the central pillar of “evidence”of the pro-ACPS lobby:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihin35ls74qv1x6/Pape%20and%20Crassini%202013%20The%20Puzzle.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihin35ls74qv1x6/Pape%20and%20Crassini%202013%20The%20Puzzle.pdf?dl=0)

A copy of the Pape and Crassini paper of 2011 about the implications of the ACPS
https://www.dropbox.com/s/st7t3sgsgh3lte8/Pape%20and%20Crassini%20JASAM%202011%20final.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/st7t3sgsgh3lte8/Pape%20and%20Crassini%20JASAM%202011%20final.pdf?dl=0)

A review of the CAD test by CVA NZ
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbrawdno1fgbu00/GD-VIS-1-2013%20CAD%20Test%20Review.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbrawdno1fgbu00/GD-VIS-1-2013%20CAD%20Test%20Review.pdf?dl=0)

Submission to NZ CAA on what the CVDPA and NZ CVA consider to be fraudulent/unethical material generated by the NZ PMO
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejn7taaew9dl9k1/GD-VIS-1-2013%20PMO%20Review.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejn7taaew9dl9k1/GD-VIS-1-2013%20PMO%20Review.pdf?dl=0)

Copy of article by NZ PMO on which the CASA June 2014 changes relied
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vl5cad75ltmire/Watson%20DB%20ASEM%20201402%20ASEM.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vl5cad75ltmire/Watson%20DB%20ASEM%20201402%20ASEM.pdf?dl=0)

Copy of letter from Pape to Dr Drane
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uvaxidrn3235r5/pape%20to%20drane%2020150327%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uvaxidrn3235r5/pape%20to%20drane%2020150327%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0)

The reason for including the material propagated by the NZ PMO in our submission to the CASA Director is that to the CVDPA it is clear that his fingerprints are all over the changes to CASA’s implementation of the ACPS of June 2014. In that foul stroke of a pen, Australia became aligned and “harmonized” overnight with NZ policy. Note again, that the NZ PMO’s published paper was the only reference given for the CASA change of implementation.

The only material I have left out is the Case Study documentation given at the meeting in Canberra that includes the personal details of brave CVD pilots who agreed to be a part of our case presentations to CASA, detailing their names, ranks and experience as well as their CVD categories.

Finally, if anyone considers this to be a matter of interest only to pilots or potential pilots with colour vision deficiency, please think again. This matter is merely one manifestation of a broader failure of CASA to take a risk based and evidence driven approach to medical certification and aviation regulation generally. Please do not sit on the sidelines and watch other people fight the fights to try to fix problems that may well be yours one day, if not already.

jas24zzk

6th Jul 2015, 13:52

Finally, if anyone considers this to be a matter of interest only to pilots or potential pilots with colour vision deficiency, please think again. This matter is merely one manifestation of a broader failure of CASA to take a risk based and evidence driven approach to medical certification and aviation regulation generally. Please do not sit on the sidelines and watch other people fight the fights to try to fix problems that may well be yours one day, if not already.

Very well said!

Whilst I am not CVD, I take a lot of interest in this thread on how CASA is dealing with the whole lot, and how the judiciary reacts.

Today it is CVD, tomorrow..........? just look at your medical questionaire!
Yes we all know what to tick and what not to...but it should not be that way!!

The whole premise of operation is driving problems underground...sure its bad for the CASA medical team, being lied to, but its also driving people to give no answers that a normal GP would say, " I think we should look at that further" They are forcing people to deny problems they have, which in most cases could be easily sorted.

Skidmark earns more than the PM, time he earn't it

gchriste

6th Jul 2015, 16:15

Why are the pilot representative bodies (unions) silent on this issue? Surely there are paid up members looking to further their airline career that are affected by this, and surely that is an issue that should be looked into. Or is it only the employers who gain their attention?

And oh the irony... CASA wants to be a fast follower, not leader. Well how do they explain the ADSB rollout. And only a week or two back Skidmore was telling us Part 61 would be praised and followed by other nations.

Seems to me it is fine to be a leader when it suits, and when not, duck and hide.

At some point, as a group, pilots need to say enough is enough with the rubbish we are being forced to absorb! Not just GA, but all pilots.

pmf1977

10th Jul 2015, 05:28

So I have an FAA (H)PPL, failed ishihara and passed control tower signal light.
I want to commence CPL here in Australia and failed FALANT.
Do I pay for the pointless CAD test which I have a chance of passing (my deficiency is very mild deutan) or do I wait a while.

I even asked them to issue the licence with restrictions with a view to see what happens or take the test at a later date so I could get the medical and commence flight training but they refused.

Lead Balloon

10th Jul 2015, 10:47

Great first post!

My advice is to just relax and wait until someone else has fought the fight for you. Could take a few years and burn some people's treasure and blood, so best not to get involved. :ok:

Radix

11th Jul 2015, 02:42

.............

Lead Balloon

11th Jul 2015, 08:03

And CASA issues the pieces of paper and knows that most people in the aviation community don't have the necessary mixture of courage, time and money to have a fight.

So pmf1977 needs either to gather up the necessary mixture of courage, time and money to have a fight, or cop whatever CASA cares to do to him until others can do so. It's that simple.

outofwhack

13th Jul 2015, 23:32

Pmf1977,

If you passed the Australian tower light signal test then you passed the colour vision testing at the time when it was accepted. Many did and are flying commercially. Was it the FAA test light test you passed?
Oow

pmf1977

30th Jul 2015, 21:07

I did my PPL in Florida, failed the ishihara and had to do a tower light signal test in the states to get a night flying restriction removed from my licence.

QFBUSBOY

2nd Aug 2015, 13:22

Apologies if it has already been covered, has anyone had anything to do with the Enchroma glasses?

I realize that you can't be certified from their use, but I'm curious as to whether anyone has worn a pair of the glasses, and whether there is a difference.

papakurapilot

3rd Aug 2015, 04:53

QFBUSBOY, yeah I've tried a paid on. They are strange as they tint the whole world a magenta like colour if my memory serves me correctly. (It most likely will not). The colours of the world do change, and it does have the desired effect, ignoring the colours changing it's almost like you're wearing tinted glasses.

QFBUSBOY

6th Aug 2015, 14:02

Thanks for the feedback. That's quite interesting. Hopefully it allows guys a chance to see the world abit differently to what they do now.

logansi

8th Sep 2015, 06:24

Hello all,

I am 18 years old and would love to become a Pilot but since around 5 i have been told that it won't happen as i am CVD, it's in my family and i fail all the ishihara plates. I have completed one TIF Flight recently and loved it.
What i want to know if what are the steps to attempt to gain a class one medical? I would like to do it before i start any training and also have the option to apply to cadet programs.

