Perfect Example Of CASA Outrageaous Behaviour?

[Sunfish]

I refer to the letter sent to AOC holders regarding their employment of pilots with known colour blindness.

Reading between the lines, this is an open recommendation to an employer to terminate any pilot with a colour vision defect under threat of the loss of the AOC. Is this not outrageaous?

The offending text, well all of it is offensive.

I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA’s further determination of the matter

Are you there Minister Truss????

http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%20Letter%20to%20AOC%20holders.p df

[Check_Thrust]

That does seem offensive and without seeing what advice has been given to pilots affected by this it seems insensitive and no doubt very disconcerting to those involved.

I acknowledge the fact that this letter is susupposedly designed to advise AOC holders of a change that may affect pilots that they employ but to couple it with the statement that Sunfish has quoted above is in my opinion threatening and insensitive.

My thoughts are with those that may be affected by the upcoming review.

[waren9]

wtf are employers supposed to do while their "cvd" employees hold valid medicals without being dragged in to fwa?

[dodo whirlygig]

CASA = gutless - if they are so concerned then issue an interim determination/order/directive. But to throw it back on an employer to potentially stand down an employee whose medical is still valid shows CASA up for what it is.


Have CASA sent employers the details of this latest research upon which they (employers) are encouraged to make an informed medical related decision but for which they would have no expertise. FFS, isn't that why we go to a DAME and have a Medical Branch in CASA.


I doubt ANY employer will take someone off-line for the reason Waren9 mentions.

[Old Akro]

Surely this is CASA giving the long finger to the Senate committee and Sen Fawcett in particular.

The trouble is I doubt the screaming skull cares. He's on the way out. Full package. Gov't super. There is nothing bad going to happen to him. He just has to weather a couple of weeks of name calling. Where else in life can you screw things up with immunity?

[brissypilot]

See below thread for more of the saga:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-7.html

For those who haven't seen them, the full episodes of the Senator Fawcett's questioning is below. :D If it wasn't so serious, the performances would be laughable...

Senate Estimates - 18/11/13
PBGhW2N7iyI


Senate Estimates -24/02/14
Atab_9NFPA8



Senate Estimates - 26/05/14
AIVWO0conJ8

[Fruet Mich]

I'm certain the Australian Human Rights Commission will be very interested in the latest CASA letter. I would be very interested to see if CASA could get away with such blatant discrimination.

[AeroGirl]

Of course CASA can get away with, it's all about "SAFTEY".

If only the whole industry got together and told CASA where to go, and started a new, industry led governing body, if that were to happen, what would CASA do, throw us all in gaol?

I know it won't happen, but I can dream of a world without CASA. :)

[Bill Smith]

Colour Vision Defective, A Pilots perspective.

I am a 47 year old CVD pilot. I currently work as a Captain on the A320/321/330 with a major carrier. Before joining this company I was a Captain flying an Embraer 170, a very modern fully EFIS Jet and prior to that a First officer on Dash 8’s. Prior to that many years in GA

When I first found out that I was CVD at my initial aviation medical I was shocked as, for me, it had never been a problem. I was advised by the all knowing “experts” that I would never fly for an Airline, but there were many careers such as instructing, charter, power line inspection and the likes. I continued on with my training building hours the same as all the colour normal pilots did. I did everything the same as them despite being colour defective.
I have followed the continuing discussions and arguments for and against CVD pilots for many years as I have a vested interest. I personally believe that my CVD is not an issue in my chosen career based on 20 years of experience being acutely aware that I am CVD.

I fly daily looking and manipulating coloured buttons and switches, I am sure if I was misinterpreting these, I would be picked up by my colleagues and by the rigorous check and training that we, as pilots endure. The few colleagues that know of my colour vision issue are genuinely surprised and the usual comment is “Well I can’t see a problem”. These professionals have been in the industry for decades and are extremely experienced check and trainers

Airline flying is highly regulated and extremely procedural. Tasks, be they normal or abnormal, are carried out in a step-by-step logical manner.
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what colour a light is on a switch.
We as professionals have learnt the system, know where the switch or push button is and whether it is illuminated or not. Allowing easy verification along with other visual and aural cues that are presented.

So let's break it down. A Master Warning or Master Caution sounds and the button 60 cm from the end of your nose flashes “Master Warning” or “Master Caution”, it happens to be “RED” or “AMBER”. You cancel the warning and after identifying the failure and after confirming with your colleague you begin dealing with the problem, either by ECAM, EICAS and or QRH, depending what you fly.
Certain tasks are carried out to deal with the failure. This may be identifying a system panel and then actioning a button or switch. This is done in a thorough logical manner, which requires you to be familiar with the position of all buttons and switches and what they do.
A modern cockpit is not a mass of unlabelled coloured lights. It is designed in an ergonomically logical fashion with systems labelled and clearly marked. As professionals, like any other professional, we are highly trained and skilled to know our systems interpret what they are telling us and act upon it.

On the A320, landing gear indications use symbols for example “green” triangles that illuminate when the gear is down. If it doesn’t you get a master warning and it also lights up the word “UNLK” above the suspect landing gear as it happens this is “RED” but it wouldn’t matter if it was any other colour as long as you understand that when the word is illuminated you have a problem
I know where the gear doors are despite the colour coding by their position and numerous other visual and aural cues that are at hand.

I know that all the doubters out there are going to bring up the PAPI. PAPI is unreliable in certain atmospheric conditions, our Flight manual states not to be used below 200’. I certainly would rather use a DME vs Height check or a VNAV guidance than rely on a PAPI in any weather conditions.
Notwithstanding this I have never had trouble interpreting PAPI indications or any other lighting system.
When I learnt to fly it was the runway perspective in the window not a coloured light that told me I was "on slope".

Now we come to the issue which is the draconian steps CASA has taken to this issue despite the 25+ years of CVD's flying with zero incidents.
All pilots should stand up to this, colour normals and CVD's alike this is an aggressive attack on our livelihoods and ignoring the in depth examination from the AAT appeals in 1989. If CASA is successful in stopping CVD's from flying, and have no doubt in your minds this is what they intend to do, It will be a huge experience drain to the industry, it will destroy peoples careers. It will also affect operators bottom lines when they have to replace pilots and train new ones for these loses.

Help Australia show the world in this area that there is no issue. Please get behind the upcoming appeal and donate to Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com)

[Feather #3]

Having been privy to the current chief medical dude's vendetta on this matter, this stinks! :ugh:

The pilot concerned, like Bill Smith below, has an impeccable record of airline flying over a number of years which was going to be terminated by this bloke on a completely spurious, trumped up excuse.

It's a disgrace!! :\

G'day ;)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Discrimination, bullying and harassment?

Workplace Bullying (http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/health-and-safety-topics/workplace-bullying)

Have a read of Senator Xenophon's appendix to the senate report.

Interesting is there does not appear to be a strong safety case being put forward to support.

[emeritus]

Don't be so hard on CASA. Like their predecessors, Dept of Transport and the Dept of Civil Aviation, they are only just doing their job.
That is....making sure that when the fit hits the shan there is no doubt about who else is to blame !

Emeritus :=

[thorn bird]

This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry.

Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual.

I've know poor sod's on CAsA's sh..t list to be pursued from one job to the next, all around Australia.

The contents of this letter doesn't surprise me, what does is the regulator has become so brazen that they think they can get away with it.

I'm with Creamie sue the bastards,take their house, kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly.

There is a rumour gobbles is frantically scrounging wood to construct tumbrils and Kharon has enrolled at Madam DeFarges knitting school, already turning out elephant sizes socks I'm told.

[framer]

kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly.
Stay away from my dog.

[004wercras]

Dear oh dear, the Frankenstein truly has grown into a rabid frothing beast hasn't it? I can just see them all now - Dr Voodoo, Dr Pooh-Shan, Anustasi, Herr Skull and Terry all with their robust elongated middle fingers proudly in the air!
Make no mistake, these guys are fighting back like a cornered Gerbil at the Mardi Gras. They have lost their marbles completely. Their egos and pride are beyond comprehension and their consciences seared, devoid of anything.

The focus of matters needs to shift, as I have stated in the past. Forget CAsA, they are untouchable and somewhat 'vampire-esq', the beast cannot be killed. It's time to get smart - Our focus should be directed solely at the Minister. You want to shake the apple cart? Then go after the main man. It is the Ministers department that is out of control, and he needs to be held accountable. Letters of no confidence and an explanation including copies of the aforementioned matter should be sent to every media outlet, ICAO, the UN, Human Rights commission, FWA and any and every legal firm that may be interested in acting on this matter. The Miniscule's name needs to be put up in neon lights, along with the equally incompetent PM, Sunnys beloved PMC, Pumpkin Head Mike, Infrastructure, the whole stinking lot of them. CAsA does what it does because the government sanctions it's activities, supports and fosters its methods. If the government and Minister didn't support it then they would cut it off at the knees. And they have not done that have they?

There needs to be strength in numbers boys and girls, and it is better to die on your feet than on your knees. CAsA are reminiscent of General George A Custer. This is the Australian battle of Little Bighorn and winner takes all. The IOS has been tolerant thus far, enduring endless amounts of crap, patiently enduring endless toothless inquiries etc, and trying to avoid all out civil disobedience towards these Canberra indoctrinated a#sholes. But the line in the sand has been crossed on this latest issue.

So there you go folks, smack bang after what has been touted by some as being Australia's most fundamental and astute reviews of its Aviation oversighting bodies, a report not even 48 hours cold, and CAsA respond by delivering one of the hardest, unjustifiable, immoral actions EVER!

TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

TB # 13-"This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry. Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual.

Oh, so true. The Bankstown Chronicles have a fine collection of anecdotal examples. Of course no one will sign a stat dec, not a signed memo, not even an unsigned note. Understandable of course; but a sad indictment. Somehow, I'd hoped through the Senate, a 'true to life' look at the almost unbelievable actions against individuals and operators taken by the big R FF outfit could happen. I am certain that if the Senate crew got (or made) the opportunity to 'hear' some of the cases, minds would be well and truly boggled. The two letters, one to the DAME and tuther to operators and pilots should cause a national outcry. These two letters make as clear, as empirical a testament to the standard operating practice and thinking of the Sleepy Hollow hit men as another hundred would.....

That aside, the thing intrigues me is the 'why do it'. Take the CVD kids case; on one side there is expert opinion, supported evidence and a sensible approach toward the issue by a crew that is probably prepared to sit down and have an adult discussion with a concerned regulator. Nope, none of that from the litigious Shambollic team; first muscles are flexed, then the bully boy tactics, then AAT, then the threats and now, the fangs are revealed. Idiot letters to DAME sighting evidence which is at best 'awkward' at worst 'dodgy', then thinly veiled threats to pilots and operators. I will never understand why the issues could not be resolved without CASA humiliating and insulting Australia, taking the Mickey out of the Senate, the Parliament and industry with impunity; and, why we just sit back and let them. Sad really, for a sovereign nation which prides itself on the ANZAC spirit, brags of its competitive approach and claims to support the underdog. I just wonder why then, all this vanishes the second a mongrel dog barks in a back alley. Selah.

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - Oi.

There is, by the by, a new colour vision test being developed – the Shambollic system. Very simple – you take a meaningless sentence and adopt it as "your" egocentric 'philosophical' dogma ("Wow, that's deep and meaningful", say the barely literate; "oh, how recherché) – and use it in two colours i.e. red and green at the end of each portentious (pretentious) missive despatched

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

Now depending on which part of the sentence you can, or can't read, your CVD may be assessed. You are supposed to say "I love the prose at the end of your wonderful letter, could you please give me all of it, so I may wallow in your superior intellect". WHAM - Gotchya – CVD - off to dole office you dreadful safety hazard.

Emphatic, n'est-ce pas? True Hubris (http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/am-constant-northern-star).

Aye well – off to Madam D's house, lessons start at 0700 – sharp. It's quite technical this knit 2 purl 1 caper. The old besom uses red and green needles, so I keep stabbing sensitive areas with the one I can't see. But I have determined to master the art; in time.

