Petition to Minister Truss

[brissypilot]

A link to this petition has already been posted in the Empire Strikes Back (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-16.html)thread.

Given that it is also relevant to many airline pilots, as indicated by the strong support shown by each of the three major pilot unions (http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support) (AFAP / AIPA / VIPA), I thought it was worthwhile posting it in this section too.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/petition_zps3d1f124a.jpg (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/petition_zps3d1f124a.jpg.html)

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

(There is an option to hide your signature if you don't wish this to be displayed)

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

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

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

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

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

We petition Minister Truss to:

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

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

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

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

[papakurapilot]

Hi Brissypilot,

All done, everyone should do this as they need not fear discrimination from CASA due to the fact no one has to put their name publicly too it.

[vee1-rotate]

Signed by another CVD pilot !

[Sarcs]

Creamy: “Get involved people, or a bureaucrat on an unjustified medical crusade will be meddling unnecessarily in your life next…” :ugh:

Take heed of the Creamy statement and get on-board the CVD petition, the numbers are past 500 but they need many more…:ok:

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

Recent petition Comments:

helen castles (https://www.change.org/u/119311800) AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND
my husband is a pilot and my son wants to be one but is slightly colour blind. my husband doesn't believe his inpairment would affect his ability to fly.

phil boughey (https://www.change.org/u/119273470) AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND
I am an airline pilot for Air NZ, my son, all he wants to do more than anything is to become a pilot. he is colour blind, but he plans to try his hardest to become a pilot for a major airline. he's 10 years old now, and I sure hope once he's old enough there will be the opportunity for his dreams to come true.

Ian Kirton (https://www.change.org/u/119143970) HONG KONG
I am a second generation pilot. My nephew is CVD but has commenced his flight training regardless. He has never wanted to be anything else other than a pilot like his Grandfather, his Father and myself, his Uncle. He should be allowed the same potential future as we have already enjoyed in our own careers and lives. Passion for aviation should never be punished but encouraged and mentored.

Ron Tomlinson (https://www.change.org/u/119128460) INVERURIE, UNITED KINGDOM
I simply want my night rating.



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

TICK..TOCK..TIME Miniscule!:{


Voices of Reason:



ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.


ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.


MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

[Kharon]

500 in 24 hours is a good start; don't forget the AIPA, AFAP and VIPA associations don't count as one vote each; they speak for the majority of industry pilots and their support in this campaign is invaluable.

It's excellent to see the O's pilots weighing in; it has been said, many times; the real tragedy here is the denial of 25 years of empirical evidence that the 'safety case' is flimsy at best at could stand some serious discussion. Had Australia continued with the original intention, many pilots, world wide could have enjoyed the benefit of 'certainty'.

1) CVD pilots expect varying degrees of difficulty passing any medical Colour Vision Test (CVT). 'Laboratory' based tests are specifically designed to identify the CVD pilot. There is however a demonstrated, significant disparity between CVDP performance during 'laboratory' CVT and the performance noted when physically flying aircraft. This is acknowledged by the ICAO in the statement below:

“The problem with colour vision standards for pilots and air traffic controllers is that there is very little information which shows the real, practical implications of colour vision defects on aviation safety.” (ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine 2012, Section 11.8.29).

2) This fact was recognised during the Denison appeal and defines why the tribunal recommended (paragraph 78) that suitable “practical” tests be devised. This ultimately led to the inclusion of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) 67.150 (6)(c) which approved the option of a test which “simulates an operational situation”.

3) It should be noted that at the conclusion of the Denison appeal, the Authority undertook to promote the outcome of the appeal to the wider aviation world. This undertaking was implemented in particular by former CASA Aviation Medical Directors, Dr Rob Liddell, Dr Jeff Brock and Dr Peter Wilkins. The ruling provided a brief period of pragmatic, sensible reform within the Avmed. The Avmed department during this enlightened era was much in favour of promoting the Australian experience at the international level, with a view to promote more research and define universal colour vision standards in other countries; and, to examine the case for the removal of standard entirely.

4) During this era, each Doctor associated expressed concerns that the CVD testing methods were flawed and that they needed to be redesigned to reflect operational relevance; as the tribunal had recommended. Waivers were routinely provided allowing pilots to exercise ATPL privileges. This, despite individual inability to meet 'laboratory' CVT standards, allowed CVD pilots to demonstrate ability necessary for the safe performance of duties, thus allowing CVD pilots to exercise, to the full, the authority of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL).

Why must we now, suddenly decide to deny this not only to our pilots, but to the world, is beyond me. But without a better argument than Avmed are putting up, even challenging the Denison findings seems to be a futile exercise.

My bold

[Sarcs]

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

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

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

No nothing there??

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

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

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

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

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

A couple more recent comments:


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




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

MTF…:ok:

[Pearly White]

Done! Over 800 have signed now, and counting... Only another couple of hundred needed - but wouldn't it be luvverly to get another 30,000?

[LeadSled]

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

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

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

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

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

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

in the interest of millions of dollars of lost economic activity we need to end the entire CAsA approach to aviation. it doesn't assure safety.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Rather disappointing that the petition has only got 1400 signatures. I feel people are feeling this is CVD doesn't affect me? Take a look at the treatment they have received. Could you ever develop a condition that could be treated in the same way?

[aroa]

Oh so true...
CAsA is a monstrous CON JOB, and disastrous for small business in this country.
:mad::mad::mad:

1. As USA has been saying for years/decades...the PUNITIVE approach to avaitaion safety DOES NOT WORK. Only the control FREAKS in FF think it does.
:mad::mad::mad: BIG R my aRse!

2. Businesses cannot thrive and survive with inordinate delays with paperwork, exorbitant fees, and all the other BS imposts put upon the GA Industry.
CAsA creates work for itself to justify it being there...but the burden of time and money wasting from that crap falls on people who are trying to make a go of it.