Is my best bet to go to a DAME, fail the ishihara plates then be referred to somewhere like Australian College of Optometry that has the lantern tests etc? If i fail them what are my options/how do i get a Aviation Signal Light Test?

Thanks for all your help - especially those who have supported CVD pilots in the past.

LeadSled

8th Sep 2015, 06:32

Logansi,
In the first instance talk to Dr. Arthur Pape, in Geelong. He is the best person to talk to. You will find him in the phone book.
Please, in your own interests, talk to him before you talk to anybody else.
Tootle pip!!

logansi

8th Sep 2015, 06:42

ok - he is the guy behind CVDPA right, does he have an email too?

LeadSled

8th Sep 2015, 06:45

logansi,
Just give him a call, and reads through this whole thread, so you have some idea of the background of the situation, in which you find yourself.
Tootle pip!!

triadic

27th Sep 2015, 08:41

From CASA document:

Q. Why did I have to redo a medical report which my GP could have done, saving the expense and time of traveling to a DAME in a regional centre?

A. CASA cannot comment on individual cases. However, there is a misunderstanding within the industry of the purpose of specialist opinions. Most specialists prescribe a treatment because it improves the patient’s outlook and their reports often reflect this, but CASA requires a risk assessment which involves different questions and investigations. Risk assessment is different to clinical care.
DAME opinions are always valued, but few DAMEs have formal qualifications in aviation medicine. CASA doctors have an advantage in that they have the relevant postgraduate and occupational medicine qualifications, and as the regulator, must make the final decision.
The cost of tests is outside CASA’s control. Applicants frequently supply results of inappropriate tests and you are encouraged to liaise with Avmed beforehand to avoid this problem.
In terms of delays, the median response time is 7–9 days where all the information is complete, but 37 days where it is not. The electronic application process will further reduce delays and ensure complete information is provided before an application can be submitted.
Following recent dialogue with the sport aviation organisations, CASA is actively sourcing material to improve their understanding of medical and regulatory issues.

Lead Balloon

27th Sep 2015, 20:52

Summary: CASA's opinion is that CASA knows better.

Reality: It doesn't.

The recent track record of challenges to CASA's medical-related decisions in the AAT shows CASA does not know better. CASA's decision is more often than not varied in favour of the applicant, or CASA backs down before it gets to a hearing.

A blast from the not-so-distant past:24. Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:

90. Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.

91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal

Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.If triadic's post above is an accurate summary of AVMED's current position, it shows that CASA still does't get it.

It appears that AVMED still has an inbuilt bias that can be summarised in the vernacular: FIGJAM.

jas24zzk

28th Sep 2015, 13:40

I struggle with this bit..........

but few DAMEs have formal qualifications in aviation medicine.

I would have thought that being designated a DAME, meant that you in fact DID have a formal qualification. :ugh:

My own GP, is also a DAME. He did the courses because he wanted to fly. The courses turned him to golf instead. Words from his own mouth.

brissypilot

2nd Oct 2015, 06:23

Earlier last month, CVDPA Director Dr Arthur Pape spoke at the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine annual conference held in Adelaide. A reproduced copy of his presentation is below:

sRIecZZnMCg

From the conference website (http://event.icebergevents.com.au/uploads/contentFiles/files/2015-ASAM/Abstracts-Book-ASAM2015.pdf), the abstract of the presentation was:

The Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) Test: An Ishihara by another name?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for aviation safety, carrying out its responsibility using various methods. These include:

(i) Mandating regular medical tests (minimising risks of, say, cardio-vascular events that could render aircrew incapable of safe piloting); and
(ii) Mandating regular flight-simulator tests (ensuring pilots can cope safely with unexpected events while flying).

CASA also implements the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS) which since June 2014 has included the CAD Test. In February 2015 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) granted a colour-vision-defective pilot who had failed the CAD Test all privileges of the Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL), concluding, in essence, that CAD Test performance was irrelevant in determining whether the pilot could fly aircraft safely.

I elaborate on this AAT decision. I do this by showing a video of the CAD Test in action, and using this to highlight crucial aspects of the Test that provide compelling evidence for the proposition that while the CAD may be an excellent test of defective colour vision, it is not a test of potentially defective and unsafe control of aircraft. That is, the CAD Test is not an operational test, a point acknowledged by Professor J. Barbur, a co-developer of the Test, in his AAT evidence.

I conclude by asking why CASA has not considered using a version of an operational test already in its armoury (see Point (ii) above) in its implementation of the ACPS.:D

papakurapilot

5th Oct 2015, 02:59

Once again Dr Pape offers another slam dunk to the regulator. Did anything come of this at all being three weeks down the track now?

Lead Balloon

5th Oct 2015, 09:31

CASA is an evidence-based and risk-based regulator.

Accordingly, until there is evidence of substantial political risk arising from the rejuvinated prejudice against pilots with CVD, CASA will continue to treat them with indifferent contempt.

Simple really. :ok:

LeadSled

5th Oct 2015, 20:21

The trouble here is the lack of evidence either way.

Cleartoenter,
Not so, the Denison case was technically/scientifically exhaustive, and there have been no "new developments" since, just CASA wanting to take a giant leap backwards under McCormick/Albanese.

Unfortunately, nobody in CASA is going to take responsibility for reversing the current "policy", so we need a new "test" case, so it is a tribunal or court taking the responsibility.

Tootle pip!!

Lead Balloon

5th Oct 2015, 22:34

Cleared

There is substantial and overwhelming evidence that pilots with CVD represent no greater risk to air safety than pilots without CVD. It's in the Pape and Dennison matters in the AAT, the subsequent safety record of pilots with CVD, the performance of pilots using NVG gear and the active policy of aircraft manufacturers and, in particular, avionics manufacturers in relation to systems design.

It's also between the lines of the O'Brien matter in the AAT, in the manifest intellectual dishonesty of the regulator's arguments.

The prejudice has its source in 19th century maritime navigation techniques, to which the accurate and reliable ability to perceive colours was and remains essential, at least during hours of darkness. Unfortunately, air navigation came after maritime navigation, and the former simply adopted the rules of the latter.

Today's rules of the air are essentially the 19th century rules of the sea. If you search the term "COLREGS" you will find the internationally-agreed codification of the rules of the sea and, if you're a pilot, they will look very familiar. Who gives way to whom, and what coloured lights have to be fitted where, and their meaning, are almost identical on the water as they are in the air.

But all of that stuff was left behind, literally, in aviation, when flying vessels started reaching speeds in the triple digit knots. That also left the CVD industry to cast about for evidence to substantiate its foregone conclusions, rather than revisit their validity in a different context. Citing the FedEx Tallahassee accident is an example.