004 – those flaming gerbils keep hiding in the elephants socks; it creates absolute bloody mayhem. Elephants are bad enough with mice – but the gerbils......(cracked me up).

[Old Akro]

http://bluesyemre.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/deja-moo.jpg

Here we go again

[parabellum]

Well, if I was a pilot with colour blindness the first thing I would do is triple my loss of licence insurance and then sit back and wait.


This strikes me as far more cynical than it seems. If companies can be persuaded to fire or request resignation of such affected pilots then it stays a matter between the company and the pilot (and then the tribunal), on the other hand, if CASA issue new legislation that bars pilots with colour blindness, it is a whole new ball game.


Now we are in the area of compensation from CASA, loss of licence insurance from the insurers, who will, sure as night becomes day, having paid out, sue CASA for radically changing the risk and exposing the underwriters. Next, the pilots themselves will form a group and bring a class action against CASA for their loss of employment through no fault of their own.


So much easier if the companies let these pilots go 'voluntarily' before the legislation becomes law, so much less expensive than having to pay compensation etc.!


The letter quoted above is nothing to do with safety and all about money.

[onetrack]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demand that all public servants with CVD be removed from their jobs.
They're a national threat - they could easily screw up a major project because of their inability to differentiate important colours in PP projections.

What about dyslexics?? A bigger threat than anything. Dyslexic LAME's frighten the bejeesus out of me. Tightening a crucial fastener to 84Nm instead of 48Nm??

Where are the recorded major incidents/fatalities that can be sheeted directly home to a CVD pilot? Proof, please, CASA.
If CASA want to move on this; definitive, provable incident figures have to be produced to back up the proposed change/s.

I'd be more concerned about hidden heart disease posing a real danger to the operation of aircraft, than I would ever be concerned about CVD.
The medical techniques for finding narrowed arteries are still very limited. We all know people who have lied in medicals.

Media releases: 13 January 2005 - Pilot incapacitation led to fatal aircraft accident at Mareeba (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2005/release/2005_01.aspx)

People suffering from CVD adjust to their deficiencies as well as one-eyed people.
One-eyed people aren't banned from holding a pilots licence, they can pass with a medical waiver in the U.S. Wiley Post is a classic example.
Post wasn't killed by his lack of eyesight, he was killed by his ignorance of aeronautical engineering design!

[Sarcs]

From ProAviation...:ok:Colour vision deficient pilots see red (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/07/colour-vision-deficient-pilots-see-red/)Leave a reply (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/07/colour-vision-deficient-pilots-see-red/#respond)



While the topic of aberrant regulatory conduct dominates the nation’s aviation dialogue, we’re wondering whether a letter from CASA to all employers of pilots might represent a practical joke, an early example of a scorched earth strategy, or an act of rebellion against the ASRR’s erudite recommendations.


We’d speculate that such a bizarre missive could hardly have originated from the aviation medics, who would be well aware that when you want to quote medical research convincingly in support of a position, you need to provide a reference to the relevant original medical research papers that present the evidence referred to. (We’ve requested that reference from CASA and are still awaiting a response.)


It also seems unlikely that the letter got the nod from CASA’s legal office, because it seems to be asking AOC holders and/or pilots to make decisions which CASA’s not prepared to make itself.


No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.” But what on earth it hopes to achieve is difficult to discern. It tells employers that “the possibility exists that your pilot’s CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued,” and then it goes on to tell their employers to make decisions they are not equipped to make because CASA simply hasn’t told them what the hell it’s on about and it doesn’t tell them what the problem is and what it considers is an “appropriate” course to take.


Here’s the letter which all AOC holders received on June 5. We follow it with a commentary by Dr Arthur Pape, who is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading expert on the issue of colour vision deficiency (CVD).
If you’re bewildered by the letter, you’ll find Dr Pape’s analysis enlightening by comparison, and indicative of a clear way forward for any responsible medical official seeking to develop intelligent and effective policies on this not-so-complex issue.

5 June 2014
Dear AOC holder,
Colour Vision Deficiency
I am writing to inform you of actions the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has taken in relation to pilots with a recognised colour vision deficiency (CVD) in the light of recent medical research involving the assessment of CVD, and the possible implications of these developments for affected pilots and the operators who employ them.


A number of pilots have taken their medical certificates issued subject to a limiting condition because they do not meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception specified in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). You may employ one or more pilots whose medical certificates are subject to such a condition.


Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be, and the possibility exists that your pilots CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued. CASA is reviewing the situation and will consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken on the basis of that review, at which time affected medical certificate holders will be notified accordingly.


In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD-related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or designated aviation medical examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.


As I told recipients of that advice I would be doing, I write to you now, as the holder of an air operator’s certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA’s further determination of the matter.


For more information visit CASA’s website at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593.
For further details, please contact Dr Pooshan Navathe, principal medical officer, on 131757.


Yours sincerely,

Peter Fereday
Executive Manager, Industry Permissions



Enlightenment from Dr Arthur Pape
The Aviation Colour Perception Standard[i] (ACPS), as specified by ICAO and replicated by practically all signatory states, requires that: “The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.”

At its philosophical/scientific core, this so-called “standard” represents a conclusion (or argument) based on three implicit assumptions, as follows:
Assumption 1
There is extensive use of colour-coded information in the aviation environment.
Assumption 2
The “safe performance of duties” in the aviation environment is dependent on “the ability to perceive readily those colours necessary etc etc……..”.
Assumption 3
Without ‘the ability to perceive readily those colours, the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties”, these duties will be performed unsafely.


Discussion
The validity or “truth” of the ACPS relies entirely on the validity or “truth” of each of the three assumptions. In turn, the validity or “truth” of each of the assumptions relies on evidence, as opposed to opinion and/or established prejudice.


Let’s consider the first assumption. At the dawn of aviation, over a hundred years ago, colour coding was used solely in the form of signalling by means of coloured flags or lights, as the means of communication between people on the ground and in the air. It was suggested that people who could not readily perceive the colours of those signals might perform their duties “unsafely”, and that suggestion, under the circumstances of the day, would have had some merit. Out of this there arose the ACPS, whose wording has changed little from those heady days of cloth covered aeroplanes and simple instructions to pilots using simple coloured objects in a simple “code”.


Since then there has been an exponential increase in the use of colour throughout the aviation environment, both in the aviation physical environment and in and on aeroplanes. The list of uses of colour is enormous, and the validity of the first assumption is self-evident to anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the aviation environment.


Result: Assumption 1 is “True”.
Assumption 2 is, however, problematic. For this assumption to be valid, it needs to be demonstrated that the perception of the colour(s) is sufficient and necessary to see the information that is required for the “safe performance of duties”. In other words, “see the colour” equals “see the information”, which results in “safe performance of duties”. This assumption could be tested empirically, but this type of work has never been done in respect to the aviation environment.


Result: Assumption 2 remains an unproven assumption
To paraphrase assumption 3, would go like this: “see no (or different) colour” equals “see no (or wrong) information” which results in “unsafe performance”. To digress briefly, let me state that the existence of individuals with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) is a proven reality. That 8 to 9 percent of the male population and just less than 1 percent of the female population have one or other of the various types of CVD is beyond any doubt. Further, there are numerous reliable and proven tests available to detect and classify the severity of any particular CVD condition. Let me add also that the CAD test is an excellent test to diagnose and quantify CVD conditions.


So, in short, the ACPS, via the implicit Assumption 3 would predict that people with CVD should perform the duties (involved in flying an aeroplane) unsafely. This proposition could be tested empirically (i.e., by measurement, observation and analysis). No formal empirical testing of assumption 3 has ever been conducted.


Result: Assumption 3 is also problematic.
It is a fact that pilots with CVD have been around for a very long time and in considerable numbers. For almost a century, the FAA has applied a wide variety of colour vision tests and practical tests, whereby tens of thousands of CVD pilots either passed the ACPS or were granted waivers against the standard. Since 1989, a few thousand Australian CVD pilots have enjoyed the freedom to fly at night and many hundreds have achieved successful careers in airline operations. If Assumption 3 were “true” one would expect there to be evidence of “unsafe performance of duties” by these pilots. This should be particularly evident in the incident and accident records kept by the aviation authorities of the USA and Australia. A landmark study in the mid 1970s by two researchers (Dille and Booze) working for the FAA examined the accident records of the large group of CVD pilots with a “waiver” and found not even one accident where the existence of a colour vision defect could have contributed to the cause. Furthermore, the accident rate for this group was no different than that of the general pilot population (accidents per 100,000 hrs of recent experience). Until 2002, the FAA had no record of any accident attributed to CVD, and since 2002 there have been none. The significance of 2002 is that in that year a Fedex B727 crashed while on a PAPI-guided night visual approach, and the CVD status of the flying FO was attributed a causal role in the crash. However, two other crew had normal colour vision and also did not see what the PAPI should have been showing them. The relationship between this crash and the significance of CVD is highly contentious. The ATSB and CASA have admitted they have no record of any accident attributed to CVD.


The Australian experience since the Denison case in 1989 has provided excellent positive evidence against the “truth” of Assumption 3. There are estimated to have been several thousand CVD pilots operating with either no restriction or minimal restriction in the period in question, and a significant number at the highest level of airline operations. I can say with confidence that we have examples of even the most severe kinds of CVD working as captains and FOs on the full range of airline type aircraft. These pilots are surveilled, trained, tested and examined in exactly the same way that pilots with normal colour vision are handled. They pass and keep on meeting all requirements “necessary” for the “safe performance of their duties”, and these assessments are made by duly qualified examiners of airmen, as opposed to aviation medical doctors or optometrists. This is taken by many informed commentators as evidence that Assumption 3 is “false”, and raises the question as to whether the ACPS serves any useful role in modern aviation.


It is abundantly evident that the appeal by John O’Brien [A pilot with CVD] and the unprecedented interrogation of CASA on this topic in the Australian Senate has triggered a tsunami of hysterical and irrational activity within CASA. It is my view that CASA’s actions and the responses by the Director and the Principal Medical Officer to the Senate Estimates Hearings reflect an absurd and indefensible position. Claims of “medical evidence” by both in support of their stance cannot be substantiated because such evidence does not exist.


There is no “rocket science” in any aspect of this saga.

[004wercras]

No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.”
Interesting that Mr Fereday take this initiative. Oh well, another career bureaucrat with around 20 years Fort Fumble experience in lurking around Can'tberra's corridors, earning hundreds of thousands per year to make ridiculous decisions while sipping Earl Gray tea and eating cucumber sandwiches.
If he has indeed made this foolish decision then his head should roll as a result. Then again, accountability isn't part of CAsA's framework so keep the stupid illogical biased decisions coming Fort Fumble! It's what we are accustomed too.

TICK TOCK

[LeadSled]

----- for finding narrowed arteries are still very limited
Onetrack,
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth, you obviously have not kept up to date with modern medical imaging technology. It is really quite amazing to look at every little variation in diameter of all the heart arteries, and look at and measure the efficiencies of the delivery of arterial blood to every sector of the heart.
Don't anybody tell CASA, they will want to mandate it for every medical. It ain't cheap, but it is not limited.
Tootle pip!!

[Anthill]

Wtf is the agenda here? If CASA has research that says cvd pilots are a safety threat then they should cite the evidence. From where I see it, the evidence supports the contention that cvd are safe.

Bill, the issue with PAPI is a bit of a furphy, IMHO. According to ICAO annex 14, PAPI is designed and intended to be used within 5000m of the tdz. Although the color differential between red and white can be seen at much greater distances by color normals, pilots with a 'mild' cvd can still use the PAPI within 5km. Besides, there are other methods of determining "on slope" besides a PAPI.