3. Revolution time has come. :ok::ok: We, the people ,etc DEMAND it :ok:

Goverments, miniscules, politicians, boreds, das and ceos have shown over decades they have neither the interest, or the leadership or any capability to drive/force/smash thru the CAsA iron barrier and bring about the saving of GA in this country.

The costs have been enormous ..and not just for the taxpayer, individuals and businesses have been on the receiving end of corruption, cronyism falsehoods and misfeasance. :mad::mad::mad: Just ask JQ as one example.

And is Australia a safer place for all of this?

I'm afraid the answer is NO, writ VERY large :mad::mad:

And do remember CAsA.s code is actually No Accountability, No Liability

2c for today

[004wercras]

Rather disappointing that the petition has only got 1400 signatures. Fullbiscuit, I have signed the petition :ok:
However the problem is this - you could have 1.4 million signatures and it won't make a difference. CAsA don't understand, or care. They are now so paranoid about accountability that they even try to enforce rules based on 'potential'! What a pack of morons.
Truss is a numbnut, a dithering old trough extractor and self proclaimed protector of his ass and retirement funds. He couldn't give two handfuls of monkey **** about any IOS petition, or about another human beings flying career and livelihood, and neither does his underling Mr Pumpkin Head.

That is why most of Australia's aviation industry is silent about this matter. They know it is a waste of time and a futile endeavour to seek fair change because it won't happen. They could still support their brothers, after all it used to be the Aussie way, just look at our ANZACS! But not anymore, society doesn't care and neither does the government.

Civil disobedience and a revolution is the way to go, just look at America, not long to go now!!
Who knows, maybe a member of Anonymous will become DAS? Now that I would pay to see!

"Off with their heads"

[T28D]

Geez Guys and Gals, can we look at this in the positive we have a petition going and we have so far collected 1400 signatures, this is good !!!!!!!!!

[Creampuff]

The petition to decriminalise the use of medicinal cannabis for people with terminal cancer has 186,000 + supporters…

[thorn bird]

Exactly creamie,

34,000 pilots in Australia and 1400 signatures????.


over an issue that could affect any of us!

The "I'm all right Jack" is alive and well

[Creampuff]

Very disappointing but - and it pains me to say it - unsurprising. :(

[SIUYA]

Very disappointing but - and it pains me to say it - unsurprising.

It's called Learned Helplessness Creampuff. :{

From About.com

Learned Helplessness (What It Is and Why It Happens) (http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm)

Learned helplessness occurs when an animal is repeatedly subjected to an aversive stimulus that it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action.

While the concept is strongly tied to animal psychology and behavior, it can also apply to many situations involving human beings. When people feel that they have no control over their situation, they may also begin to behave in a helpless manner. This inaction can lead people to overlook opportunities for relief or change.

In other words Creampuff, perhaps the disappointing response is indicating that most folks have realised that it's simply not possible to change the situation here in Australia, and that they've simply given up? :ooh:

[004wercras]

The petition to decriminalise the use of medicinal cannabis for people with terminal cancer has 186,000 + supporters…
Hope none of those 186 000 are pilots, otherwise Fort Fumble will step up its DAMP testing in an effort to rid the skies of those pesky IOS!
I think some of the lunatics in the CAsA asylum might have been smoking spliffs for years. Fools

[dubbleyew eight]

23 million australians.
34,000 pilots.

if those numbers are correct we are 1 in 676 of the population.

[Kharon]

TM # 2020 Senate (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-101.html#post8557717) "Does this mean that 32,600 pilots agree with CASA in regard to the danger of CDV pilots?"

Well lets look see here, 2250 from the AIPA representation, the AFAP bring another few hundred, then there's VIPA. All 'big' membership associations, with clout and connections, even the AOPA have chipped in. So with the humble 1400 or so votes from Pprune, I'd say old mate is, once again, talking through his hat (provided he knows of course, which end the hat goes on).

Oh, and don't forget Senator Fawcett has a vote, his speech last evening was most enlightening; but I wouldn't expect anyone brain dead to count that in – but they should.

[Sarcs]

CVD & IOS Senator Fawcett hears your angst!


Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a LAME—understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[thorn bird]

Senator Fawcett,

A heartfelt thank you.

[dubbleyew eight]

where the hell is Truss in all this?
has he vanished?

where is the member for wide bay?

[Kharon]

This article from Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/14/an-australian-senators-defence-of-colour-blind-pilots/) – is worth the read; and it's very nice to have men in government who keep their word.. – Xenophon (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/09/15/independent-push-for-better-air-safety-standards-in-australia/) -.

[Sarcs]

Comment from the PT article goes to the pettiness of this whole sordid stance by the FF PMO (DAS & iron ring) to CVD pilots...:D: Fueldrum (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/14/an-australian-senators-defence-of-colour-blind-pilots/#comment-27156)

To fly across the sky is a privilege, not a right. To be protected against illegal discrimination is a right, not a privilege. The rights of one are the rights of all.

Disability discrimination is illegal unless (a) the disability actually elevates the risk of an accident, and (b) no steps that can reasonably be taken will offset that elevation of risk. If CASA had any scientific evidence that colour vision defects elevate the risk of an accident, they would have published it by now. Certainly they had nothing resembling defensible evidence in the court cases 25 years ago.

If CASA can, without evidence, exclude pilots with this insignificant disability from aviation, then pilots with diet-controlled diabetes, puffer-controlled asthma, and a hundred other insignificant ailments will not be far behind. We all remember what happened to our CVD colleagues in air traffic control. The Creamy post #406 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-21.html#post8562164)on ESB thread perhaps eloquently summarises the FF (BASR) legal viewpoint when it comes to the John O'Brien AAT hearing in October. However the proposed FF embuggerance, of yet another minority group, further highlights how so far removed from mitigating legitimate air safety risk the regulator has become...:ugh:

Meanwhile the rest of the world marches on in improving air safety...:ok:

Quote from last week's Senator Fawcett Senate adjournment speech on CVD pilots, here (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%201.pdf)(my bold)...

"...In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit...