These paragraphs from the NTSB report (here: http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/r...722_N497FE.pdf ) were quoted earlier in this thread:The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the captain’s and first officer’s failure to establish and maintain a proper glidepath during the night visual approach to landing. Contributing to the accident was a combination of the captain’s and first officer’s fatigue, the captain’s and first officer’s failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captain’s and flight engineer’s failure to monitor the approach, and the first officer’s color vision deficiency.During postaccident interviews, all three pilots reported observing red and white lights on the PAPI display, consistent with normal PAPI operation. [Added note: the Flight Engineer was a qualified pilot on type. Hence the reference to “all three pilots”.] Although the flight engineer and captain reported seeing a pink PAPI signal on one of the four PAPI lights at some time during the approach, they also reported seeing red and/or white lights (which would have provided appropriate glidepath guidance) at the same time.
…
In postaccident statements, the flight crew and ground observers indicated that there were no obstructions to visibility along the approach path. However, the comments made by the first officer (“gonna lose the end of the runway”) and captain (“disappear a little”) suggest that they may have encountered a temporary obstruction to visibility (for example, clouds or mist) as they approached runway 9. If such an obstruction existed, it may also have obscured the PAPI lights. Although a temporary obstruction might help explain the flight crew’s failure to recognize the PAPI guidance while that obstruction was present, it does not explain why the three pilots failed to recognize the presence of four red PAPI lights throughout the rest of the approach. Further, according to FedEx procedures (and FAA regulations), if the approach end of the runway became obscured at any time during the visual approach, the pilots should have performed a go-around.This is worth repeating: "[T]hree pilots failed to recognize the presence of four red PAPI lights throughout the rest of the approach."

I cannot fathom how any intellectually honest analysis of the circumstances described in that report and the findings of the report could be construed as substantial evidence of pilots with CVD being a greater risk to air safety than pilots without CVD.

log0008

16th Oct 2015, 12:54

Hello all,
Was chatting with a couple of guys in the aviation industry, including one who gain a class one with the tower light signal test, and we were wondering if the tower light signal/gun test still offered or is it just this stupid cad test?

Lead Balloon

21st Oct 2015, 10:36

Pages 92-93 here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/ab15ab9d-fc14-4705-83fb-02b3b726117e/toc_pdf/Rural%20and%20Regional%20Affairs%20and%20Transport%20Legisla tion%20Committee_2015_10_19_3914.pdf;fileType=application%2F pdf Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that. You have said also in point 2 in your regulatory philosophy that where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfilment of a regulatory requirement can satisfy legal requirements and do not unacceptably compromise safety that you will consider it and look at that. I draw you back to a conversation we have had previously about pilots who have a colour vision deficiency and the fact that previously CASA allowed an alternative approach which was an individual assessment of competence and capacity to operate a particular aircraft type by night and as a result of that we have had 25 years of safe operations, single pilot, multicrew, RPT and so on. Currently CASA has closed the door to that. Would you consider reopening that door in light of your stated regulatory philosophy?

Mr Skidmore: I have stated to those people involved that I am more than happy to look at the empirical test that is actually defining the variables and actually understand the implications in regards to the tested results themselves and if they prove otherwise then we will look at those.
...Why is the onus on "those people" to "prove" anything?
...
Senator FAWCETT: So, that could include a practical test in the aircraft type that they were seeking approval to operate?

Mr Skidmore: Currently in regards to regulations, as far as I am aware, we specify the Ishihara test is the first level, the Farnsworth test is the second level and then a third test. Currently we recommend the CAD test.
...No Mr Skidmore, "we" don't "recommend" sh*t. The word "recommend" infers a choice. There is no choice as to the means of demonstrating compliance with the colour perception standard.

The supporters of that nice-little-earner the CVD prejudice industry in CASA have determined the CAD test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c).

Unless of course no test at all has been determined, or other tests have been determined, and no one in industry has been told.

Nothing AVMED does would surprise.
...
Senator FAWCETT: What I am saying to you is that we have demonstrated that there are pilots who have safely operated for more than a decade in a range of very challenging roles who have failed your third test, the CAD test. I am asking would you consider allowing them to do what CASA has previously done, which is to do a practical flight test, or now possibly in a simulator, to demonstrate what they are individually capable of in a real scenario?

Mr Skidmore: I have to consider all the situations involved and understand the implications in regards to that. If we consider it is an acceptable means of compliance then I should look at it.Meaningless waffle. Translation: Meh.

ZAZ

24th Nov 2015, 21:44

Hi Arthur,
Long time no see,
the old ugly issue rears its head again.
You will remember me I came to visit way back in 80s holding a fresh CLASS 3 DAYLIGHT Rating with 50Hours IF and NO NIGHT as I failed to meet ICAO requirements.
My old green licence on PAGE XIII stated:-
The holder of the licence is not permitted to pilot aircraft'
1/. At Night
2/. within CTA unless fitted with VHF radio
as he fails to meet the medical colour perception standards specified by ICAO.
I remember how you intervened on my behalf back in March 1990 when I was given permission and more importantly my instructor was given permission to train me "to the minimum amount necessary" to land at night.
So on 18th March 1990 I did Night Circuits for an hour then next night consolidated them and got STAMP in LG stating FIRST SOLO IN TYPE
this occurred at 3120 hours total time and 3000 PIC and 320 IF logged.
I put 15 hours of NIGHT in at that time.
Section CAO 47.3
A few weeks later I did two cross countries of 100 miles to remote areas and qualified for but never obtained the NVFR rating.
So I flew under the provisions of the CIR SE/A NGT IFR
And did the mandatory three landings and 1 hour or so each six months, and then TVASIS approaches and PAPI and now new LED lighting.
Never missed the runway and never came close to another aircraft at night.
Never had a lantern flashed at me from a tower at night or by day.
I have landed at BKSY, YPAD and YMMB at night and countless long distance cross countries and outback ever since..

Well here we are 2016
My old green licence on PAGE XIII has stamps all over the page stating "RESTRICTIONS LIFTED"
And on next page.
"SUPERSEDED" which refers to flight at night.
I now have 30 command IR renewals all restrictions lifted and 5000+hours PIC, Canadian and FAA licences 2 years in ARCTIC ALASKA (where there is no such thing as NGT VFR) and about 800 night IFR hours no NVMC rating and still alive.
My current new licence states amongst other things Holder of licence does not fully meet ICAO Convention Chapter 6 requirements.
My FAA licence makes no mention.
My Canadian requires the Aussie lic to be carried and all limitations from that licence apply.

My PIR FPAs deemed down from my CIRSEA back in 2004
granted me NGT and VISCIRCLING
amongst the other 10 or so approvals for SE SIDS and IDS.