Like you, Bill, I have a cvd. I have also held a professional flight crew licence for 30 years and have some 14,000 hours of flight time. I have never had any issues with colour differentiation on the flight deck or with aerodrome aids, such as PAPI. As a sailor, the nature of my cvd is evident as I am able to differentiate between yellow and white navigational markers at distances well beyond what colour 'normal' sailors can. :8

[Bill Smith]

Anthill,

I think you have misunderstood me. I have no more problem with the PAPI as any of my colour normal colleagues do. Depending on the state of the system, WX, long grass :-) and some of our ports the serviceability is dubious to say the least.

I know that all the doubters out there are going to bring up the PAPI. PAPI is unreliable in certain atmospheric conditions, our Flight manual states not to be used below 200’. I certainly would rather use a DME vs Height check or a VNAV guidance than rely on a PAPI in any weather conditions.
Notwithstanding this I have never had trouble interpreting PAPI indications or any other lighting system.

I hope you've helped the cause with a donation :ok:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This video seems very apt. Constable Savage with Rowan Atkinson from NTNON

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y&feature=kp

[Anthill]

I understand,Bill Smith and agree. I've never had any issues with PAPI either. What I am saying is that PAPI has limitations and ICAO is aware of these (Iknow that we are in agreement here:ok: ).In fact, Annex 14 describes when PAPI is suitable for glide path reference and that's in close proximity to the aerodrome.

When CASA introduce the PAPI as the pivotal element of their argument they are clutching at straws; they are totally mis-representing its utility in operations. They are also wrong in saying that CAD should be the sole test to determine the ability of a pilot to discriminate between colours within the design parameters of ground based aids. If there are flaws in their argument (which there are) then they simply can't mount a safety case.

The feedback that I have heard in the industry is that the current Medical Section of CASA is regarded by DAMEs and specialists as being a pack of idiots. My own DAME is clear about this, he says they should be sent back to where they came from. A mate who is a specialist (also holds a CPL+IR) tells me that CASA frequently order tests on pilots that have no scientific validity within his field! CASA are ordering these tests to determine if a pilot can return to work after a medical issue. He says that these tests are ordered by the medical section after he has already been determined that the pilot is fit to return to flying. I emphasise: he states that the tests that they order have NO VALIDITY as a diagnostic tool in his field of speciality! I will be writing to Senator Fielding about shortly.

[27/09]

Weren't we luck when one of ours (CAA/CASA medical) went over the be one of yours. P N I'm thinking of.

Though to be fair we still have one of yours (D W) as our PMO and he's caused a few issues this side of the Tasman and isn't all that highly regarded by some DME's and AMA's.

[601]

If CASA has research that says cvd pilots are a safety threat
If CAsA have evidence now and are not acting on it, are they not leaving themselves open to legal action if someone with CVD has an accident?

[PPRuNeUser0161]

This needs to be stopped in its tracks, first they'll get rid of those pilots who have CVD restrictions on their Class 1's, then once the overall numbers are reduced they'll come after those who have passed one of the practical tests and currently have no restrictions. The agenda here is to have the minimum standard of the CAD test period and if you do some research you'll be surprised how many colour normals who can easily read the ishihara plates cant pass the CAD.

The big issue here is that CASA are fighting with public money and the pilots have to fund this from there own wallet. Years ago an AAT case qualified for legal aid, what the hell happened to that? Its just not cricket, we need AIPA and the AFAP to come to step up and earn their keep, this is why we pay our fees.

SN

[dubbleyew eight]

note in the following that I don't use effing irritating abbreviations.

Pilots who are deficient in their abilities to sense colours and colors have no deficit in intelligence.
they have no deficit in self discipline.
in fact the colour/color deficit pilots that I personally know are seen by their critical peers as above average skilled pilots.

so my considered conclusion is that CAsA are total utter wankers in this matter.

my advise to CAsA, backed up by centuries of roman catholic church wisdom, is that if you don't stop wanking on this subject you'll all go blind.

bannning CVD (colour vision deficient) pilots is a stupid piece of pseudoscience.

can we make it plainer than that to the incompetents in CAsA?

....or do we have to shoot them?

[Bundybogen]

What an incredulous Tool .

Do you actually have an aviation department in Aus ? - sounds like a beurocratic wing of the HK cad to me .

Spineless governmental rubbish .

Screaming skull never had the nuts to scream at Bundy B .

Nail these axxxxxes

[Kharon]

What we are witnessing, through the actions against CVD pilots is classic, clandestine CASA operating in broad daylight. Normally, witnessing this kind of 'treatment' is not a spectator sport; usually it's by special, private invitation only. Ever see a Chief pilot weeping in the car park; or an operator tearing hair out in the bank managers office, or a fellow pilot on the dole queue, well that's the result of a special invitation.

Until the cold, clammy hand of the 'regulator' has slithered around your neck, it is not possible for the average 'Joe' to remotely contemplate, let alone come to grips with exactly what individual victims are forced to deal with. I'll try to explain. There are 'classically' three elements to a CASA smoke, mirrors and safety show: an unfortunate, a 'safety' issue and an agenda.

The 'unfortunate' part is played by the hapless victim who has normally, in some way, had an 'event', take Quadrio for an example. A video on U bend tube leads to an administrative 'conviction'. The road to that 'conviction' and subsequent denial of an ability to earn a humble living as a joy flight pilot has been the subject of an intense two year investigative effort. The mere fact that evidence was always available to prove that Quadrio was not the pilot on the day has as yet, had no impact on his situation. In Pel Air – anyone could be forgiven reasonable doubts, the 'event' generated enough smoke to cover the agenda, had it not been publicly, openly and robustly examined the opinions formed and the event, would have been 'filed' away. This is not so in the CVD story; there is no 'event'.

Nothing untoward has occurred; except 20 years of reliable, normal service. This cannot therefore be parlayed into a 'safety case' through an 'event'. This is what makes the CVD issue unique; the 'safety-case' cannot be generated from event smoke, why? there ain't none, that's why. So other means must be used to satisfy 'the agenda'. I dare say O'Brien can enunciate and document the tale of woe and can probably find a handful of similar, supporting cases. There is a trail of breadcrumbs to follow from initial embuggerance to the final despicable 'letter' distribution. Classic tactics, only in public this time, against a bunch of innocents and their employers.

There was never a more valid reason nor better time to examine, in depth, the unsupportable machinations of a 'regulator' against the industry it serves. The list of damaged, disadvantaged operators, from the McComic years is long; the list of pilots administratively and clandestinely denied the right to work and put food on the table is as long again.

It is understandable that DPM Truss is reluctant to look retrospectively and to a degree, I can agree with the pragmatic approach but: to re-establish industry confidence – in short order – without addressing some of the aberrations and atrocities of the past five years will only serve to delay true rehabilitation. The CVD pilot embuggerance is occurring on 'his watch'. As a responsible, honest, competent minister of the crown he must act. Act swiftly, fairly, openly and honestly – and, while the tools are out, why not buff some of the detritus off the image of the 'regulator' by examining, in camera under Senate confidentiality some of the more onerous, outrageous events of the past few years.

Soft soap and white paper are very nice to have; but, equality, fairness and justice are the essentials men and women of this country fought and died for. We waste millions on land rights for gay whales, how about a little be put aside to give honest, hardworking Australian pilots a fair go. Those, who, through no fault of their own are being penalised in the most draconian way, loss of profession, loss of earning, loss of pride, loss of dignity, loss of mortgage, loss of kids education – just because some minor medico's running a sheltered workshop have decided to make it so. It's Bollocks.

It will cost less and achieve more to mount a Senate inquiry than it will to allow the flummery and hypocrisy of yet another AAAT 'hearing'. The commonwealth spent the money, 20 odd years ago to provide the ruling which has been proven correct, over two decades of 'non events'. It is not the AAT ruling which is flawed.

Selah – steam off.

[thorn bird]

Hear, hear Kharon.


Perhaps what is needed is a "Truth Commission" much like South Africa had
to get at the truth, then reconcile the industry.

[Fruet Mich]

Very well written Kharon

[aroa]

When so many ***** in CAsA dont know the meaning of the word "truth" then we have a problem.:mad:

A Judicial enquiry, to allow the Quadrios and Butsons of this industry be heard...and actions taken, wrongs righted and a new proper regulator, based on common sense and sanity bought into being.

Its either a complete make over or a revolution, civil disobedience , whatever.:ok:

Root and branch, twig, trunk and dead wood, the whole CAsA tree needs up- rooting and the axe.:ok:

Chop, chop, W Truss. time is short.

[thorn bird]

Aroa, I heartily agree, the "Truth Commission" was very much tongue in cheek, but the truth commission in SA was very much about Government embuggerance and the corruption it generated.

[Sarcs]

Senator Fawcett has championed many aviation related causes and now he is banging the drum on the CVD phallacy i.e. that CVD pilots are, contrary to empirical evidence, a risk to aviation safety.

At the recent Estimates (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F45b905f 6-d491-4939-aeb7-56a199165886%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F45 b905f6-d491-4939-aeb7-56a199165886%2F0000%22), in an exchange with McComic & the PMO, DF made this statement: Senator FAWCETT: Before we go to Dr Navathe on that, your previous principal medical officers—Brock, Liddell and Wilkins—have all had a different view. They respect the medical science but Brock, in particular, has gone to ICAO and some of his documentation indicates that at the vision and colour deficient working group they actually acknowledged that a lot of their current rule set was not necessarily good at determining whether a person was competent to fly an aircraft. It was just good at determining if they had a colour vision deficiency. It was for that reason that Mr Brock allowed people to do a flight test where they could demonstrate in an aircraft their ability to operate it. On that basis, there are now people who have CVD—that is proven, and they do not dispute that—who are now operating airline aircrafts as captains around the world. So CASA has in fact previously established a precedent that has shown there is an alternative third level of testing that accepts the fact that somebody may have CVD but that is not a determinant as to whether they can competently and safely operate an aircraft. My question is, with all due respect to the theoretical approach, which the CAA in the UK has taken: what steps have we taken to build upon Australia's 25 years of experience to provide an alternative means of demonstrating whether a person is safe in an aircraft and not whether he or she has a colour vision deficiency? Do you reckon the bloke has got a handle on the CVD matter?? You bet...:ok: Do you think he is going to NOW slap down the matter with an obligatory wet lettuce...hmm well if his campaign on Airports is anything to go by FF/ATsBeaker/Dept etc are simply dreaming...:E

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_1XcVhOIB8

{Comment: Also recently DF was made the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation, see..The Fawcett Flyer March 2014 (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/March%202014.pdf)}

[thorn bird]

Hmmm?? thought bubble expanding here....

Is CAsA getting a little pressure put on them by ICAO??..you know as in..

"Now old boy, really!! team effort an all that..you cant just go running off and doing your own thing...I mean team spirit and all that...united front, what!... cant have "evidence" interfering with things can we!!...more caviar old boy...another cigar??"

Which sort of begs the question?....

If we cant influence ICAO with indisputable "Evidence", what the hell are we doing spending Gazillions sending numpies to gabfests and various ICAO committee meetings all over the world...I mean what the hell are they going to "Influence" they don't understand half of what's happening here!!

In other words " WHATS IN IT FOR US" and by that I mean Australian industry and those that work in it, not the industry Rejects that inhabit CAsA.


Oh and Sarc'si, he knows, he knows. Finally a Pollie who can recognize Bullsh..t from half a mile away...would love to see the last video, he who must not be named was very close to losing it.

[brissypilot]

Oh and Sarc'si, he knows, he knows. Finally a Pollie who can recognize Bullsh..t from half a mile away...would love to see the last video, he who must not be named was very close to losing it.

Part 3 :ok:

7nNRmyKh1sU

[Wally Mk2]

All CASA are doing here is shifting the responsiability elsewhere & in this case onto the AOC holder, one less thing for CASA to be held responsible for:ugh:
It's all about ass covering & we all know how CASA have that down real pat!


Wmk2

[thorn bird]

Mc Comic....he really is a comic, what an ass..hole..couldn't lie straight in bed!!

[outofwhack]

Kharon,

I dont know who you are - but gawd damn you know how to post!