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

Perhaps to help Senator Fawcett with his reasoned, empirically, factual argument, the following is a short poohtube vid from Rockwell Collins promoting their, soon to be approved, Enhanced Vision System.

Rockwell Collins Head-up Vision System - YouTube
The new system, available on both head-up and head-down displays, includes a proprietary multi-spectral EVS sensor, developed by Rockwell Collins, that significantly improves detection of outside terrain, hazards and obstacles in low-visibility conditions caused by weather phenomena such as fog. The EVS-3000 also brings the industry-first ability to fully detect LED lighting, which is increasingly utilized by airports as a runway lighting solution (watch preview video (http://youtu.be/R6kKdwu6ss0)).

“We’re bringing unprecedented accuracy in sensing what’s ahead during critical phases of flight,” said Craig Olson, senior director, Head-up Guidance Systems for Rockwell Collins. “At the same time, operators will experience enhanced reliability and lower cost of ownership from our lower-weight, more energy-efficient EVS solution.” Hmm...not a lot of colour in that display...:rolleyes:

Also noticed a short article from Oz Flying that came out yesterday about an Aussie invention that could actually save lives i.e. mitigate a safety issue that is killing people:Aussie Invention Tackles Spatial Disorientation (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aussie-invention-tackles-spatial-disorientation)

14 Jul 2014

A South Australian general aviation pilot has developed a system to help pilots avoid spatial disorientation.

Spatial disorientation involves pilots being unable to detect the position of their aircraft when they have no visual reference of the horizon, such as when flying on dark nights or in IMC.

The Green Orientation Light (GO Light), invented by pilot Russell Crane, casts a green light over the lower section of the cockpit, and is always aligned with the horizon, regardless of the aircraft attitude or angle of bank.

This enables pilots to use peripheral vision in the cockpit rather than having to seek out the artificial horizon to establish the aeroplane's attitude.

"The GO Light is a system of gyroscopically moving lights that will give pilots a constant reference point of the horizon in their peripheral vision, helping them stay continually aware of the plane’s attitude,” Crane said.

“Everyone has experienced spatial disorientation at some time or another. Think of when you’re in a car, stationary in traffic, and you get the feeling of backwards movement when the car next to you moves forward. That’s spatial disorientation.

“Presently, to verify orientation when there are no visual cues, the pilot has to focus on their small attitude indicator (AI) instrument. However, this verification requires the pilot to recognise that they may be disorientated and actively focus their attention on the AI."

The idea has the support of AvLaw International chairman Ron Bartsch – a former airline safety manager and current UNSW aviation lecturer.

“A solution to spatial disorientation is like the elusive Holy Grail of aviation safety,” Bartsch said. “The GO Light takes the concept of the AI and turns it into a constant part of the pilot’s subconscious perception.

“If this concept can be taken forward and commercialised, it could be the most important Australian aviation invention since the black box.’’
To find out more, visit the GO Light website (http://www.go-light.com.au/). Well done that man..:D:D:ok:

So while FF continue to argue the toss on a non-safety issue (BASR), other bright people (including an aussie) are quietly getting on with the business of actually improving air safety...CAsA for WOFTAM award 2014..:E

[Kharon]

Ducking amazing, the rest of the world moves forward; blind landing HUD from Rockwell, who decided that colours were not only un-required but would distract. NVG same thinking, the Australian developed 'horizon' generator (what a bonzer idea).. All developed to promote safety and efficiency in hostile environment.

Yet here we sit, the enlightened 'regulator' hell bent on taking a 25 year leap, back in time.

Stellar, breathtakingly, stunningly, amazingly wonderful. Makes me proud to be an Australian, if only I could loose the ball and chain, I might even be able to jump for joy in celebration of our enhanced safety ethos.

Give me strength, I know patience is out of the question..

Toot toot....-.

[Dingowalkabout]

We'll done guys, keep em coming!
Let's show Aussie pilots can get together and do some good united!

[Frank Arouet]

Two great leaps forward in safety. Here's me thinking the electric roller door was a miracle and CVD was probably only a handicap when in the interior decorating business.

[Sarcs]

Latest count is at 1627 signatures, would be nice to take to 2000 or beyond..:D

A comment from the petition that goes to the heart of this injustice...
After 23 years of being in command of commercial aircraft including 12 years with the Royal Flying Doctor Service and now with a large airline it seems CASA in their infinite wisdom suddenly say I'm unsafe. I have accumulated over 8000 flight hours including over 2000 at night in single pilot IFR operations in full glass cockpit aircraft. What a load of BS! Still I'll line up for the doll if it happens, I've certainly paid enough in taxes over the years.
Although Creamy's post #431 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-22.html#post8577308) is somewhat reassuring in regards to the flawed legal argument from CAsA, it is dependent on the matter continuing through to the Federal Court, a process that could possibly be very prolonged, unaffordable and out of reach for JO (& others)...:ugh:

Quote from Senator Fawcett's latest newsletter (The Fawcett Flyer, July '14):My background as a test pilot and flying instructor has informed my invovlement in the reform of aviation safety regulation (see article attached which appeared in Australian Aviation Magazine July 2014).

Australia has 36,000 licensed pilots, of whom a small group of around 400 have some colour vision deficiency (CVD) and are now finding their careers under threat from decisions taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). For many decades, global aviation authorities have relied on assumptions (first published in 1926) that the inability to distinguish red and green would render an individual unsafe to pilot an aircraft, particularly by night.

These assumptions were challenged in the Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal over 25 years ago and expert witnesses presented a convincing safety case that a CVD did not in fact make a pilot unsafe.