So what went wrong with the system and why now?
Maybe I should present myself to Canberra DAMEs again?
A do the demonstration flights in CTA zone again picking out all the planes in the night sky and landing on the runway not the road?
Even managed to use the runway at Merrill Field AK at night some 300m adjacent and to left of Spenard Street which runs right through centre of Anchorage AK.
https://img.airnav.com/ap/00161.jpg?v=NTFSVA

And thanks by the way..

Lead Balloon

24th Nov 2015, 22:06

I think you should ground yourself immediately.

You don't comprehend the risk you pose to the safety of air navigation. The new regime in Avmed do comprehend the risk, because of all the "evidence" they've collected from those experts who make money out of the CAD test.

Supermouse3

29th Nov 2015, 12:02

if you can see what color the nav lights are you-should be submitting a near miss report!

northernlights1

6th Dec 2015, 13:50

halfmanhalfbiscuit

6th Dec 2015, 18:28

See thread above. Lots of info there.

empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots

northernlights1

16th Feb 2016, 05:38

I thought i should document my Class 1 Medical process here

Class 1 Medical Exam $400
all okay. But due to failed Ishihara Plate test, referred to Eye clinic 1

Eye Clinic 1, $180
Did this online
Color Management System, Services & Software from X-Rite (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge)
failed. referred to Eye clinic 2

Eye Clinic 2, $200
Ishihara test,
D15,
Anomaloscopy,
Optec Lantern, failed

Now test results with Casa. pending referral for a CAD test.

brissypilot

11th Mar 2016, 18:43

Latest CVDPA update sent to members and supporters this week...

Colour Vision Update - March 2016 (http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=13796d2120f98c0a77a806143&id=5d381d61e6&e=55cc17169a)

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Undoubtedly many of you are probably wondering what’s been happening since our last update in July 2015. Firstly, we apologise for the lack of communication since this time, however we wish to assure you that there has still been activity occurring behind the scenes. We trust that this newsletter serves as an update to inform you of recent events. More importantly, we hope that it encourages you to get involved as we need your help to reinvigorate our campaign and bring an end to the unjust discrimination that CVD pilots continue to endure.

Dr Arthur Pape

As some of you are aware, Arthur’s health has been rapidly declining over past few months due to an aggressive lung disease. Unfortunately, the condition has been so severe that he has had to stop work as a GP and DAME and he is now on 24 hour oxygen and requires an urgent lung transplant. The good news is that after extensive testing, he has made it onto the official transplant list and he is now awaiting a compatible donor organ before a transplant can occur. Please keep Arthur and his family in your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

Arthur has devoted well over 30 years of his life for pursuing rights for CVD pilots and without his efforts, many would not be in aviation careers today. His infectious enthusiasm for the cause and his endless pursuit for ensuring regulations are evidence based continues to be the driving force behind CVDPA’s efforts as we progress into the future.

In fact, despite his declining health, Arthur delivered his most recent presentation in September 2015 to the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine held in Adelaide. In this presentation, he once again delivered an irrefutable argument to show how CASA’s use of the CAD test as a test that “simulates an operational situation” (as required by the regulations) is both illegal and discriminatory. A video copy of this presentation is available below:

sRIecZZnMCg

CASA CVD Update

You may recall in the last update we flagged the possibility of a Federal Court challenge against CASA’s continued refusal to implement a lawful, operationally based test to satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150 [6][c]. Since that time, CASA has continued to require applicants who fail the first two level tests (Ishihara and Farnsworth) to sit the CAD test for the purposes of compliance with sub-regulation [6][c]. Anyone who has undertaken this test will know that it does not remotely simulate any operational situation encountered in an aircraft and is therefore not compliant with the regulations.

The fact that it does not simulate an operational situation was conceded under oath by the inventor of the test, Professor John Barbur, during the O’Brien vs CASA Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearings in 2014. Moreover, the tribunal in this matter determined that the CAD test “did not reveal any significant new or relevant information” about Mr O’Brien’s CVD condition and they subsequently placed greater weight on his operational experience as a pilot in determining that it was appropriate for his ATPL restriction to be lifted.

Despite these findings, CASA still continue to require new CVD pilot applicants to sit the CAD test and those who fail it are being restricted to Day VFR only, or in some cases are having the issue of a Class 1 medical refused entirely. This practice goes completely against a 25+ year safety case and ignores the findings of three independent tribunals.

Over the past few months, we have attempted to constructively engage with CASA in our ongoing efforts to come to a rational, lawful and evidence based outcome. This engagement includes the correspondence below (click hyperlink):

1. Holding Redlich (law firm) to CASA (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Holding%20Redlich%20to%20CASA.pdf)

2. CASA response to Holding Redlich (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/CASA%20to%20Holding%20Redlich.pdf)

3. CVDPA to CASA CEO Mark Skidmore (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/CVDPA%20to%20Mark%20Skidmore%2002-02-16.pdf)

4. CASA CEO Mark Skidmore to CVDPA (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Mark%20Skidmore%20to%20CVDPA%2010-03-16.pdf)

It is important to emphasise that the comments and proposals that CVDPA outlined in letter #3 to CASA were collectively endorsed by Australia’s four major pilot associations – Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA), Australian & International Pilots Association (AIPA) and the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA). Together, these organisations represent thousands of professional and recreational pilots across Australia, including many with a CVD.

Today we received a disappointing, but somewhat predictable response from CASA CEO Mark Skidmore (letter #4). It is quite clear from Mr Skidmore’s reply that CASA has no intention of considering any rational, lawful or evidence based alternative for the purposes of compliance with the regulations. Unfortunately, Mr Skidmore also refused to acknowledge our request for a further meeting to consult with us on these issues prior to making the decision he outlined in his letter.

It seems plainly obvious that CASA do not care about objective evidence or objective risk and subsequently the only viable way forward from here is a further legal challenge in the Federal Court against their unlawful use of the CAD test.

Further Demonstrable CASA Inconsistencies

To further highlight the inconsistencies in CASA’s approach, another of our members lodged an application with the Administrative Appeals Tirbunal to seek to have his own ATPL restrictions removed. This pilot’s application to the AAT was in response to the tribunal’s findings in the O’Brien v CASA (http://cvdpa.com/news/cvd-pilot-wins-legal-challenge) matter. He is an experienced B737 First Officer working for a major airline with many years of incident free flying experience under his belt, supported by excellent results throughout his training and checking history.

Despite several years of CASA’s refusal to remove his ATPL restriction, it is clear that when legal pressure was applied and the pilot commenced proceedings at the AAT, CASA backed down as they were unwilling to risk a fourth embarrassing loss at the AAT. This particular matter progressed as far as a mediation conference, at which point CASA agreed to allow the pilot the ability to use his ATPL privileges, meaning that he may also now progress to the role of Captain in the future.