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

OOW

[Kharon]

There are some first class posts on the Medical & Health board – here on Pprune; the CVD thread putting forward some intelligent, logical counter arguments. Bravo, and never, ever quit.

Fruet Mich (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-18.html#post8508702)# 356.

Guys, I am a Captain with an airline flying jets in the Southern Hemisphere. I have many thousands of hours flight experience and have been flying now for over twenty years. I have not once experienced issues with colour deficiency in my professional aviation career.

I have sat the CAD test and have failed. Previous to this I have sat many colour vision tests, some I have passed and some I have failed. The tests I have consistently passed with 100% pass rate are any practical environmental test. I have passed PAPI test, tower gun tests and a pratical flight test during day and at night, I do not pass the CAD however.

As I have said, I have sat the CAD test and have failed. The CAD test has zero relevance to a pilots environment. For one, it's a synthetic light test done in a synthetic environment asking the applicant to to distinguish rapidly moving coloured targets in the dark after your eyes have had time to adjust. Please explain where in aviation would you ever have to distinguish multiple coloured lights moving rapidly in a controlled synthetic environment? But hey, I'm just a mere professional pilot with no idea about colour and aviation, I should leave that to the non colour deficient, non professional pilots that designed this test.

The CAD test is only good for distinguishing if the applicant is in fact colour deficient, that's all.

As a professional aviator we use an assortment of visual cues to establish whether we are safely "on approach". In the modern day cockpit we have many tools at hand, not just the PAPI lights. We must utilise all the tools at hand to safely fly an approach. On CAT2 and CAT 3B approaches you do not even use the PAPI as guidance. We certainly don't confuse ourselves with rapidly moving lights.

As professional pilots we adjust to our environment, much like colour deficient drivers having to distinguish traffic lights. You might see the lights as a slightly deferent colour, but your brain learns to adapt to your environment of which we work, day in, day out.

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.

I have contributed to the legal challenge in Australia and suggest anyone who is pursuing a professional pilots career in the future should do the same. Google CVDPA.

[brissypilot]

In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD- related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.

Have any pilots actually received this letter yet??

[Kharon]

Well done the Federation – they have sent a very nicely worded, if pointed –letter- (http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUploadFiles/122F062F201493A483A00PM.pdf) to the powers that be. The call for a retraction is gathering some weight now, as well it should.

Great to see support from industry groups, that's VIPA and AFAP standing behind, holding the jackets of those who will, with any luck deflate some ego's and pin some ears back.

One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.

[tail wheel]

If CASA do not trust a qualified, medical DAME to issue a Pilot Medical, I wonder how and why they think an AOC holder is qualified to make a determination on a pilot's colour vision? :confused:

[The Big E]

couldn't lie straight in bed!!

He once told a CX F/O crony of mine that ex Licensed Engineers should not be up front at the controls, as they had never been Officers. :ugh: How not to instil enthusisam into someone who had done well, and who continued to do so within the airline until they chose to retire.

It may well be that the astute Senator (who can see a bull****ter who is bull****ting about bull****, without even wearing NVG) may yet question him to the point where he does his scone. :ok:

[brissypilot]

Kharon - yes - a great letter (http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUploadFiles/122F062F201493A483A00PM.pdf) from the Feds! :D

"...The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith.

AOC holders and the pilots themselves are not privy to the "recent medical research" to which CASA refers in its letter nor are they medically qualified to make the assessment requested. If CASA wish to change the regulations regarding colour vision then CASA should follow the correct and established processes. CASA’s letter of 5 June 2014 is in our view an abuse of process.

We request that CASA formally retract the letter of 5 June 2014.

Please also be aware that we will be supporting any of our members who are unfairly discriminated against as a result of CASA’s letter..."

As Sarcs points out in The Empire Strikes Back (http://www.pprune.org/8519506-post175.html), perhaps another letter may be needed after this correspondence was received by CVD pilots yesterday... :ugh:

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/CASAtoCVDPilots_zps3e0b1b1c.jpg (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/CASAtoCVDPilots_zps3e0b1b1c.jpg.html)

[dubbleyew eight]

if you had something that was structurally deficient in an aircraft it would be modified so that it wasn't structurally deficient.
the recent replacement of Tiger Moth tie rods is a perfect example.
the aircraft were fixed and can continue to fly.

in the case of a Colour vision deficit pilot they lack some of the 'rods' and 'cones' structures in the retina of their eyes. this is a genetic thing like being born with 6 toes on a foot.
in the worst case of the deficit the person can only see in shades of grey.
but they aren't blind. they can still see with the same high definition as a person with the full expected compliment of 'rods' and 'cones'.
they, unlike the nutters in CAsA, have no mental deficit.

we, the pilots of australia, should get behind our fellow pilots affected by this CAsA nonsense and legally hammer the CAsA fcukwits into the dirt.
this CAsA action is utter dribble. :mad:

[Old Akro]

Explain to me why the letter from CASA to CVD pilots is not good old fashioned. Bullying? If an employer tried something like this they would be prosecuted in the blink of an eye. Why is CASA exempt?

CASA needs to grow a pair and be a regulator. Either declare that CVD is not acceptable, cancel licences and take the ensuing legal challenges, or honour the licences they have issued.

This is classic CASA wanting to impose some unique position they have devised without scrutiny, transparent process and avoiding right of appeal.

[outofwhack]

Unable to sleep last night - worrying about the possible demise of my career, loss of earnings, loss of house , loss of life - I eventually slipped off and was rewarded by the most beautiful dream of a perfect world........

.... where CASA had a proactive experienced legislator/experienced pilot at the helm and the medical department was led by a trustworthy and utterly fair experienced doctor who was also a pilot.

Cast:
Director of Aviation Safety: David Fawcett
Principal medical officer: Dr A. M. Pape

Who appoints the DAS? I want to go camp on their lawn - then THEY wont be able to sleep.

[WhyGen]

Clearly a case of someone in CASA trying hard to justify their job in an era of Federal Budget cut-backs. The irony is that after trying to defend this ridiculousness when challenged in court, they would have cost themselves (ie. us, the taxpayer) hugely and more than likely lost.

[VR-HFX]

Sen Fawcett

As someone who has reassembled some of the broken crockery over the years, I believe you should keep pressing your most logical and well argued points.

I suspect it may end like this:

You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube

He wasn't called the 'Screaming Skull' in his last career for no reason. He makes his predecessor 'the Ayatollah' look positively mild by comparison.

Whilst I see prevarication in his responses, do not be fooled. This is his agenda. Why he has chosen to bring it up is, I suspect, only known to himself (given that there are a number of pilots in his previous company that are CVD). However, once he has an agenda, he is like a dog with a bone.

Good luck to all colleagues that have been caught in the cross-hairs. I will be contributing.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Whygen
Clearly a case of someone in CASA trying hard to justify their job in an era of Federal Budget cut-backs. The irony is that after trying to defend this ridiculousness when challenged in court, they would have cost themselves (ie. us, the taxpayer) hugely and more than likely lost.



Empire strikes back thread has some more detail on cvd costs from one of the cases. I think they estimate 600k for casa and 300-400k for the other party !

old akro Explain to me why the letter from CASA to CVD pilots is not good old fashioned. Bullying? If an employer tried something like this they would be prosecuted in the blink of an eye. Why is CASA exempt?

That word bullying keeps cropping up. The Maitland submission uses the same language.

Then VR-HFX says pretty much the same.

[Anthill]

W8.

There are so many variations of CVD, probably as many pilots. The most common are in the red/green, blue/green or Blue/violet regions of the spectrum. Monochrome vision is very, very rare.

My own 'Cvd' means that I can see discriminate and detect hues of blue and yellow at sensitivities far greater than most people. This means that I have trouble with Isihara (because the blues and yellows stand out more readily than the reds and greens), but none at all with the lantern test or signal lights.

As a result of my 'defect', I can see when there is too much blue or yellow pigment in 'white' paints where most people can't. I can also discriminate between white and yellow nautical markers at further distances and in low light than most people ( I was recently perplexed in a yacht race that the crew were heading towards a white mooring bouy when, to me, the yellow turn-point marker was about 30 degrees to the port).

There is some solid longstanding evidence that individuals with my "cvd" as less likely to be fooled by military camouflage. During ww2 we were selected for roles as snipers and artillery spotters as a result.

With the above in mind, the concept of "defect" is relative. 50,000 years ago, we were the guys who brought home the mammoth to feed the rest of the tribe, spotted the Sabre-Tooth Tiger before it spotted us. Hell, they probably would have made us the Chief :p

[Bill Smith]

Another Enlightening article

Latest News | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/category/latest-news/)

[Arthur Pape]

Dear OutofWhack, please stop dreaming about me as the new PMO! Now I'm having nightmares. Cheers

[004wercras]

He wasn't called the 'Screaming Skull' in his last career for no reason. He makes his predecessor 'the Ayatollah' look positively mild by comparison.
So true. Quite the angry one, ol Skull. More than one young CX F/O was either reduced to tears or physically soiled themselves sitting alongside the angry one on a darkened night at 38 000 feet! And forget CVD being a risk, every time Mr Angry operated a flight I am sure there was a risk of heart attack, stroke, or aneurism!

The below link refers to him and his mates;

The 49ers Story - the Star Chamber (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/generaldocs/StarChamber.htm)

[dubbleyew eight]

Isn't the time honoured method of getting rid of demons to drive a wooden stake through the heart? I think we all need to show up to the casa offices enmass holding sharpened wooden stakes.

To Anthill and all the other guys with CVD according to the mengele school of medicine now running in CAsA.

YOU ARE NOT DEFECTIVE. it is simply the case that your genetic makeup has created a different eye structure. that variation is a normal aspect of the slow evolution of the human species. how can anyone but a fcukwit CAsA medico ever be arrogant enough to say that an eye difference is a defect has me shaking my head.

when I was down fitting a gps mount to my instrument panel last night I took some time to look at the private flying environment. if you can make sense of a visual terminal chart then there is absolutely nothing in the private flying environment that is colour dependent.

bye the bye I'm told by one of the descendants that the big joke about the white blond haired master race so promoted by hitler is that most of them are moderately to severely colour blind.

these ex-raaf "we know safety" iron circle in CAsA are absolutely insane nutters. there is no other term for their actions in pursuing this senseless bastardry.

[004wercras]

these ex-raaf "we know safety" iron circle in CAsA are absolutely insane nutters. there is no other term for their actions in pursuing this senseless bastardry. Perhaps they are all bitter and twisted because they were born with tiny genitalia?

[brissypilot]

Another worthwhile read from Paul Phelan :ok:

Fifty shades of red and green ? Opinion | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/15/fifty-shades-of-red-and-green-opinion/)

What on earth is the problem that Dr Navathe and CASA are expending so much energy trying to solve? It certainly has the close attention of hundreds of Australian pilots as yet another of their number, John O’Brien, prepares to confront CASA’s massive publicly funded legal firepower in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in a hearing set down for July 21.

The case is scheduled to run for two weeks, and sources close to the matter believe CASA has about a dozen expert witnesses (mostly optometrists) from all over the world and, we’ve been told, has engaged Ian Harvey QC, to parade them before the AAT to convince the Tribunal that aeroplanes will start plummeting out of the sky because some of their pilots, in common with around 8% of the world’s male population, have some degree of colour vision deficiency (CVD).

CASA lawyer Joseph Rule told a recent Senate Estimates hearing that CASA’s costs for this extravaganza had already reached about $43,000, and when pushed a bit more by Senator Fawcett he also admitted to that “It would not be out of the realms of possibility to accumulate another $40,000 in costs.”

Is there $83,000 worth of demonstrably enhanced safety in there somewhere?

Other (usually reliable) sources reckon CASA’s ultimate total costs of running the O’Brien case could stack up to somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000 – not counting John O’Brien’s costs of course, and they’re wondering out loud whether all those dollars might not be better spent scouring global accident history for events that have any statistical link at all with CVD.