Following this evidence-based ruling, Australia has led the world by allowing pilots with a CVD to fly as the captain or co-pilot of aircraft, engaged in roles ranging from overnight freight to the Flying Doctor. CVD pilots have now flown thousands of hours by day and by night with no safety incidents or concerns as a result of their vision. Even though it has not produced any new evidence to support its decisions, CASA now appears to have decided to wind back these hard won rights (as highlighted on ABC 7:30 recently). While it may be a relatively small group of people whose lives and careers are impacted, it is a matter of justice for those affected, and I will continue to pursue a just outcome for these Australians.
Now although it is reassuring that DF is still very much fighting for the CVD cause, it is apparent that his efforts (so far at least) to garner govt support & funding for JO to be equally represented in the AAT (& potentially the Federal court) have fallen on the very deaf ears of Truss...:ugh:

Therefore the better option IMO is for the miniscule to stop this lunacy before it gets to the AAT i.e. get back to Reason. However the word is the old DAS is using the CVD matter for his last hoorah to stick it up the IOS (with a middle finger)...:{

So until such time as the miniscule gets off the pot & actions the ASRR recommendations and appoints a new Board, who in turn appoints a new DAS, the current PMO CVD policy will not change!:=

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

[brissypilot]

It seems the PMO can't stick to a decision about CVD pilot applicants.... The FAQ (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_91593) section of the CAsA website has been changed yet again today :=

In April we had...
You would have noticed that your recent medical certificate had a condition 13 which read "Limited to flights conducted inside Australian territory" instead of the earlier "Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1".

Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.

On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.

Aviation Medicine

In May we had...
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass, as per Part 67. If all tests are failed, the class 1 certificate is refused.

In June we had....
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Today we have...
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD. To satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150, the applicant must first attempt the Ishihara test. If they fail that test, they must then undertake the Farnsworth Lantern test. If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken. Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant’s CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.

There is also the debacle of Bill Smith's ATPL privileges being withdrawn (http://www.pprune.org/8526959-post197.html) then re-instated (http://www.pprune.org/8536163-post242.html).

Perhaps it's time for the PMO to resign and let someone else assume the role who can at least be consistent with their decisions? Perhaps someone who respects the advice of those who are more qualified and capable of making judgements?

McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2014/119.html)
50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other.

56. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions.

How much longer will this bureaucrat be allowed to continue to destroy pilot's livelihoods and send them (and the taxpayer!) broke through the AAT before enough is enough? :ugh:

I see Senator Fawcett is asking the same question in a written QON (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/QoN_Index_Infrastructure.pdf) published a few days ago:

273
244
CASA
FAWCETT

Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;

As Creampuff has eloquently highlighted in the ESB thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-21.html), the CVD matter is boiling down to the PMO's inability to interpret CASR 67.150(6)(c).

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

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

He could even start by looking up some of the definitions in the new Part 61. It may give him a few hints on the meanings of those tricky words. :rolleyes:

CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2013 (NO. 1) - REG 61.010 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/calar20131464/s61.010.html)

"operational endorsement" means any of the following endorsements:
(a) an aerial application endorsement;
(b) a flight activity endorsement;
(c) a flight examiner endorsement;
(d) an instrument endorsement;
(e) a low-level endorsement;
(f) a night VFR endorsement;
(g) a night vision imaging system endorsement;
(h) a private instrument endorsement;
(i) a training endorsement;
(j) a flight engineer examiner endorsement;
(k) a flight engineer training endorsement.

"operational rating" means any of the following ratings:
(a) an aerial application rating;
(b) an examiner rating;
(c) an instructor rating;
(d) an instrument rating;
(e) a low-level rating;
(f) a night VFR rating;
(g) a night vision imaging system rating;
(h) a private instrument rating.

"simulated flight" time means time spent in a flight simulation training device during which a pilot is performing the duties of a pilot.

"simulated IMC" means flight in an aircraft or flight simulation training device during which the pilot is prevented from viewing the external horizon.

:ok:

[Creampuff]

Today we have ... Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD.Why do these people appear to be unable to understand and comply with what the law says, when they presume to expect others to comply?

The relevant requirement is not that the candidate "be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD."

The relevant requirement is, unsurprisingly, what the law says.

The law says the requirement is:(e) either:

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

(ii) if the applicant does not meet that medical standard—the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation;[See CASR 67.180(2)(e). My bolding]

The requirement is not that the applicant "not pose a danger to safety". The requirement is that the applicant is "not likely to endanger" the safety of air navigation.

The test stated by CASA - "not pose" - is binary: Zero danger. The test stated in the law is a probability: "not likely". There is a profound difference.

Were CASA not blinded by prejudice, it would comprehend the reason for the requirement being a probability: Everyone and everything poses a danger to safety, but the probabilities and consequences are infinitely variable. The world is a dangerous place and life is full of risk. Witness the fact that most aviation accidents and incidents are caused by humans with perfect colour perception.

It's simple, CASA: Just apply and comply with the law in its terms.

[Sarcs]

Trolling through (now ancient history) some of the submissions (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/submissions-casa-exemption-application) of the CAsA HREOC exemption application in 2002...

"...The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) applied on 29 July 2002 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for temporary exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ("SDA"), section 44, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ("DDA"), section 55, for persons acting pursuant to existing Civil Aviation Regulations regarding medical fitness and proposed amendments to those regulations..."

...some of which are very good and hold many similar arguments that the pilot CVD fraternity are currently putting forward and that Arthur successfully argued all those years ago...:D:D

A. Denman (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/disability_rights/exemptions/casa/subs/denman.doc); W.Hamilton (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/disability_rights/exemptions/casa/subs/hamilton.doc); Civil Air Association (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/disability_rights/exemptions/casa/subs/civilair.doc); Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association / Association of Women Pilots (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/disability_rights/exemptions/casa/subs/aopa_awpa.doc);

From CAA submission:Colour perception
3.37

Can readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant licence
Note For how to demonstrate this, see subregulation 67.160 (6).



There have not been any ATC performance issues, be they safety related or otherwise, to support these changes. The changes to the testing process for colour vision impaired people proposed by CASA are unnecessary and will certainly discriminate against current and future air traffic controllers with colour vision impairment.