What this result appears to suggest is that CASA lack both evidence and conviction to support their own decisions, particularly with regards to denying experienced pilots the opportunity to exercise ATPL privileges. It also reinforces the fact that they are selectively targeting new aspiring CVD pilots by issuing them with medical restrictions which essentially deny them the same opportunities to enter into the industry.

CASA’s inconsistent handling of new pilot applicants versus existing experienced pilots further demonstrates that this is not a safety issue as they claim, but is a political issue motivated by prejudice.

New Zealand Colour Vision Review

The interests of CVD pilots were proudly represented in November when a group of independent experts travelled to Wellington to present to a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) panel reviewing the NZ colour vision testing procedures and policies. The panel’s task was to review all the information and to deliver a report to the CAA Director with recommendations on a proposed way forward.

The presentations to the panel provided an invaluable opportunity for experts to speak directly to the panel members and to allow them to ask questions. The primary objective was to encourage the implementation of an operational test conducted either in an aircraft or flight simulator so that CVD pilots have an opportunity to demonstrate they can perform their duties safely and can pursue careers in aviation.

Speakers included:

Tim Woods – Colour Vision Aviators (NZ) Administrator
Capt Phillip Maguire – Meeting Facilitator
Capt John O’Brien – CVDPA Director
Dr Robert Liddell – former CASA Director of Aviation Medicine
Associate Professor Geoff Stuart – Monash University Accident Research Centre
Dr Boris Crasini – Ret’d Professor of Psychology – Deakin University
Ryan Brookes – Director (Applied Vehicle Systems) – NZ Defence Technology Agency

A special thanks must go to Tim Woods and Phillip Maguire for their efforts in bringing all these experts together in what was a culmination of many years of work to get to this point. The presenters complimented each other by discussing the evidence through their own individual area of expertise and we are confident a positive impact was made on the day.

We still await an outcome from this process (expected within the next 1 – 2 months) and will provide an update as soon as further information comes to hand.

Additionally, Ryan Brookes also recently published a comprehensive paper which is well worth a read. It analyses the evidence and raises further questions about the suitability of current clinical test regimes. The report is available via the below hyperlink:

Colour Vision Requirements for Aircrew - DTA Report 405 (http://cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/DTA%20CVD%20Report%20-%20Ryan%20Brookes.pdf)

The Future – Your Help Needed

Now more than ever, we need the support of members to get involved and to help reinvigorate our campaign. For the last few years, the day to day management of CVDPA has been looked after by Arthur Pape and John O’Brien, all on a voluntary basis. Particularly with Arthur’s ill health in recent times, we need your assistance in a variety of areas to help share the workload and to help us develop strategies on progressing our campaign successfully into the future.

So, what areas do we need assistance with?

Strategy and planning
Management experience
Marketing our message
Advertising
Political lobbying
Fundraising / crowdfunding
Legal advice
Finance and book keeping
Assistance with website reinvigoration and updates
Membership newsletters and communication
Responding to general emails and website enquiries
Social media including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

As you can see, there’s lots to do. Understandably we all live busy lives, but if any member has a particular area of expertise that you believe could be of assistance in helping us manage any of the above areas, we would love to hear from you. Many hands makes light work and ideally we would like to form a working committee so that responsibilities can be delegated. Please email [email protected] if you are able to contribute.

Additionally, please be reminded that CVDPA members are able to access a Members Only Forum (http://cvdpa.com/members-area/forum) through our website. This forum provides a convenient means for us to discuss ideas and suggestions openly with likeminded individuals. To log-in, you will require your user name and password and you are then able to contribute to discussions (anonymously if desired). If you have any difficulties logging on, please email [email protected].

With several million colour defective persons across the world, including Australia, our potential audience is huge. CVDPA has approximately 200 members, so we clearly have a lot of work to do. If we had 1000 members prepared to contribute $1000 each, we would have one million dollars – enough to fund some serious legal challenges! The evidence is very much on our side, but without funding we are unable to take the challenge right up to CASA or other authorities. Without the funding to mount a challenge in the Federal Court, this project is virtually doomed. CASA will respond to our demands only when we are prepared to back up with a serious legal challenge.

Donations can continue to be made via our website:

Your Support - Donations (http://cvdpa.com/your-support/donate)

Please consider what you can do to help us bring an end to this discrimination once and for all. We’re all in this together and we need your support!

Kelly Slater

11th Mar 2016, 21:32

Saw something on, I think, Catalyst or a similar show about a pair of glasses that "cure" colour blindness allowing the wearer to see red and green as clearly as someone with normal vision. I don't suffer from colour blindness myself or know anything about it but if I was, I would be Googling these glasses.

log0008

13th Mar 2016, 09:28

Sad to hear about Arthur's Heath.

Quick question, is the Optec 900 approved by CASA,I was under the understanding it was not but just noticed that they list locations that have them?

outlandishoutlanding

16th Mar 2016, 21:10

EnChroma glasses - see reactions of people to seeing colours at https://www.reddit.com/r/enchromareactions/

OzzieH4U

6th Apr 2016, 07:44

Firstly let me say that I am on the side of the affected CVD pilots, but not having followed this thread for some time and not knowing just what the CAD test was, by using Mr Google's fantastic search engine I stumbled upon a Keynote address by Mr Skidmore to the "Aviation Medical Society of Victoria" delivered on 28 February 2015 in which he states among other things, the following -
"Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD)

My speech won’t be complete if I don’t touch on the delicate subject of CVD. Australia does differ from other countries in relation to the requirements surrounding CVD. Australia is more flexible in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where they record a fail and can issue a medical certificate if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility. For example the UK does not allow for any second chances if an applicant fails their only test, the CAD test. They do not receive a Class 1 medical certificate.
In mid-2014, it was determined that the handling of pilots with CVD had not been in strict accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 (Medical). CASA advised industry of its new process relating to the regulations in June 2014. This was done to provide industry with information to assist in understanding their obligations in relation to the regulations. The new processes related to new applicants only and there were no impacts on existing pilots. In response to some of the correspondence received, CASA updated the CVD information on its website.
In February 2015, CASA had 134 Class 1 medical certificate holders and 252 Class 2 medical certificate holders who have failed the Ishihara test.
CASA is considering the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test as a third-level test. CASA has determined the CAD test is suitable as an aviation specific test for detecting CVD. It is used by the UK and is also available in the US as an option for testing for CVD. CAD provides for colour and diagnostic testing, which can determine the degree of colour deficiency, which is something that is currently not able to be determined by the Ishihara or Farnsworth tests.
Whilst I am not considering further changes to policy or standards at this time, any proposed changes will be consulted through the SCC Medical sub-committee. Pilots with existing CVD restrictions will require no other tests related to CVD, unless other medical reasons determine a need to do so." and here is the link -
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/aviation-medicine-regulatory-process-%E2%80%93-way-forward

It seems from this that pilots already "in the industry" with CVD are not to be effected by the restrictions, so it would also seem that AVMED, as usual, are making up their own rules by placing such restrictions on already operational pilots.