Aha! It seems there’s a new development that can maybe shine a little more light into those dark corners. One of Dr Navathe’s colleagues, Mr Peter Fereday at the CASA “Permissions Centre”, wrote to all AOC holders on June 05 that:

“Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.

And the following day in a similar letter he told all CVD-affected pilots about the same “recent medical research.”

Our curiosity aroused, we asked CASA’s redoubtable spokesperson Peter Gibson…….

Could CASA please direct me to the references to the original medical research papers that present the evidence referred to in the first and third paragraphs of the attached letter? [That’s Mr Fereday’s letter to AOC holders about CVD.]

…… and after only six days of probing, good old reliable PG bounced right back:

The recent medical research mentioned by CASA in its letter to AOC holders of 5 June 2014 refers to the research described in an article by Dougal B Watson, principal medical officer of the New Zealand CAA [and Dr Navathe’s former boss in NZ], appearing in the February 2014 issue of the Journal of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.

In May 2014, an article appeared in the magazine Aerosafety World, published by the Flight Safety Foundation, summarising Dr Watson’s research on inconsistencies in the assessment of pilots with CVD.

Enlightenment at last?

Afraid not. It transpires that the article is only available to super-rich people who can afford to commit US$30 (and their credit card details) to a little-known offshore organisation, especially before checking product quality.

However as we were coming to grips with this formidable challenge to astute journalism, a copy of Dr Watson’s treatise fell off the back of a passing truck, and we were back in business.

Or so we thought. But a careful perusal of the document, tantalising titled Lack of lnternational Uniformity in Assessing Color [sic] Vision Deficiency in Professional Pilots, quickly convinced us we must have the wrong bit of paper.

A note attached to the article off the truck had warned:

Take a gander at this rubbish. This [Dr Watson’s treatise] is not evidence of anything of any consequence in this entire debate. Indeed, it is evidence of what a mess the aviation colour perception standard is in worldwide. Imagine relying on this as legal evidence to impress a judge just how dangerous colour vision defective pilots are!

A bit harsh? Well not really. If I were Mr Fereday (or Peter Gibson) I’d be quietly seeking a second opinion before I passed on anything originating from the source of those assertions. Let’s remind ourselves:

“Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.”

Can CASA point out any recent research presented in the Watson article that indicates anything of the sort?

As anybody familiar with the debate would observe, the Watson prose is packed with subjective assertions, mind-numbing statistics, tables and flow charts that are in no way relevant to the “safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD”. In fact they don’t depict any safety-relevant medical research, and are in bad English, exacerbated by American spelling. The reason Watson doesn’t refer to relevant accident statistics (because there aren’t any) and his article comes up with just two not quite earth-shattering assertions that actually admit in its two listed findings:

“The main conclusions from this research are that:

There is a high degree of variation between States in the detection and medical assessment of CVD applicants; and

The observed variation stems not from the wording of the medical standards of the States, but from the application of those standards.

So 190 separate states have all figured out different but similar satisfactory ways of managing the same issue, right?

Furthermore Dr Watson’s research actually refers to:

the paucity of documented aircraft accidents or incidents where CVD is implicated as a contributory factor.” [Because there are none]. And states that:

It is beyond the scope of this report to analyze [analyse] the issues and the debates concerning CV standards and civil aviation”.

So! Dud information has been unintentionally passed back to us via CASA PR?

We haven’t yet seen any AOC-holder response to Mr Fereday’s June 5 letter, but its next-day follow-up to pilots has already caused at least one pilot body to reach for its keyboard and mouse. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots has directed a sharp response from its President Capt Bryan Murray to current CASA CEO John McCormick:

Dear Mr McCormick,

Re: Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD)

I am writing on behalf of the AFAP to express our concern over the letter dated 5 June 2014 from Peter Fereday to AOC holders regarding Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD).

The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith.

AOC holders and the pilots themselves are not privy to the “recent medical research” to which CASA refers in its letter nor are they medically qualified to make the assessment requested. If CASA wish to change the regulations regarding colour vision then CASA should follow the correct and established processes. CASA’s letter of 5 June 2014 is in our view an abuse of process.

We request that CASA formally retract the letter of 5 June 2014.

Please also be aware that we will be supporting any of our members who are unfairly discriminated against as a result of CASA’s letter.

Meanwhile nowhere has CASA attempted to express in cost benefit terms, the safety benefits its proposed actions would deliver. So what is the problem to which all that public expense is supposed to be the answer? Where’s the history? Where are all the accidents that are linked to CVD pilots?

Although there isn’t any such history, there’s plenty that covers related legal activity.

In October 1987 the AAT reviewed a negative decision by the (then) Civil Aviation Authority that had been made in respect of Dr Arthur Pape, a licensed pilot, medical practitioner and DAME, and recognised as a world expert on colour deficiency in aviation. However the AAT decision was only in respect of Dr Pape’s private pilot licence, and imposed restrictions related to aircraft equipment, night flying, maximum takeoff weight and cruising speed, but and weather conditions.

18 months later in April 1989 the Tribunal heard another application by a CVD pilot, this one from commercial pilot Hugh Denison, a young colour defective pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited by the CAA from night flight in Australia.

To quote Dr Pape, whose interest in these issues has never wavered:

“Again, the appeal succeeded and the ban on night flight was overturned for all colour defective pilots in Australia. To this date, the Denison appeal is still the most comprehensive examination of aviation colour vision standards that has ever been conducted in the entire world. The hearings lasted for over 30 days and called witnesses including experienced pilots and air traffic controllers, optometrists and visual perception psychologists to name just a few. As a direct result of the appeal’s success, many such pilots found doors opening to career opportunities that were previously denied to them”.

This AAT hearing resulted in an order that:

The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution for it, it is decided that the applicant is to be granted, under regulation 63 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, a commercial pilot licence to fly fixed wing aircraft and rotary wing aircraft, the said licence to be subject to only the following two conditions:-

(1) That he is not permitted to pilot an aircraft in international air navigation except with the permission of the appropriate authority of the country concerned;

(2) That he is not permitted to pilot aircraft within control zones unless the aircraft being flown is fitted with radio apparatus such that he can maintain two-way communication on appropriate frequencies.

In a detailed analysis of its decision, the Tribunal explained that it was running a “test case” and it also explained why:

“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 [CASA] indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case.

“Mr Rose [Appearing for CASA], 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 [CASA] 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 [Mr Denison] 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.

Costs to the various parties in the Denison case have not been identified, but the AAT discussed in great detail the whole procedure it had adopted, all of the issue-related questions asked and answered, the witnesses, areas in which there was broad agreement, types of CVD, the technologies used in assessing it, and its safety relevance in flight operations at all levels. The decision document also contains detailed analysis of every related issue discussed by witnesses and laid the foundations for about 15 years of relative truce. The ruling was accepted by all parties and has been the basis under which CVD pilots have been operating successfully until CASA resumed hostilities.

The last two paragraphs of the AAT decision are relevant to Mr O’Brien’s case:.

78. We recommend that suitable practical tests should be devised so that a protan [Mr O’Brien’s condition] can be tested individually, if he wishes, at his own expense to ascertain the extent of the loss of his ability to perceive the intensity of red lights. If his distant visual acuity is such that, when allowance is made for the loss of ability to perceive the intensity of red lights, he is able to see red lights at the furthest distance that they can be seen by persons who have normal colour vision and the distant acuity required by ANO 47.1.2.13 or ANO 47.1.3.13, as appropriate to the type of licence sought, a licence should be granted to him under regulation 63 subject to only the two conditions referred to above. If a change in his visual acuity is detected thereafter in the course of any routine medical examination, he should be required to undergo the practical test again. Otherwise a licence granted to a protan under regulation 63 should be subject to the additional condition that the pilot does not fly an aircraft at night.

79. Finally, while recognising that the Tribunal has no power to review decisions of the Authority to set medical standards under regulation 62, we suggest that protanomals ought not to be totally prevented, as they are at present, from meeting the colour vision standard. It appears from Dr Samuel’s evidence that some persons with mild protanomaly are able to perceive the existence of red lights at a distance which is as great as, or greater than, the furthest distance at which a person with normal colour vision and distant visual acuity of 6/6 can do so. We suggest that the colour vision standard be altered so as to permit such mild protanomals to take the Farnsworth Lantern test and, if they pass it, to meet the standard and so be qualified, so far as colour vision is concerned, for the grant of an unconditional licence.

Those two paragraphs go to the heart of Mr O’Brien’s situation and that of many others who are now threatened despite thousands of hours of uneventful flight.

It is completely untruthful to assert as CASA has, that there is anything in Dr Watson’s paper to suggest that individuals’ CVD pilot issues “may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.”

The only thing that has changed on the CVD scene since the AAT delivered its comprehensive analysis, findings and recommendations, has been the accumulation of several million more flying hours by CVD pilots without a CVD related accident. The person or persons responsible for this attempt to wind back the clock needs to be held accountable for their actions.

If CASA’s recruiting consultancy identifies a CEO candidate who meets all the key qualities it is seeking in terms of experience, critical competencies for success and other attributes, the newcomer will easily see this campaign for what it is.

A return to reality on CVD issues might then be one of the many early outcomes sought by the 269 contributors to the ASRR.

An important footnote

We would point out that there has in fact been one case where CVD got a mention in an accident investigation; however its CV relevance is widely disputed.

On July 26, 2002, a Boeing 727-238F freighter collided with trees on short final and crashed short of the runway at Tallahassee, Florida. The NTSB report said:

The National Transportation Safety Board determined 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 colour vision deficiency.”

However the text of the NTSB report (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020726-0) contained no supporting discussion of CVD or its role in the accident, and did not explain why both the captain and the flight engineer (who was also a pilot,) reported seeing the same displays on the PAPI as the co-pilot did.
:D:D

[Bill Smith]

To all the CVD's that have had and are having their careers due to the relentless drive of Dr A Pape and other medical professionals that were forward thinking at the time. To all the non CVD's that know that this is Bull*#@t. I know its a new concept but help out your fellow pilots.

Get on board and put your money where your mouth is. The threat of the powers to be over running the upcoming AAT case with legal fee's is very real. If the case is found in favour of "The New Science" it will just empower them.

Donate : Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com/your-support/donate)

[dubbleyew eight]

I looked up colour blindness in Kumar and Clark's reference 'clinical medicine'
it is the reference all the interns carry around.

"Ethambutol can cause a dose related optic retrobulbar neuritis that presents with colour blindness for green....."

that is it. the entire colour blindness reference in a 1400 page reference manual.

I can see these CAsA nutters declaring that green colour blind pilots are prohibited from landing on grass runways ....because they can't see the grass.

The CAsA people all need a stretch in prison for false pretences. seriously.

[004wercras]

I find it palpable that CAsA's "dick measuring competition" extends to destroying a persons career, ability to be employed, and their ability to care for their family now and into the future. How much is enough?
Even CAsA itself advises us in other CAAP's that they are trying to align regulations more with ICAO SARP's, so why the amateurish bulldog approach on this issue?

Dear CAsA, get over it ok, your dicks on this occasion are smaller. Skull needs to leave immediately, no further delay. And he needs to take Fereday and Pooshan with him on this occasion. This whole sordid affair is beyond belief. Mr Truss and Mr MrDak you have a hell of a lot to answer for. I can only hope that Senators Fawcett and Xenophon store this occurrence and when the time is right they shape this issue into a giant pineapple and shove it so far up your as#es that you end up burping pineapple aroma for a month :mad:

[yr right]

I'm not colour blind but can some one answer this if there are. My mate is and he can't tell the difference between red and orange.

I ask this due master warning and caution lights. When you see these lights even if you don't know the colours are they different or the same. Seams irrelevant to me. Your just looking for a light. The only thing I see that may be a problem is a glass cockpit with so much information on it. I'll be interested to here what you see and don't.

I don't think it matters a nats dick just something they found to keep them selfs employed.

Cheers

[Anthill]

The basis for the CASA safety case is " recent medical research " which has now been shown to have no relevance to their assertions.