Discrimination in employment is dealt with at section 15 of the DDA. At clause 4, it states,

“(4)Neither paragraph (1)(b) nor (2)(c) renders unlawful discrimination by an employer against a person on the ground of the person's disability, if taking into account the person's past training, qualifications and experience relevant to the particular employment and, if the person is already employed by the employer, the person's performance as an employee, and all other relevant factors that it is reasonable to take into account, the person because of his or her disability:

(a) would be unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the particular employment; or

(b) would, in order to carry out those requirements, require services or facilities that are not required by persons without the disability and the provision of which would impose an unjustifiable hardship on the employer.”

We stand on the evidence of past practice and performance of employees with colour vision impairment to illustrate that these people are able to carry out the inherent requirements of their particular employment and indicate that the test that allows them to do so, the Farnsworth lantern test, does not cause unjustifiable hardship to their employer, Airservices Australia. The tests for colour vision impairment are conducted once only as the condition of colour vision impairment never alters. As an alternative, all other Class 3 medical tests such as eyesight, audio, physical fitness, cholesterol level, diabetes, blood pressure must be conducted every two years because these results can change. Even accepting the proposition that the additional Farnsworth test is an expense, it not an ongoing expense and given the limited nature of the condition in males (8% or less), it is not required very often and if required would be conducted within the cost structures associated with normal biannual medical examination (at no additional cost).

To allow the exemption sought by the CASA would mean that colour vision impaired people would not be able to work as air traffic controllers despite no evidence that the condition prevents them from performing the inherent requirements of the their occupation and on that basis we submit that the exemption conflicts with the object of the DDA.

We note the findings of Mr. Barry L Cole AO, Professor of Optometry, Feb 1998, who prepared a report for Airservices Australia, “Colour Vision Standards for Air Traffic Controllers” the purpose of which was to advise, “whether or not the current Australian colour vision standards for air traffic controllers is appropriate for operation of the Thomson radar TAAATS air traffic management system”

He provided three options for Airservices Australia to consider for risk minimisation, and we quote these directly from his report,

“Option 1 – Exclude all persons with defective colour vision.

Exclude all persons with abnormal colour vision on the grounds that there is risk and that there is no present method of test that has been shown to differentiate from among those with mild deutronomaly which ones may be handicapped in the operation of modern ATC systems.

This option makes the presumption that the social and economic risks of air accident outweighs any social disadvantage arising from the exclusion of a further 3% of men from employment in ATC.

Mertens recommends this option and it is well supported by the evidence. It is an easy and inexpensive standard to administer. The high social and economic risks that could be associated with errors in air traffic control give further weight to the argument that all colour vision defectives should be excluded.

Option 2- Introduce a test of the ability to distinguish surface colours additional to the Lantern Test

Modify the existing standard in the following ways –
(b) ensure that the standard based on the Farnsworth lantern is administered rigorously without exception or waiver so that those who pass are the more mildly affected anomalous trichromats, and

(c) subject those who pass the Farnsworth lantern to further tests to-

(i) identify and exclude those who have a protan defect by testing using the locally available Medmont C100 test or by referral to a colour vision clinic for testing with an anomaloscope.

(ii) confirm (or otherwise) they have reasonable ability to distinguish surface colours. This can be done by administering and requiring a pass the Farnsworth Panel D15 test.

These changes to the colour vision standard will ensure that only those with mildly defective colour vision and who do not have a reduced ability to see red signals undertake ATC duties.

Option 3 - A practical test of performance with colour coded displays

A third option is to develop a practical test to establish whether or not a person with defective vision is able to carry out the task of air traffic control using colour coded graphics displays.

This option is an attractive one to those who are concerned that occupational health standards do not discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities. A practical test reassures those who are not convinced that presence of a disability in itself demonstrates that there will be reduced task performance.

This is a reasonable viewpoint: it is necessary to show that the presence of a defect will impede practical performance and, if it is not possible to do this, then a test to exclude people with a disability would be discriminatory.

However, in riposte, it can be said that the evidence supporting the view that defective colour vision is an impediment to satisfactory performance in tasks involving colour coding is quite compelling. This evidence has been summarised in the sections above. It can also be said that there is no experimental evidence to show that persons with defective colour vision do perform such tasks equally as well as those with normal colour vision. It is not as if there is a conflict of evidence, there is evidence that defective colour vision is a risk factor and no evidence that it is not.”

In his final recommendation, Cole proposed to exclude from ATC all people with defective colour vision as this would be the least expensive option and because of the risks associated with such people not properly recognizing colours. As an alternative, for people who had a very mild defect and may not have any trouble with ATC colour codes, he proposed that such people must pass the Farnsworth lantern test and also seek an optometrists opinion about whether they have a deutean defect or a protan defect. The suggestion here being, we believe, to exclude people with a protan defect.

For convenience we underlined the section in this report that shows how these tests can discriminate against people with disabilities. Cole identifies the option that contains no risk and least cost (Option 1) but also notes that, “it is necessary to show that the presence of a defect will impede practical performance and, if it is not possible to do this, then a test to exclude people with a disability would be discriminatory.”

On the basis of this material we submit that the case for the psuedoisochromatic test in isolation being fair or not discriminatory is undermined by Cole’s statements in the report provided to Airservices.
Alas it was all to no avail as the HRC in their wisdom granted CAsA an exemption for a period of five years...:ugh: Decision of the Commission (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/notice-hreoc-exemption-decision-re-civil-aviation-safety-authority)

(https://www.humanrights.gov.au/notice-hreoc-exemption-decision-re-civil-aviation-safety-authority)
The Commission grants a conditional exemption from sections 19 and 29 of the DDA, and from sections 18 and 26 of the SDA, to persons acting pursuant to existing Civil Aviation Regulations regarding medical fitness, or pursuant to currently proposed amendments to those regulations.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions.

1. The exemptions commence on 26 November 2002 and expire on 26 November 2007.

2. The exemptions are to apply only where a person's pregnancy (for the purposes of the SDA) or disability (for the purposes of the DDA) prevents the person safely fulfilling the inherent requirements of the role covered by the licence concerned. I can only presume that in the interim period of the exemption (cause it is very hard to track) that FF then took it upon themselves to notify the only difference to the ICAO CVD SARP as such...