Have a god read of the excerpt and see if you come to the same conclusions

Lead Balloon

6th Apr 2016, 11:26

Everybody already knows CASA's approach to CVD is based neither on objective evidence nor objective risk. It inevitably follows that the outcomes are patently incoherent and illogical.

Mr Skidmore's defence of CASA's return to the dark ages was the point at which his credibility plunged to zero in my judgment.

ComradeRoo

8th Apr 2016, 06:47

Hi everyone,

Just had my medical renewed today. To my surprise DAME pulled out Ishihara's book. When i asked "why?", i was advised that this is a new CASA initiative. According to my doc - this test will be presented with every renewal.

Be prepared ;)

Bill Smith

3rd Jun 2016, 04:45

Did my renewal last week. Yes the dreaded Isihara test came out. The online system wouldn't let the AVMED doc proceed without listing errors on the plates!

PPRuNeUser0161

3rd Jun 2016, 05:52

OzzieH4U
If existing guys are to be left alone then why are they requiring the Ishihara plates now at every medical? It looks to me like they want to know how many pilots can't read the plates, they will then know how big the "problem" is. There will be a lot more than 400. Make no mistake, if they intended to do nothing with the test results then they wouldn't bother with the test. IMHO, not one CVD pilot is safe from CASA unless you can pass the Farnsworth Lantern or the CAD, and that goes for those who have no restrictions on their medical as well.

Something is brewing and I don't like the smell of it!

Bill Smith

3rd Jun 2016, 07:50

I'm sure you mean "Not one CVD PILOT is safe from CASA" 😏

PPRuNeUser0161

3rd Jun 2016, 09:13

Thanks Bill
Fixed!

logansi

3rd Jun 2016, 13:53

If you pass one of the other tests what happens on renewal?

PPRuNeUser0161

3rd Jun 2016, 23:37

My guess is either you sit the CAD or accept the restrictions. That's a guess of course but we all know there are CVD pilots out there who had the restrictions lifted on tests that are no longer offered. The only other option is to get the cash together and run a class action in the federal court of course.

I would say they'll offer the CAD instead of the Farnsworth as well.

logansi

4th Jun 2016, 00:04

So you have to pass cad or farnsworth every year? sounds stupid considering cvd is or should be acknowledged that cvd does not change, it's not like your cones grow back. :p

PPRuNeUser0161

4th Jun 2016, 05:49

Logansi
No I don't think thats where this is going, although there are other countries that do ishihara plates annually, but if they are getting everyone to do the ishihara plates there must be a reason for that.

The groups of CVD guys we have;
1. Guys who passed the plates years ago who for whatever reason can't pass them now, there could be a medical reason for this (rare) or perhaps they were just good mates with their doc.

2. The people who passed the PAPI simulation (no longer available) or, the TWR light gun test (i believe thats no longer available also).

3. The guys with restricted medicals who don't pass anything. I understand this group is around 400 pilots.

Add these three groups together (one big melting pot) and we get a bunch of guys who's CVD is not quantified by any minimum standard, and CASA like standards.

I think CASA may want to know exactly what their up against in terms of the numbers that are out there. With the new medical system its easy for them to run everyone through the Ishihara plates for their next renewal only, after that its back to normal. I think they will want to control who gets a medical based on standards.

The science around CVD and aviation supports the CVD pilots, but having no minimum standard fly's in the face of everything that CASA stands for and in fact everything that happens in aviation. I think that is the CVD pilots biggest issue in the coming years. One thing is for sure, this isn't going away anytime soon and I think its going to heat up before it cools down. I think CASA want this simplified probably into either the CAD only or plates followed by CAD. I think the Farnsworth's days are numbered.

thorn bird

4th Jun 2016, 05:59

"but having no minimum standard fly's in the face of everything that CASA stands for".

Exactly what do CAsA stand for???....other than the personal interests of a few bureaucrats.

skyjeepaviation

5th Jun 2016, 22:59

NZ CAA started a move to mandatory retesting 10 years ago. They are still pursuing this.
Very hard to find answers on their website. I did submit to the original notice.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/gd_colour_vision.pdf

Ralph

27/09

9th Jun 2016, 20:10

NZ CAA started a move to mandatory retesting 10 years ago. They are still pursuing this.
Very hard to find answers on their website. I did submit to the original notice.

Didn't the head medical guy at CASA work at NZCAA about 10 years ago?

Might be a common link.

brissypilot

10th Jun 2016, 06:44

Didn't the head medical guy at CASA work at NZCAA about 10 years ago?

Might be a common link.

There might be indeed...

Dr Drane (current CASA PMO) & Dr Navathe (ex CASA PMO who introduced the 2014 CVD changes) both previously worked at the NZ CAA under the supervision of Dr Watson who still remains the current NZ CAA PMO.

See page 6:

CAA News July / August 04 - Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (https://www.caa.govt.nz/Publications/CAA_News/CAA_News_2004_Issue-2_Jul-Aug.pdf)

Principal Medical Officer Dougal Watson joined CAA after more than a decade in the Royal Australian Air Force. Dougal holds a current PPL with approximately 600 hours, has 30 hours glider time, 22 free-fall parachute jumps, 40 hours ultralight and 15 hours dual helicopter time to his credit. He is also a novice grade hang-glider and alpine parapente pilot. Dougal says “I am happy to try and fly anything I can get near with mixed amounts of success”.

Senior Medical Officer Pooshan Navathe joined the unit after 22 years in the Indian Air Force. Pooshan holds a current Indian Glider Pilot Licence and has considerable military flying experience. He has 50 hours fighter jet time, around 1200 hours in helicopters and 750 hours military transport flying. Pooshan also holds a PhD in high altitude physiology.

Michael Drane, Medical Officer, is the newest doctor to join the CMU. Michael grew up around aeroplanes. His father is an aeronautical engineer and was involved with the Buccaneer and Concorde. Michael was taught to fly by the Royal Air Force and has approximately 50 hours, but says that “becoming a doctor in the UK largely thwarted any flying ambition!” After moving to New Zealand Michael was a GP and DME in Masterton for 10 years, servicing a very active local flying community.

Dougal is very proud of his unit's dynamic make up, “I must be the luckiest manager in the CAA. I am surrounded by one of the most competent and energetic teams I could imagine”.