I think that these clowns have shot themselves in the foot. My prediction is that WE will be having the last laugh. Senator Fawcett isn't buying their BS, it's written all over his face.

Fawcett, well, he ain't buy in' their sheeeet an' he gonna open them a big can of Wup-Ass!!

[Anthill]

Yr right, all I can say is that I have never had an issue with PAPI or navigation lights, only Ishihara plates. The only plates that I have ever seen in the flight deck either have a crew meal or the word Jeppessen on them.

As for coloured symbol on EFIS displays and the like, I am perfectly able to tell the difference between any red, orange or green presentation with complete accuracy.

[Fruet Mich]

We are not colour blind, we are colour deficient. The problem is that CVD rules have been written by colour normal regulators with tests being designed by colour normal, non aviator scientists. Even the head medical officer in ICAO agrees CVD is such an unknown science.

The new CAD test being implemented by CAsA was created by City University in London. City Uni stated that PAPI was the most "safety" important lights in Aviation. The CVD individuals who participated in the CAD development were tested using a PAPI simulator, also developed by City Uni. The applicants had to have a pass mark of more than 96.6% as this was deemed to be the colour normal average. If this was an average, this would indicate that colour normal people were not all passing 96.6%. Another issue with using this simulator is there was not an option for the applicants to ask for the PAPI brightness to be turned up as you can do in the real world environment. This is the issue when you have non aviator scientists developing CVD testing for aviation professionals. Not once has the regulators ever worked with CVD pilots to develop a realistic and accurate form of testing.

The only way to test a candidate is to assess that individual in a pilots environment, not a synthetic environment. PAPI lights are an important aid to approach profile, but we have multiple other aids available to assist a safe approach profile.

Yr Right, all flight deck lights are large and clear. If there was such a problem with red and amber lights there would be multiple accidents daily with traffic lights. We have been born with CVD, so we have learned colours just as you did in school, we might see these colours a little differently to you, but we have still learnt these colours as red and amber, as I've said, we are colour deficient, not colour blind.

It's very worrying and stressful thinking we could be facing losing our ability to feed our families, pay the mortgage etc based on discrimination and unfounded research. I hope this mess gets sorted so we can breath a sigh of relief and sleep at night.

[thorn bird]

Mich, I wholeheartedly agree, it is absolutely outrageous that these scumbags can place you and your cvd colleges under such stress for absolutely nefarious reasons, that in itself is a safety issue.

Stress in itself is perhaps equally debilitating as fatigue.

[thorn bird]

Oh jeez cleared,
mate its just a bad joke. I have a heart problem, way back when, first ATPL medical.....Shock horror....your going to die...ECG shows anomalies.
A few bucks later, no problem you have a congenital clicky valve, no problem.

Twenty years later...shock horror...your going to die...your ECG shows anomalies!
Fear of christ???..sh..t I've got a crook heart!!.

Ten grand later......there's nothing wrong with your heart, you have a congenital defect which creates an echo on your ECG.

Nope your going to die...specialist says I'm not...we say you are....

Another ten grand...up to an angiogram which the specialist refused to conduct because as he said this is risky and I refuse to do it on a perfectly healthy person.

A letter to CAsA from my specialist suggesting that whoever saw an anomaly in my ECG should perhaps go back to med school...got my medical back!! Hooray!!

The twenty grand pissed up against the wall would have gone nicely towards my kids Uni Fees but.

[yr right]

Please don't think for on minute I'm in agreement with casa over this. Just trying to find out what you see. As with most things in aviation excepting airbus on this. Movement is the main trigger that's why the master lights flash. Also that's why Boeing use a control colum for triggering movement in the systems. A light is a light. Is there a difference between two colours. By that I mean if one is what a normal person would see as red and orange do you see them as different shades or the same as each other.

I've go to say I find glass screens hard to read. Pro line 21 much easier than the garmins.
Yeap I agree that we would be seeing accidents if this was such an issue.

Also it goes against the human factors that they push so hard for.
Cheers

[yr right]

My friends boy saw greens as blues. When he look at green grass he saw it as blue.

[Frank Arouet]

Grass is green because we know grass is green.


BTW, what colour do night vision apparatus, CVD or non CVD pilots see as grass?

[dubbleyew eight]

some people wonder why the original members of my club put in such a prodigious effort in creating our non-government funded airfield.

they were colour blind.

building the airfield outside controlled airspace was the only way that they could get peace from the regulatory bastardry of the 70's.

when I got the irrits with my club preventing me using the club tractors I went out and bought myself a little Kubota to use in my airfield development.
you may know that Kubota tractors are painted bright orange.
5 of my pilot friends have at various times have quietly asked my what I was thinking when I bought a bright yellow tractor. :-)

when we were discussing the CAsA bastardry the other night in the clubhouse I named the 5 pilots. none in my presence could believe that they had any impairment.
they are 5 of the best pilots in the club.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

when we were discussing the CAsA bastardry the other night in the clubhouse I named the 5 pilots. none in my presence could believe that they had any impairment.
they are 5 of the best pilots in the club.

If there perception and attention isn't affected for tasks they just see things differently to the norm then they do not have an impairment. I was recently told of a military pilot whom had blue/yellow color blindness. Had flown for years with no issue. Pilots only tested for red / green so wasn't picked up.

[yr right]

Frank
Grass is green because we know grass is green.


And that's my point. That's what im trying to find out what is seen is there a difference. As I said earlier my mate cant tell the difference between red and orange. he done all his aptl subjects but fail due colour test.


Cheers


What ever the flight you have to have a one up on this . And safety on casa is not the be end and end all. This can be beaten. Its depends though if you have to flight icao, that's going to be the hard bit.

[AEROMEDIC]

Well, the flight deck lights have words on them that can be read if in doubt about colour, and sure as hell you would be aware of the HORN that goes with the really important ones.
In the main, you have had a lot of training and experience to know what is what, and where things are, so you would have to be deaf and dyslexic as well for any kind of problem to arise from any level of colour blindness.

[Oxidant]

BTW, what colour do night vision apparatus, CVD or non CVD pilots see as grass?

Green (Surprise, surprise) & everything else are shades of grey, black, white or .... green.

What always concerned me when you took them off (back in the crew room) was everything had a brown tinge for the next few hours......

[Kharon]

It is with great difficulty that I resist the urge to reflect (philosophical like) on the various brown tinges associated with any of this. Alas, the forbearance of Tidy Bin Billy is not to be tested. I regret..............but you can guess..

Toot toot. Just a sly bump up really. Big smile.

[Bill Smith]

We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering.

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges.
Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

[/url]http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/Letter_zps19d4439a.jpg[/URL]

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Bill

I can't even begin to describe how disgusted I am at what has happened to you. Going to make my contribution to the fighting fund now.

Good luck

UTR

[Bill Smith]

Where is Darryl Kerrigan and Lawrence Hammill(QC) when you need 'em.
This is going straight to the pool room!!

Gp6f1EMn1lo

[Sunfish]

The disgusting, hateful, ridiculous thing about this letter is that it does something no competent regulator should ever do. As such the letter is a final damning document that leaves no doubt in my mind that CASA needs major drastic surgery - and fast, or else anyone within that organisation that values their reputation is going to have to leave to avoid being besmirched with the same **** that covers this letter.

And what is the damning thing CASA has done that no regulator should ever do??

It has, by its own calculated and deliberate action, created more uncertainty.

Furthermore, since then it has done nothing to remove that uncertainty, which totally damns it in the eyes of anyone connected with competent public administration.

Make no mistake, the purpose of regulation is to remove as much uncertainty as possible from the conduct of human affairs and the last thing any regulator should do is increase it by its own actions, as CASA continues to do today and why it cannot be trusted to wield any of the powers it purports to have.

It is a disgrace, the letter proves it. Please Minister, take an axe to CASA starting right at the top, followed by the author of this letter and anyone connected with its creation or approval.

[Car RAMROD]

Ok the cynic in me is coming out.

According to the letter there is only one place in Aus to do a CAD test. Is there any connection between this establishment and CASA? You know what I mean...

[Fruet Mich]

It's going to be a very expensive time for the insurers of pilot medicals. This will cost 100's of millions, I'm pretty sure these insurance companies won't stand by whilst CAsA pulls the medicals of competent medically fit individuals because of new research that is unfounded and unproven.

There are literally 1000's of CVD pilots piloting the globe.

In Emirates the CAD test is secondary to the ishihara plate test. The current CVD pilots in Emirates have been given a medical waiver on a grandfather right. Either there is a safety issue or not, you can not have safety and grandfather rights together?

In the USA, arguably the largest aviation regulator in the world, a more liberal view on CVD exists much like the last 25 years of CAsA in Australia. The US has 1000's of CVD aviators that add to the many millions of flight hours which have been accumulated globally. Not one accident attributable to CVD. Isn't that enough research to prove the theoretical research wrong?

The CAD test is just enough test to establish if an individual is CVD. I can't believe CAsA is taking such a strong line on a subject they just can't back with proven medical science, especially against a backdrop of a proven track record.

Frustrating

[Kharon]

Sunny – understandable fury, totally justified in this instance. It would be bad enough if it was only this one issue, in isolation which had 'the treatment'; but it ain't. What you see here is only the shadow of the beast and you catch whiff of the rancid stench. This one is a tale told in public; there are worse, much worse aberrations which have been inflicted by 'supported managers' on pilots and operators. But they are artfully camouflaged under the mystique of safety and the multi handed strop-athon of 'prosecution by administration', supported by unrelenting persecution, even crucifixion, should the mood descend; (which it does quite often)...

I know how many Quadrio's there are out there; I wonder how many of the 'Bill Smith' tribe are wandering in the wilderness. One thing is certain sure; if 'we' allow this to go unchallenged, that which was corrupted by power will eventually become simply corrupt.

CR # 86 –"According to the letter there is only one place in Aus to do a CAD test. Is there any connection between this establishment and CASA? You know what I mean.."

Selah.

[4dogs]

Warren,

In 1987, the then CVD rules were successfully challenged in the AAT. In 1989, the Commonwealth facilitated and funded Denison as an AAT Test Case on the CVD rules.

The Commonwealth accepted the Denison outcome, consistent with its participatory and inclusive approach to the issue.

In the intervening period, zero evidence has emerged to challenge the safety of that decision. The recent actions of two of CASA's most obvious "dead men walking", ie the DAS and the PMO, are unconscionable and unsustainable on any available evidence, including that most tenuously described "research" of Watson.

You need to intervene.

You need to direct a "stay" on this change of policy. You need to direct that the previous policy be used to determine medical status pending a properly investigated change proposal. You can act decisively because there has been no change in the operational risk.

You need to do one of two things:

a. fund O'Brien's case in the AAT as a test case, including the provision of legal aid; or

b. vacate the AAT case and appoint a Government Inquiry that will independently examine the evidence and recommend Australia's future policy.

You need to act now.

Stay Alive,

[brissypilot]

Well done VIPA :D:D

VIPA Letter to John McCormick (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/180614JohnMcCormickVIPA%20.pdf)

18 June 2014

Mr John McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority – CASA
GPO Box 2005
Canberra – ACT 2601

By email: [email protected]

cc: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]

Dear Mr McCormick

Re: Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD)

I refer to your letter dated 5 June 2014 to AOC holders from Peter Fereday Executive Manager, Industry Permissions.


Your letter makes a number of dubious assertions including but not limited to:

CVD Pilots adversely affect aviation safety;
AOC holder’s should consider whether its safe to allow CVD pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges; and
“recent medical research” involving the assessment of CVD.
We regard your letter as a misuse of proper process that will affect between 8-10% of pilots immediately and also the operations of commercial aviation in Australia.

VIPA is incredulous that at no stage has CASA sought industry engagement or stakeholder input into this decision.

Our membership views your directive of 5 June 2014 with dismay and we seek redress by way of public retraction.

As a consequence of your actions, we will be engaging with the wider community with regard to this CASA decision.