"...Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider..."

...and if you read, in particular, the Denham & CAA submissions you will see that this strange (discriminatory for future ATC CVD applicants) ND is very much in keeping with the regs (CASR 67.150 & 67.160) as it still facilitates for those existing & identified ATC CVD officers.

However my questions are:

Is this ASA discriminatory ATC hiring policy still in place or are future ATC applicants with an identified CVD limited in scope of the roles they can perform??

Was the 2002 FF exemption application (approved for five years) all part of a GMP (Grand Master Plan) to bring us in line with the ICAO SARPs & therefore avoiding any possible future liability (liability paranoia strikes again)??

TA in advance...:ok:

[Kharon]

Is how, disability and discrimination law can be used to effectively discriminate against folks – by an exemption against the law which prohibits it?? The AOPA and WPA argument made by Marjorie Pagani (Hi Damon) makes excellent sense and supports Creampuff's stance. The ATCO union made equally as much sense; of course, now the expired exemption has been cast in stone as "policy" and just not challenged; perhaps these groups need to look once again to their armour to protect their digs – being as it's come now to the pilots turn to be the thin end of the wedge. Liability paranoia – writ large...

Pagani
a. The bases upon which it is based are fundamentally flawed;

b. It is anathema to the concept of protection of fundamental human rights to grant a “temporary” exemption for five years (or at all) for exemption from human rights legislation, so as to enable the applicant (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, referred to as the CASA) time within which to attempt to persuade the parliament to amend the existing legislation (Civil Aviation Act) to exclude the human rights legislation;

c. The application, and proposed regulations, would have the combined effect of reversing the onus of proof from the authority seeking to discriminate, to the person against whom the discriminatory conduct has been directed.

The CASA (and former authorities differently named and constituted) has therefore had, respectively, fourteen years and ten years to take steps to have the CAA amended in order to protect it from suits brought pursuant to the human rights legislation. The CASA now and proposes further regulatory frameworks which it is concerned may offend the human rights legislation. The proposed regulations have been extant for more than four years, and contain some provisions which mirror those in the existing regulations.

The CASA alleges that it has “initiated action” to have the relevant section of the CAA amended so as to enable it to make the proposed regulations with impunity, so far as the human rights legislation is concerned. The submission made is vague in the extreme. No information is provided as to what steps have been taken, when they have been taken, what stage the action has reached, and importantly, when the debate is likely to occur. Indeed, the applicant merely submits that it “cannot..say what the time frame is for this amendment to be enacted.” The application appears to be brought for the purpose of buying an indefinite period of time within which to persuade parliament to enact legislation which would prevail over the human rights legislation.

The application is not consistent with the objects of the relevant human rights legislation. The effect of the proposed legislation and exemption will be to promote, rather than eliminate, discrimination, in circumstances where the affected person must have the financial and emotional resources to challenge the discriminatory act which has been carried out without regard to the individual circumstances of that affected person. A statutorily-imposed right to discriminate should only be permitted in the most extreme circumstances, and where no other course is possible. This is not the case in the present application, and it is submitted that there has been presented no evidence of such a nature as would permit a finding that the CASA would be compelled to do the proposed discriminatory acts for the purposes of aviation safety or consistency with other States.

The legislation seeks to eliminate discrimination where possible. The exemption sought seeks to permit mandatory discrimination with impunity against redress by the affected person.

Civil Air.

Civil Air seeks that the application by CASA for exemption from the DDA and the SDA be refused on the basis that the changes proposed by CASA to Part 6 of the Civil Aviation Medical Standards would be in conflict with the objects of the Disability Discrimination Act and Sex Discrimination Act. Those objects in essence seek to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability or gender. Our interest in this issue applies to discrimination in the workplace.

In relation to the changes proposed by CASA to alter the testing regime for class 3 medical holders with colour defective vision (67.160(6) and (7)); we are aware of operational air traffic controllers who are working despite their colour vision impairment. These people have been employed by Airservices for significant periods of time and their length of employment combined with an absence of any evidence of identified problems in performance suggests that these individuals are most able to carry out the ‘inherent requirements’ of their particular employment. This continues to be the case in the current Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (“TAAATS”) environment where the colour palette is certainly diversified. TAAATS has been operational since 1999. The condition has not to date been safety relevant in any way.

The other submissions provided by Sarcs are equally compelling; perhaps it's just me being 'thick' but really, from where is the PonyPooh-Shambollic argument going to find some serviceable legs – in law – without that champion of law benders prepared to lend them the tools to do it.

The tick stopped tocking a number of years ago on the discrimination waiver; perhaps this is a heroic attempt to wind it up; it's certainly winding up everyone else's.

What say you Maestro Creampuff.

Hesitant Toot – with a slightly bemused second - toot.

[Creampuff]

Again, and unsurprisingly, it all depends on the evidence, and the weight to be attributed to that evidence.
You will see in the extracts copied by Sarcs above, extracts from a report to Airservices by a "Mr. Barry L Cole AO, Professor of Optometry". His report said, among other things:[I]t is necessary to show that the presence of a defect will impede practical performance and, if it is not possible to do this, then a test to exclude people with a disability would be discriminatory.

However, in riposte, it can be said that the evidence supporting the view that defective colour vision is an impediment to satisfactory performance in tasks involving colour coding is quite compelling. This evidence has been summarised in the sections above. It can also be said that there is no experimental evidence to show that persons with defective colour vision do perform such tasks equally as well as those with normal colour vision. It is not as if there is a conflict of evidence, there is evidence that defective colour vision is a risk factor and no evidence that it is not.If what Mr Cole's report said about the "evidence" were an accurate representation of peer-reviewed, statistically-valid and otherwise properly-conducted studies of practical performance of real life tasks, there would be no argument and no one with a colour vision deficiency would be an ATPL or ATCer.