In Dr Navathe's email to CASA DAME's explaining the 2014 changes (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/PMO%20to%20DAME.pdf), he refers to his old buddy's research:

"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."

The Watson CVD paper referred above has also been presented at several AvMed conferences and highlights some concerning behaviour and attitudes for somebody in that position of authority. :=

Concern for PMO Bias (http://cvdpa.com/images/news/uploads/GD-VIS-1-2013_PMO_Review.pdf)

It's ironic that under the rule of Watson, Navathe and Drane, both NZ and Australia now have the most severe CVD restrictions seen in our two countries in many decades.

LeadSled

10th Jun 2016, 08:32

Folks,
What is ironic about it?
Entirely predictable, a Messiah and his Disciples??
Tootle pip!!

Bill Smith

12th Jun 2016, 14:29

I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find Pooshans credentials weren't all that they appeared.

LeadSled

20th Jun 2016, 08:35

Bill Smith,
Which particular ones, it was such a long list, you could have almost put it to music.
Tootle pip!!

ZAZ

2nd Jul 2016, 06:25

Close friend had a brill career in the RANR.

Retired with a brass hat.

As a younger Lt, passed the Navy unrestricted navigators "license" which Authorised him to navigate an RN ship worldwide and enter berth and leave any port without pilot or tug assistance That is a very high level of skill.

Decided with my encouragement to get a Private Pilot license. Failed medical due to color blindness.

So he can operate an Australian Naval ship anywhere in the world but was proscribed from flying.

Didn't persist and gave up the idea as too hard.

Hi hope you read this..

In 1961 I flunked the Airforce Medical and lost a career in Aviation Electronics.
DIagnosis Red Green protanope.

IN 1970s onwards worked in Electronics and communications until 2015 wiring up 50 pair colour coded cables et al.
In 1980 passed pilots medical failed lantern test and was issued with Class Three DAY Rating only to fly IFR rules, by day in grey cloud but never at night.
Reason given may misidentifying green red Nav lights of an approaching aircraft.

In comes Arthur in 1984 or 85 and as a result of a million dollar law suit, CASA stamped my licence restrictions lifted and I was permitted to fly by night IFR only.
I don't have a night rating but I was required to do ten hours of circuits in 1980s to qualify for a SOLO NIGHT stamp in my logbook.
Previous to that it was not lawful for me to be instructed to fly at night, which was downgraded to allowed instruction for the minimum time necessary to become proficient at night landing.

Now in 2016. with 30 IFR renewals under my belt and 5000 hours of flight time in four owned aircraft still alive and kicking.
The only endorsement if fails ICAO standard can't fly internationally.

I hold US air men's and Canadian PPL. Limits are the OZ licence which is a misnomer as it says can't fly in those countries.

Now I see over past 3 years the colour issue has come out to bite our bums.

The only issue in modern flying that IMO effects night colour deficient pilots are the red/white PAPI approach lights which I can clearly see don't display as effectively to a protanope in that out at ten miles on an ARNAV straight in the white shows the red is dull and missing until you get inside 5 miles. But then so do mast lights this is the criteria described to me years ago, watch out for the obstacle clearance red lights you will see them closer in like a one eyed monacledpilot, true story...
It looks like as a Class 2 holder my dame may shove that book in front again along with phone book, so I will need to wear vision corrective rose coloured glasses to correct all my deficiencies, and along with my aircraft engine which goes into condition next year I might have to fly by day only again in IFR and attempt to provide for an alternate within day flying time on my destination, already need a radio alternate anyway as I am only RNP2 TSO129 equipped, ahhh postively gero plane gero radios and gero pilot...will go RA on a drivers licence..

Tread your own path..

ZAZ

2nd Jul 2016, 07:25

hello all

I moved to Australia some time ago. never had a chance to fly previously because where i was from medical was extremely strict. having colour deficiency meant i had zero chance of being able to fly.

Presently I'm starting my PPL after finally saving enough money. I'm getting a class 1 medical to see how far i can go in Australia in regards to having a career in Aviation. Obviously i failed the Ishihara test and have been referred to a DAME for a farnsworth lantern test. Any tips and any idea where will i go from here if i fail the farnsworth lantern test?

cheers

Yes day IFR like I got issued in 1987 Class three day rating only
Not to fly at night must carry radio in control zone as fails iCal standards.
Or something akin to that.
Unless you get restriction lifted like I did in past and flew happy career of some thousands of hours day and night.
Soon to be restricted again I guess as I have not done an online medical renwal yet having just missed the start up date.
And they will shove that book in front again, and if lantern test is nil and void I will be right back where I started in 1986 day VFR with no night rating but thousands IFR hours, go figure. And good luck, get a lawyer...

ZAZ

2nd Jul 2016, 07:41

I worked with two colour vision deficient electrical engineers.
I also taught in my controls systems engineering course about designing to overcome colour vision deficits. (i have history on this)

one day the managing director hauled me into his office for a please explain, this colour vision nonsense that you teach blah blah blah.
colour vision deficit was not permitted among electrical engineers he opined.
close your eyes and think a moment. name the two most inherently talented engineers we have on staff, I asked.
after some thinking he gave me two names.
I agreed and then told him that both were colour vision deficit.
there was a bit of an explosion after that but it got him nowhere.

colour vision deficit people are needlessly discriminated against.
none in my direct personal experience have ever had an intellectual deficit.

on my airfield I have noticed a number of better than average pilots.
of those better than average pilots 5 of them are red - green colour blind.

surely it is high time for the rusted on senility in ICAO, the FAA and CASA to really address the only problem ever identified for CVD pilots.
CHANGE THE PAPI LIGHT COLOURS.
white and amber colours would remove the problems (if indeed they exist) completely.

if you don't fix this CASA you definitely are totally incompetent.