Lastly, and pertinently, with an Aviation Review calling for greater aviation engagement with the Regulator, we are certain that unilateral decisions such as these will have the opposite effect with the Virgin Australia and Tiger pilot groups.

If you have any queries or require any further information, please contact Simon O’Hara from VIPA on (02) 8203 3810 or [email protected]

Regards

Captain John Lyons
President

Media Release: New Policy Discriminates Against CVD Pilots (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/VIPA%20MEDIA%20RELEASE_NEW%20POLICY%20DISCRIMATES%20AGAINST% 20CVD%20PILOTS_18%20JUNE%202014.3.pdf)

NEW POLICY DISCRIMATES AGAINST CVD PILOTS

New rules relating to colour vision deficiency (CVD) discriminates against hundreds of highly experienced pilots working in Australia’s major airlines, whilst failing to deliver any better safety outcomes, according to the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA).

After a review of the Civil Authority Safety Regulation Part 67 by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Class 1 pilots with CVD will have to inform their employers about their CVD and also “may” be forced to undergo a colour assessment and diagnostic test (CAD) in the future.

VIPA Executive Director, Simon O’Hara, said the move will jeopardise the careers of hundreds of commercial pilots with CVD across the country.

“Whilst VIPA always recognises that aviation safety remains paramount, we condemn CASA’s new procedures relating to CVD pilots,” Mr O’Hara said today.

“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.

“Their everyday performance is no different to their other pilot colleagues, yet they are being ruthlessly targeted.

“Our members are questioning if there is any real safety case for these procedures at all, CASA has introduced these without evidence of any incident or accident in which impaired colour vision could be attributed a causal factor.”

Mr O’Hara said VIPA supports an appeal lodged in the AAT by a CVD pilot against a refusal by CASA to permit him to become a Captain. CASA had used this pilot’s case to launch what amounts to a “de facto” appeal against the earlier AAT decisions which have allowed many hundreds of CVD pilots to fly with no restrictions at all levels of Australian aviation.

Mr O’Hara said VIPA continued to make representations to members of the Federal Parliament, on behalf of the hundreds of pilots with CVD.

[Sarcs]

VIPA labels new colour vision deficiency regs “discriminatory” (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/vipa-labels-new-colour-vision-deficiency-regs-discriminatory/)

Item by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) at 11:54 am, Thursday June 19 2014 Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/vipa-labels-new-colour-vision-deficiency-regs-discriminatory/#comments)

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) says new rules relating to colour vision deficiency (CVD) discriminates against pilots already working in Australia’s major airlines, but will fail to deliver any better safety outcomes.

VIPA says a review of the Civil Authority Safety Regulation Part 67 by the CASA states that Class 1 pilots with CVD will have to inform their employers about their CVD, and that pilots may be forced to undergo a colour assessment and diagnostic test (CAD) in the future.

“Whilst VIPA always recognises that aviation safety remains paramount, we condemn CASA’s new procedures relating to CVD pilots,” VIPA executive director, Simon O’Hara said. “The fact is, there are hundreds of commercial pilots with CVD who have passed check and line training requirements and subsequently have thousands of hours flying without incident, who will be impacted by these restrictive practices.”

VIPA says it supports an appeal lodged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by a CVD pilot against a refusal by CASA to permit him to become a captain.

:D:D

[thorn bird]

VIPA,
profound thanks,


and not just for the CVD issue. Your submission to the miniscules inquiry was first rate, and a little surprising in the support you gave to your poor cousins in GA.
We in GA have sort of got used to being kicked in the guts by them who were lucky enough made it into the heady realms of RPT.
Many seemed to have forgotten their roots, where they got their start in this amazing life of being an aviator.
Thank you

[Creampuff]

Warren,

In 1987, the then CVD rules were successfully challenged in the AAT. In 1989, the Commonwealth facilitated and funded Denison as an AAT Test Case on the CVD rules.

The Commonwealth accepted the Denison outcome, consistent with its participatory and inclusive approach to the issue.

In the intervening period, zero evidence has emerged to challenge the safety of that decision. The recent actions of two of CASA's most obvious "dead men walking", ie the DAS and the PMO, are unconscionable and unsustainable on any available evidence, including that most tenuously described "research" of Watson.

You need to intervene.

You need to direct a "stay" on this change of policy. You need to direct that the previous policy be used to determine medical status pending a properly investigated change proposal. You can act decisively because there has been no change in the operational risk.

You need to do one of two things:

a. fund O'Brien's case in the AAT as a test case, including the provision of legal aid; or

b. vacate the AAT case and appoint a Government Inquiry that will independently examine the evidence and recommend Australia's future policy.

You need to act now.HEAR BLOODY HEAR!

Well said 4dogs.

[Kharon]

While in the opposition – seems the shadow minister had lots to say and was very aware of 'standard' regulator behaviour.

I appeared on the Channel Nine “Today show” where our present deputy Prime Minister The Hon Warren Truss stated on the "Today show” that the situation was the worst case of travesty of Natural justice from a Government Department he had ever encountered. At the time Warren was my local member, a personal friend and was the opposition aviation Minister.

Now as minister again, fully armed with knowledge from 2008, fully cognisant with the event mentioned above; and, now through the first class Forsyth review submissions, but now we don't hear so much as a peep. Mate, the bored is discredited, the administration is discredited and yet you allow the DAS and PMO sail on as though nothing has happened, at all - at all. Policy freeze until the new DAS is in the saddle; no other option really.

Now is a good time to back the Abbott election promises, also to speak out. Lets have an embargo on all major decisions and proposed actions until the new broom is operational and policy is defined. Oh, and please, put a muzzle on this Gibson fellahin; widespread projectile vomiting is being caused by excessive spin, the smoke has stopped the chooks laying; and Mum's vertigo is on the increase due to mirror dazzle. He knows he's peddling snake oil – we know he's blowing smoke. So, what's the point in persisting with the embarrassing farce.

Start chopping Warren, the rot has set in and if the tree hits the neighbours chook shed; don't say you weren't warned about the problem – again.

Music, while you work.

[ramble on]

This action by CASA stinks like it has originated from the moron in CASA that was responsible for the new "paperwork reducing" annual 8 page medical questionnaire that has most AMEs in this country and others rolling their eyes in disgust and dismay.

Have YOU had any "funny turns"?

Strewth...pillocks.:ugh:

[Sarcs]

ramble:This action by CASA stinks like it has originated from the moron in CASA that was responsible for the new "paperwork reducing" annual 8 page medical questionnaire that has most AMEs in this country and others rolling their eyes in disgust and dismay.

Have YOU had any "funny turns"?

Strewth...pillocks.:ugh: For a classic example of Avmed steam driven efficiency at work..:rolleyes:..go no further than this recent 'merit review decision' by the (soon to be redundant..:{) OAIC:

Barnes and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AICmr 53 (3 June 2014) (http://www.oaic.gov.au/images/documents/freedom-of-information/ic-review-decicions/2014-AICmr53.pdf)

Hmm...it seems that Herr Skull couldn't swing any of the $89.9 million bucket over to the PMO's crew to buy a couple of PCs and hire some pimply faced IT nerd to scan/data entry all the flight crew files to an electronic database. 8. Following an exchange of emails about the second part of the request, on 8 February 2013, CASA advised Mr Barnes that three boxes of files had been retrieved from archives, which comprised of approximately 3,000 pages of information. CASA advised Mr Barnes that ‘searching for the Form 162 documents … would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of CASA from its operations.’ CASA26. The consultation notice issued on 22 March 2013, stated that CASA does not keep individual records of Medical Certificate payments and that its records system is adequate ‘to the nature of the documents’. CASA said that the filing system for the storage of the Medical Certificates:
Has resulted in 3 boxes of files totalling approximately 3000 pages of documents … searching for the Form 162 documents through these pages of documents would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of CASA from its operations.

If the forms are not located in these 3 boxes, then CASA will need to conduct further searches to identify other boxes which may contain the relevant forms. CASA stores forms such as the form 162 according to the date on which it is received. CASA received large amounts of such forms and other documents which are collated in batches and stored by reference to the date on which they were received.


… a practical refusal reason exists … because:


(a) The work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations due to the large volume of documents that would need to be searched to locate the documents which are the subject of your request; and


(b) The administrative burden associated with your request is unreasonable having regard to the fact that you could be expected to have an independent record of the credit card payments made by you to CASA on your credit card statement.
Hmm...maybe Herr Skull should also consider swinging some of the bucket money to Flying Fiend so he can hire a full time FOI lackey/research officer, certainly sounds like he needs some help...:(
28. CASA says that the filing system its uses for the storage of Medical Certificates consist of ‘bulk batches’ in which those documents are stored in approximate date order. CASA originally identified three boxes of documents covering the date ranges specified in Mr Barnes’s request. CASA did not explain what was involved in identifying and retrieving those boxes or how much time it thought would be needed to search those boxes for the relevant documents. During the course of the IC review, CASA undertook searches of seven boxes and said that this task took approximately ’12 hours’. CASA did not provide any additional information to indicate the time and resources it expected would be required to process the request.8
As highlighted in many of the 269 ASRR submissions, is it any wonder that there is major delays on pilot medical renewals, the poor buggers at Avmed (& subsequently the FOI duo) are still scrabbling around with paper...FFS:mad::ugh::ugh:

MTF...:ok:

Ps Maybe there lies the solution BS, JO & CVD crew...just set fire to the basement of Fort Fumble..problem solved!:D:D:E

[thorn bird]

Aww... Jezz Sarksi,


Paperwork!!..and CAsA is complaining they cant find a file in a myriad of files.


Have you seen how much paperwork is involved in maintaining a simple, low end of the complicated scale, class A aircraft? Mate we are running out of room in the hanger storing the stuff, we'll be maintaining the fleet in the paddock soon. If we ever have a fire it'll burn for weeks!!


Then there's all the shelfware you have to produce, notwithstanding the Part A com with more pages than the bible ( That's because there are more reg's than the bible...and I thought we only had to comply with ten!


Then an FCOM, Part B, CTS for each aircraft...nothing less than 400 pages is acceptable, that's aside from the opening statement that regardless of what you put in it, the Flight Manual takes precedence ( So what's it For??)


Then part C which bastardizes a simple reg relating to maintaining flight standards into something that nobody could ever afford...fourteen pages of tick in the box "aeroclub Whalla" crap which ends up costing a company around twenty grand just to employ a pilot on a basic piston twin, close to thirty on a turbo prop, and fifty plus on a jet...regardless of their past experience or currency.


And all this bullsh..t is useful for is creating hangmans nooses to pillory you with at the next audit!!..no wonder people are reluctant to apply for Chief Pilot or Check and training positions, they a poison Chalices that can and do lead to the favourite CAsA branding.."NAFAPP...Not a fit and proper person? Okay I know don't mention the war, but didn't someone we went to war with, brand their undesirables with a tatoo before shipping them to the gas chambers.

[004wercras]

Imagine if we couldn't find a piece of paper for them? They would give us a NCN and threaten us with a show cause! Dip****s. Perhaps they need to start scanning the stuff into TRIM a little better, or better still they could surely adapt a program to their holy grail of software Sky Sentinel???

And Sarcs, nice to see Flying Fiend get a mention. We have missed his posts, what's the matter Flying Fiend, cat got your tongue? Dip****.

[bankrunner]

So imagine you see a transaction on your credit card statement involving CASA. You don't know what it is (probably because you sent them a form for something 18 months ago, they only just got around to processing it and you've long forgotten what it was), and a phone call to CASA provides all the clues you'd normally expect from a phone call to Fort Fumble (none.)

You then ring your bank and dispute the transaction, because CASA can't explain why they hit your account. CASA then receives a retrieval request from their bank, meaning they have to go through all that poorly organised paperwork to find out what the transaction was for, and evidence that it was actually authorised by the cardholder.

If they come back empty handed, the bank takes the money out of FF's bank account and hands it back to you. Wonder how hard they'd look for the file when actual money is involved, rather than a mere FoIA request? :E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

004, it's funny how certain information can't be found when it's inconvenient to casa! Or key documents not getting passed on despite being brought to their attention.