(Setting aside, for the moment, the inconvenient reality of the safety record of pilots with CVD...) The fundamental flaw in all the reasoning I've seen in reports like Mr Coles' is to conflate "practical performance" with the results of tests that are "tasks involving colour coding". Precisely the same conflation is happening now in AVMED, where someone seems to think that the CAD test simulates and operational situation.

Everyone knows that people with a colour vision deficiency are not going to perform as well as persons without colour vision deficiency in tests that are "tasks involving colour coding". Message to AVMED: WE GET IT. We already know that pilots with a colour vision deficiency have a colour vision deficiency. That deficiency was discovered during tests that are tasks involving colour coding. The Ishihara test is a task involving colour coding: Read the numbers on these pages. But the Ishara test does not simulate an operational situation. Nor does the CAD test.

If you want to test "practical performance", do what the law requires and set a test that simulates an operational situation. If you really want to serve the interests of safety, rather than hide behind safety rhetoric, set a test that simulates the most important safety-critical task that has to be performed, in reality, by a pilot (or, for ATCers, by an ATCer), that requires the identification of coloured lights. And, if you want to pass the test of objectivity rather than blind prejudice, make sure the simulation does not include any failures or characteristics that are never encountered in real life.

[Frank Arouet]

I'll assume, because nobody has said otherwise, that the 5 year exemption expired on 26NOV07.


Doesn't this then, leave CAsA now open to investigation by that Anti-Discrimination Board under their Act. An option to those who have been discriminated against not previously available?

[bankrunner]

Who wants to take a bet on who'll be next on Pooshan's hitlist once he's done with CVD pilots? :E

Bolding is mine.

All-Female Aircrews (http://www.crm-devel.org/maillist/summary/allfem.htm)

All-Female Aircrews

[email protected] wrote:

It has come to my attention that one of the C-130 flying units had an interesting decision recently. As the schedulers of the different departments sent names to the central scheduler, it became apparent that a particular mission was to be flown by a crew of women. All five crew positions would have been female. The commander chose to not authorize this roster, and requested that a male replace one of the women. His rationale, as I am told, is that had the crew become involved in a "mishap", the investigation might have asked him why he authorized an "all-female" crew, even though each were current and qualified in their respective positions.

This begs me to ask, are any other flying organizations concerned about an "all-female" flight crew? Does this ever happen, without any intrepedation?

Has there been any research into the "effectiveness and efficiency" of an all-female crew, compared to the traditional all-male, compared to a mixed-gender crew?

Greg Deen

Raytheon

Subj: [crm-devel] Re: All-female crewsDate: 3/16/99 11:59:45 PM Central Standard TimeFrom: [email protected] (Pooshan D Navathe MD)

This issue had come up for discussion among flight schedulers for transport crews. The dates of the menstrual periods come under part of private information. Since it is known that women may not be at their best just prior to menstruation, will it be safe to fly an all women crew who are all premenstrual? Who should check that? How? These are the problems faced, and the simple solution is to have a male member in the crew.

Any comments?

Pooshan

Wg Cdr Pooshan D Navathe B Ed, MBBS, M D (Aerospace Med), DipAvMed (USA), FaeMSAssociate Professor (Aerospace Medicine)Field Aerospace Medical Research and Indoctrination Cell (FAMRIC)

Air Force Station, Lohegaon, Pune, 411 032 India

Tele 91 20 685312 Extn 2315 (O) Extn 2393 (H)

91 20 691256 (H)

Email [email protected]

[email protected]

[dubbleyew eight]

The core problem that Wing Commander(retired) Poohsan Navathe has is that civilian and private aviation is not the military.

the core driving motivations that lead to non military aviation are so entirely different that a military mind just cannot understand them.

the Australian government however places great store in placing military aviators in positions of control over civilians. THIS WILL NEVER WORK.

to the ex-military civilian aviation must seem like herding cats.
the problem being that the military mind is incapable of understanding the activity.
the military and legal minds to date have blown 300 million dollars thereabouts trying to create a set of rules.
problem is that interesting novels get the business done in about 200 pages.
no one is ever going to read reams and reams of boring procedural nonsense which in all honesty don't relate to the actual activities of flying.

minister you really need a royal commission into all this.
it will uncover just how at odds to reality the military educated mindset is.
it will uncover just how poorly the whole model of certified approvals actually works.
it will uncover the desperate levels of corrupt behaviour that military minds stoop to when they are out of their favoured environments.
be aware as well that a royal commission would show in glaring detail just how moronically stupid you are in perpetuating all this pony poo.

[thorn bird]

UX2.8,

What you said,

And!!!

I heard during desert storm the Yanks sent as many premenstrual women they could find to the front because they were as aggressive as hell and retained water!

[Creampuff]

If CASA complied with the law and, in accordance with CASR 67.150(6)(c), determined tests that "simulate operational situations", a claim of discrimination would not have to be pursued.

A claim of discrimination might be worth it if CASA determined tests that simulated operational situations, but included, for the purposes of 'tripping up' pilots with CVD, failures or characteristics that are never encountered in real life.

A claim of discrimination might also be worth it if, in deciding whether the extent to which a candidate does not meet the medical standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation for the purposes of CASR 67.180(2)(e), CASA simply said "you're CVD so you're a danger".

But if it were me, I'd be pursuing the AAT route (the AAT has power to issue medical certificates and remove conditions on medical certificates) and, if unavoidably necessary, the Federal Court, to get a declaration that the CAD test, and anything else that's merely a colour vision test rather that a proper simulation of an operational situation, is not a lawful test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c).

[Kharon]

Sorry, no link, not a subscriber but the Australian Aviation magazine has a great article, "Tone deaf and Colour Blind". It runs to almost three very nicely crafted pages, tongue in and cheeky on occasion but, on the money.

I understand that it is considered good 'advertising' to have articles published on sites such as Pprune; BUT I understand that permission (PPR) from AA is required, perhaps someone with a subscription could 'ask'. The author is Michael Gisik – HERE (http://australianaviation.com.au/contact-us/) – is a link to their website; if you can scrounge a read, do so – most refreshing. Recommended reading.