PAPI yes it is an issue for some PROTANOPES
They may need to be aware on a ten mile straight in as used in ARNAV Runway approaches that to a red green protanope the RED / WHITE 2+2 lights don't look like that they look WHITE and NOTHING.
At five miles WHITE and ORANGY MIX
So so long as you know the configuration you can fly the slope.
The old VASIS were nevr an issue you flew 16 bright WHITES.
To guys like me in piston single don't need PAPI to land at night, in fact they are a bright nuisance.
The issue with a protanope flying night as described to me is their red desensitivity.
You get closer to the red before its bright enough to see.
Well known and accepted fact on people who have dispensation to fly at night.
And everyone will be different in sensitivity to some degree which can be assessed using the tests coming up in the medical school. I am told the test won't ground us but it will be on record as to how bad we are.
Because precedence has been set already in my case in the air NIGHT DAY since 1980 so I would win a VCAT hearing based in just producing my log book dated back 30 years of IFR renewals and 1000 night hours in three countries and 5000 hours flight time PIC. But this is not about me I fought the original battle way back with Arthur's help got night restriction lifted.. They might choose not to bother with me but newbies seem to have serious challenges ahead if they wish to fly commercially by night and are Color deficient.
ADSB roll out and turning off the na AIDS has also produced a back handed impediment right back to where it all started for me at least in 1987 With an IFR day rating, could never guarantee to provide for an alternate due bad weather within daylight flying time of planned destination unless you left really early in afternoon. Well my plane is TSO129 RNAV GNSS equipped so I require an alternate with a RADIO AID, and they are thin on the ground between Melbourne and Adelaide so if the rules revert the alternates for day IFR will be out of range.. Well into night so only way to fly is to drive a car...2 cents,

YPJT

13th Jul 2016, 13:57

A mate of mine had a good one on one conversation with Dr Liddell at a safety seminar back in about 1996 or 97 where he advised that his restriction to day pvt VFR would now be lifted. As he recalls at the time, the Dr said something like the main reason they were restricting colour defective pilots from gaining ATPL was the concern of becoming visual close to the MDA / DA and having to transition straight onto the PAPIs.
The pilot has no trouble picking up the PAPIs at 5NM by day or night and has even done so with an FOI on board who was unaware of his condition.

cogwheel

13th Jul 2016, 23:00

YPJT

14th Jul 2016, 04:47

G'day Cogwheel, I guess they had to come up with something to keep the CFDs in their place and that was the best they could do.

ZAZ

18th Jul 2016, 08:27

When transition from IMC to VMC at the the minimum, how many pilots look to the PAPI/VASIS for approach slope guidance?
In the case of at least one applicant this was pushed by the then PMO, and later successfully argued that it was not an issue at the MNM, as the established stabilised profile would be continued to the runway.

Well in a single l don't , I look for runway markings or flare path. I mentioned the papi because it surprised me how they are not as good as the old twin Vasi,, and only four lights on hls not 32 across the bar, dramatic reduction in visual slope assistance from way out at ten miles on a straight in approach.

YPJT

19th Jul 2016, 10:49

No doubt the old AT-VASIS were a much better system from a pilots perspective. A real bugger for the airports though. 10 concrete pads for each side at each end, 3 lights in each etc etc. The PAPIs are a much simpler system and if maintained and operating properly do a pretty good job. Some I've flown have been absolute ****e because they are full of dirt on the reflectors, lenses or have pitted lenses that have been sand blasted or lights not operating at correct intensity due to faulty cables or individual transformers.

Bill Smith

23rd Jul 2016, 12:47

https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/colour_vision_report.html

"There is no strong link between the office-based examination of CVD and real world realities. Under the proposed GD, the assessment of interferes with or likely to interfere with is ascertained from office-based assessments only. This assessment cannot be made from office-based tests only and can only be determined by an in-flight practical test. While both aviation medicine and flight operations specialists will need to be involved in the development of protocols for in-flight testing, only a flight examiner or flight instructor will be in a position to assess the ability of a pilot with a CVD condition to operate an aircraft safely. Thus the effect that a CVD condition will have on the ability of a pilot to safely exercise the privileges of a licence is a flight operations issue, not a medical issue."

Allan L

23rd Jul 2016, 22:32

Good news - however the report is just one part of the regulatory process:

The report will be provided to the CAA Principal Medical Officer who will be offered the opportunity to review it and provide advice to the Director on its content. Given existing commitments, it is likely that no decisions will be made regarding the report or the associated proposed General Direction until late November 2016.

The Recommendation at paras 134 and 135 seem quite reasonable (note that the CAD test remains, but with a further option, the flight test.)

Lead Balloon

23rd Jul 2016, 22:38

Let's wait to see what the NZCAA PMO says about the report, before there's too much rejoicing. As we know, this is by no means the first independent panel to reach these kinds of conclusions, based on an objective assessment of the evidence and risks.

Trifles like objective evidence and objective risk do not divert those who make their living out of the busy work of mining the rich vein of fear that can be created by perceived risks to aviation safety. These kinds of people know that the only reason pilots with CVD can perform safety-critical aviation activities in the real world as efficiently as pilots without CVD is through practise and experience. And that's cheating. Pilots with CVD should be able to perform real world tasks that require the identification of the meaning of colours as effectively as pilots without CVD, without practice. That's because having concluded that pilots with CVD are an unacceptable risk, evidence to the contrary must be ignored.

brissypilot

23rd Jul 2016, 23:13

It's worth noting that although this was an 'independent' panel, there were significant concerns raised at the outset about the actual independence of the panel, which consisted of:

CAA General Manager General Aviation (Panel Chair)
External senior industry Flight Examiner with experience in airline and general aviation operations
External Medical Examiner
External optometry and vision science specialist with experience in colour vision matters
CAA Chief Legal Counsel

The external optometry expert holds the only CAD test which is currently available in NZ, which was of significance because the proposed GD recommended the introduction of this test into the NZ system.

Under the terms of reference, the role of the panel was to reach a consensus and provide the CAA Director with recommendations on the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed directions.

Despite the obvious concerns about perceived bias from the panel, they still managed to come up with a consensus which thoroughly rejected the current NZ CVD restrictions (of which CASA has been attempting to re-align with) and recommended practical flight testing be introduced. In that respect, they are to be congratulated on taking an objective look at the available evidence.

The panel's comments about the NZ PMO Dr Dougal Watson are also worth mentioning:

15. Central to the proposed GD is the concept of aeromedical significance. Civil Aviation Rule (CAR) Part 67 defines aeromedical significance as: a medical condition is of aeromedical significance if, having regard to any relevant general direction, it interferes or is likely to interfere with the safe exercise of the privileges or the safe performance of the duties to which the relevant medical certificate relates. While there is no issue with aeromedical significance being used as a standard, it would appear that there is little in the way of guidance for determining what exactly, in terms of a flight operation, is significant in relation to CVD. In answer to a question regarding the reasoning behind the flight restrictions for a pilot who is CVD, the PMO answered that the “restrictions are historical”. This is a key issue for the Panel’s deliberations particularly in relation to the risk posed by a pilot with CVD, the different operational environments pilots operate in, and who should be determining restrictions to which a pilot is to operate.

16. The PMO also commented that he thought practical flight tests are unreliable. In the Panel’s opinion a flight examination has the same status as a medical examination in ensuring that a pilot is not a threat to the public and renewing their privilege to fly.Given Dr Watson's past unethical and fraudulent presentations (http://www.cvdpa.com/images/news/uploads/GD-VIS-1-2013_PMO_Review.pdf) on the topic of CVD, the CAA Director has a fairly clear choice to make over the next few months...