Some of their staff might be able to uncover it. Heard a rumour digging up embarrassing stuff is a bit of fun.

[Kharon]

Oh boy; can't wait to hear the considered response to the excellent ABC coverage of the CVD issue. It was balanced, fair, to the point and very credible. Talk about the magnificent seven – the three guys calmly, quietly facing down overwhelming odds. - -

I reckon if Ppruners send an email out to their mates the ABC thing could go 'viral', in fact I think it's your duty, as fellow aviators to distribute the piece as far and wide as you can. Never again will there be an opportunity to demonstrate just how far from reality CASA has strayed and how the need for comprehensive reform is pressing and urgent.

Only to your ten best mates will do the trick – Whatdya say....

ABC – Link. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446?section=qld)

CVDPA - Link (http://www.cvdpa.com/)

[dubbleyew eight]

I had a phone call just a while ago. the CAsA working group and the Industry representatives working on the wording of the new legislation have no awareness that this CVD rubbish is occurring.
the chap I was talking to actually didn't believe me that this was occurring.

I was gobsmacked. nothing about the CAsA fcukwits surprises me anymore.

[scrubba]

W8,

Which working group?

[dubbleyew eight]

scrubba. no idea the name. they were working today.

[Kharon]

Rumour: good source, but totally unconfirmed.

Overheard - "The Forsyth review is irrelevant to CASA". For a Choccy frog – best guess, Who, when and where. Hints – recent, with legal overtones.....

[thorn bird]

I smell some voodoo-hoodoo?

[Night Hawk]

Why was this thread been moved to the GA forum???

Yes GA pilots are affected by this, but its also about pilots that work airlines and the word needs to seen by those in the airline world!!

[triadic]

Agreed

This subject is certainly more relevant to professional pilots. Of course GA pilots may be in the same bag, but certainly not at the same cost.

Please move it back

[brissypilot]

This subject is certainly more relevant to professional pilots. Of course GA pilots may be in the same bag, but certainly not at the same cost.

Agreed! As should http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html

Mods?

[thorn bird]

Err..guys I hope you are not implying there are no "Professional" pilots in GA?


I agree with you that these threads should be in the airline section, but please...


CAsA embuggerance has mainly affected GA, largely because the airlines went along with whatever CAsA wanted, didn't affect them they could just add the cost to ticket price, or if it got too ansy the airlines have the resources to employ very powerful legal representation and command considerable political pull.


GA has always been on the bones of its ass, which is why CAsA has been able to get away with murder.

[scrubba]

Thornbird,

I don't think the implication was against GA, rather it was about the incomprehensible reasons for moving the thread in the first place. :=

The outrage is predominantly being committed against commercial pilots and I suspect that this forum is not the first port of call for those pilots. Importantly, I also suspect that the legion of non-pilots that use PPRuNe as something of a barometer for aviation politics in Australia would not come here as a first or only window either.

Mods, please move it back!

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Modds, please move this thread back where it started, I am directly affected by this and work in the airline industry and there are heaps more like me.

SN

[Bill Smith]

Well after a rather direct complaint to ICC and a rather speedy reply, I might add, CASA has returned my ATPL privileges apologising for the "Imposition". However, I am under no illusion that they will have another crack at me further down the track pending the "New Research".
The PMO must be under a little pressure judging by the way he signed off the letter. Take a look at the way the letter was signed off

The interesting thing it in the second paragraph.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/Letter_zps4b93643a.png (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/Letter_zps4b93643a.png.html)

[Monopole]

Bill Smith, Congrats. A small personal win. Lets hope it keeps going in the right direction.


A question for you though. The letter talked about CVD deteriorating. Unlike eyesight, I thought CVD remained constant?

[brissypilot]

Bill Smith, a very interesting letter (http://www.pprune.org/8536163-post242.html). Leaves more questions than answers!

For those who missed it, ABC News Breakfast interviewed Dr Arthur Pape this morning.

Will colour blind pilots be grounded? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/will-colour-blind-pilots-be-grounded/5548492)

-4m3yc0TSXI

AIPA's letter has also been released publicly through the CVDPA and delivers a stinging criticism of the way CASA have handled this entire matter.

AIPA Letter to Minister Truss (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/AIPA-to-Truss.pdf)

Dear Minister Truss,

CASA Handling of Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) Debate

As you are aware, Australia has one of the most enlightened policy positions in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD). Our policy position followed on from the Pape (1987) and Denison (1989) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and has been vindicated by many years and thousands of hours of safe flight by pilots with CVD. However, CASA has now embarked on a set of tactics to unwind that position.

Normally, I would express the concerns of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) directly with the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, before raising the issue with you. However, it is clear to me from watching Senate Estimates that Mr McCormick is determined to press ahead with his strategy to unwind the Australian CVD policy position, regardless of both the empirical safety evidence and the unnecessary damage that will ensue to the livelihoods of a significant number of Australia’s professional aviators.

The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.

In effect, CASA has implied without evidence that the affected pilots and their employers are accepting an unnecessary risk if they continue to operate. Despite years of incident-free operations conducted on the basis of medical certification given by CASA, some operators might now feel compelled to restrict the livelihoods of their employees, simply because CASA may decide that those operators’ risk management or operational judgement is somehow deficient, thus placing their business at risk of some future regulatory action. AIPA is concerned that, should employees’ livelihoods be adversely affected as a consequence of this implied threat, CASA will not be a party to any Fair Work proceedings and will thus escape any judicial scrutiny, despite their lack of courage or justification to act directly against the medical certification already issued.

I appreciate that you would not normally intervene in matters directly affecting safety. However, AIPA does not believe that there is any evidence to suggest a safety issue in Australia’s current CVD policy – in fact, quite the opposite – and that the approach adopted by CASA is a procedural abuse that must be immediately rescinded, with the protagonists sanctioned appropriately.

In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the AAT to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).

As you know, AIPA is necessarily a champion of procedural fairness and judicial review. We are concerned generally about the industry wide view that CASA will not embrace the Government’s Model Litigant policy and that CASA is now using the AAT and the Federal Court processes to financially overwhelm industry applicants seeking independent redress. While AIPA is not in a position to truly assess the validity of that industry view, we do note the lack of positive evidence in the public arena to offset that perspective. The evidence in Senate Estimates of the CASA financial planning for the O’Brien CVD review in the AAT does not help allay any concerns that industry participants may have about the AAT moving further and further beyond the financial reach of many people to seek review of administrative decisions.

Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry.

Yours sincerely,

Nathan Safe
President
Australian & International Pilots Association

:D:D:D

The other letters from VIPA and AFAP are also available here:
http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support

[kimwestt]

A quick question - is GA CASA's "sine qua non" or vice versa?

[compressor stall]

A question for you though. The letter talked about CVD deteriorating. Unlike eyesight, I thought CVD remained constant?


Yes it does in that it doesn't deteriorate with age in a healthy eye.

There are, however, other eye conditions, although very rare, which have deterioration of colour vision as a symptom.

[Andy_RR]

So, doesn't that mean that all pilots need to be screened for colour vision deterioration, or is it just those that are initially CVD that suffer these other eye conditions?

FWIW, I am red-green (not sure whether prot. or deut.) but I know that when I wear my slightly-green-tinted prescription sunnies, I can pick ripe bananas in Woolies, whereas without, I am guessing - I don't know whether this is deleterious to air safety... Does this mean though that sunnies should be banned from the flight deck?

Anyway, for those that are, those that might be or those that don't know, here's a fun test to see if you have any CVD symptoms. Not definitive by any stretch, but it might give some a better understanding of what it means to be CVD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbuOpNZesIE (source: - http://www.city.ac.uk/health/research/centre-for-applied-vision-research/a-new-web-based-colour-vision-test)

You have to watch the coloured splodge and note when it disappears and reappears. For me it disappears between 0:21-0:22 and again at 1:07-1:09. That's enough for me to fail Ishihara as well as Farnsworth, although I'd like to have another crack at that.

I do actually wonder how much CVD is self-taught in youth. Having grown up "knowing" I couldn't tell the difference between red and green lights, I didn't really even try.

[Creampuff]

Andy RR must be banned from the skies! Or we could be sensible adults....

I'm doing as much as I can (making submissions and writing letters) to express support for CVD pilots and abject disappointment at the regulator's actions.

Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.

[outofwhack]

Andy_rr,

Ever been accused of missing the point?
I highly recommend reading this thread from post #1 before posting.

OOW

[Andy_RR]

Andy_rr,

Ever been accused of missing the point?
I highly recommend reading this thread from post #1 before posting.

OOW

Actually, I did read through almost all of the thread OOW. I do believe though that educating the public as to what CVD actually is, is part of the job.

As I grew up, most (non-CVD) people told me I couldn't be this or couldn't do that because I was "colour-blind" - most of which I have subsequently done at some point in my life. The point here is that those that are "not CVD" don't know what it means to be so and probably wouldn't even know if they were - Dr Navathe included (is he CVD at all - does anyone know?)

Sorry if I get in your way though!

[004wercras]

Dr Navathe included (is he CVD at all - does anyone know?) Don't know if he suffers from CVD, but it is rumoured that a number of CAsA executives suffer from/are "galactorrhea, microphallus and allodoxaphobia".

[Kharon]

KW "[is] GA CASA's "sine qua non" or vice versa?

As in non essential; the vice is found hidden deep within. The versa may be objectively discussed: proposition, does self administration work?. In theory, it's a ripper idea, but in reality, it's a ticklish problem; and, one would normally feel a degree of sympathy for the regulator, who, at the end of the shift, is responsible to government for oversight. Independent 'management' of aviation activities while providing a further layer of governmental protection can conversely bite them on the bum just as quickly. Human nature being what it is.

The AAAA and GFA, for example, have done a splendid job and made it work; some of the others have not impressed. So what to do? The problems are as easy to identify as the solutions, AAAA have had the benefit of solid, practical, honest management, supported by the 'members'. Where this is not a feature, the picture get 'raggedy' around the edges which, understandably, makes the regulator 'nervous'. When the regulator is in disarray, poorly led, the lower management levels are governed by some of questionable integrity; and their troops on the ground are less than satisfactory, the seeds for a complete cluster fech are sown. Add a touch of paranoia, a dash of ignorance, a splash of vengeance, a dab of corruption to the mixture, and blind Freddy can see it's going to end in tears...

It comes down to trust, honour, integrity, cooperation and that rarest of animals, common or garden horse sense. Clear policy from the board (if we must have one) positive leadership from the DAS and faith in the integrity and knowledge of those 'on the ground' would greatly assist to make self administration an economic and operational successes. But, as it stands right now, the vice is endemic, the versa pissed off and between Rafferty and Murphy – we find today's mares nest.

So, to answer your erudite question (an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary) I've got no fecking idea mate, none. But something has to give, we cannot continue the way we are and expect to have a vibrant industry... The forces are too oppugnait.

Toot toot -

[JandakotJoe]

From reading the documentation it sounds like this CVD issue has arisen from NZ medical and/or administrative processes. Since this "poohshan" fella has migrated (most latterly) from NZ it would not be unreasonable to wonder if the concept caught a ride in with him, possibly to be imported as his own personal cause celebre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ramble on]

Jandakot Joe nailed it!! Wow, great post, in fact best post on pprune in a long time.

The PMO also brought his bloody 8 page medical renewal form with him. He can take that with him when he goes too.

[Kharon]

JJoe – If you didn't spot it, there's a little more information on the Pprune - Empire Strikes (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html#post8156628) - thread, kicked off by Arthur Pape and some very good information from the CVD tribe on their website – CVDPA. (http://cvdpa.com/news/further-enlightenment)

[Dora-9]

Great post, Jandakot Joe!

[27/09]

Jandacot Joe, ramble on, Dora 9, Pooshan learnt the trade from an Aussie, one Dougal Watson, whom we'd happily send back over the ditch. I'd say Pooshan is only bring some stuff back home.