Toot toot..

[Lookleft]

I liked the last line (paraphrase so I don't infringe copyright) that it just another example of CASA disdain for consultation with industry. If Truss thought his report would inspire CASA to loftier heights of talking to "stakeholders" then they have just given him a bureaucratic raspberry:p.

[Kharon]

Lefty – CASA are not even at the denial stage yet, let alone reality. If a gentle blowing of raspberries was all, we could perhaps allow them a short period of indulgence, just until the penny drops. But the piece McComic had in the Oz today, beggars belief. Somebody tackle the fool and get him off the paddock, before the opposition front row flattens him; he actually thinks what he says is believed and that it matters. Yesterdays news today – spare me.

I even hear that better than half the second floor have NFI there are a couple of MoP's heading their way. Better give them a call mate, tell them the news; it's the humanitarian thing to do. No: don't look at me; I like to watch...

[Lookleft]

I stopped reading the aviation pages of the Australian a long time ago and you have just confirmed why. If it is just going to provide opinion pieces as content then even the battered fish will be asking to be wrapped in something else.

I am interested to see how the MoP plays out and whether it has more teeth than a mere Senate recommendation. I know the Senate takes it seriously but does anyone else? I would like to think it does because any public evidence given at an Inquiry supposedly has some form of Parlimentary privilege protecting the evidence provider.

[Kharon]

14 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

35 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.

Once the new bored settles in and the Part 61 etc dust settles, one of the high priority items must be the taming of the Avmed department. You could reasonably expect that between the WLR recommendations 14 and 35 the department would become essentially 'administrative'; reducing cost to government, red tape and solving one of industries major headaches. But the litigious, interfering, penchant for subjective judgements and AAT grand standing habit has become deeply engrained to the point of addiction. The case being discussed on the Tiger thread is an indication of the 'norm' as are the CVD issues and the many other matters medical confronting industry. It's time to put a stop to it. Caution minuscule – incoming ordanance.

The – Ryan (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-23.html#post8598820) - finding is a most satisfactory ruling – but will it stop Avmed from colluding with every rag bag complaint which hits their email? Apparently not. Must we all now accept that the era of psychic testing, by ESP has arrived?. I'm certain there is much 'research' to support the construct..

The Ryan case set me to thinking about how Avmed (CASA) could deal with the 'false' or lay accusation of substance abuse; clearly some form of response is required. So, digging down a little further I wondered how Avmed is or could be alerted to a potential problem, and what is the 'best' option (solution) – for everyone. There are countless scenarios but, just for this exercise:

The easy one. Caught on the job; a staff member turns up, someone thinks it's time for a DAMP test; positive=clear path; negative=same-same. Proof positive on the spot, not of history – but of the instance. This seems to be a relatively straight forward process; positive? medical 'suspended'; do the tests and there is a clear trail from start to finish of a 'fair and reasonable' process. The random 'on the job' filter and the 'Booze bus' are reasonable deterrents to 'honest folk'.

The tricky one. Take the Ryan example, were there 'reasonable' grounds for suspending? Given the history offered, it may, conceivably be reasonable to ask for an independent, external 'expert' evaluation. Ryan made a signed confession of DUI etc, but as subsequent testing identified 'no chronic or future' problems, that should have been an end of it; even a 'blood test' specified at the next routine medical would have been acceptable (to be sure, to be sure). Ryan honestly admitted the incident, Avmed acted reasonably in the first instance. The twisted logic which got him to the AAT is where the system fails; additional unwarranted testing not only decries the 'expert' opinion, it presumes that Avmed knows better. If indeed Avmed do know better, why then the farce of demanding 'external' opinion from experts. Same thing with 'sugar' and 'cardiac' issues – where expert, self funded opinion is simply brushed aside – does Mummy always know best?

The evil one. There is a fellah at – Tiger (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/335986-merged-tiger-tales-74.html#post8589667)– (Sorry some posts have been removed which makes the thread a little disjointed) who has allegedly been 'accused' of narcotics abuse (Cocaine is the rumour). As presented, there is no, non whatsoever substantive proof or empirical evidence (that we know of), just a vague reference to - 'someone' (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/335986-merged-tiger-tales-79.html#post8602069) - informing the ATSB, the CASA and the parent company that the Captain Guy (for ease) was 'using'. Say you were at company 'management' level, supervising Guy and the accusation (not allegation) was anonymously slipped under your door, or whispered in a corridor, how would you treat it?. If the 'accusation' was sent through company channels, how would you deal with it?: if CASA out of the blue suspended Guy's medical on a 'tip off', what then? Where to start?

Well a browse through the return statistics from DAMP and a couple of other 'authoritative' studies indicate that mathematically at least, the chances of having a dipsomaniac or drug fiend on the books are pretty remote. Government have spent a small fortune to establish this as 'fact'. A look back through Guy's track record and circumstances would give a clearer indication of 'character', a chat with his colleagues would lead to further detail being revealed. In short; before the company suspended Guy and made it 'official', a whole world of 'investigation' and protocol would be gone through.

IF there was an identified problem, company DAMP policy would swing in and the road to rehabilitation taken. If there was no problem identified, then the exonerated Guy should be returned to duty. A professional pilot would (should) understand the reasons for company 'caution' and whereas feathers may be ruffled; no serious lasting harm has been done, his mates will always support; his enemies will always slip one in; the neutrals will just get on with life.

But it's a bit rum, when an anonymous complaint has been vindictively made and CASA weigh in without a skerrick of 'proof' to aid and abet what is essentially an unfounded rumour, made by a layman. Then, having been proven wrong, take steps to protect the accuser from righteous indignation and civil action. You can't even accuse a kid of lifting a bag of lolly's without 'proof', beyond reasonable doubt, let alone a senior Captain of being a drug fiend..It is, without test results difficult to prove.

The question is of course, why did the 'complainant' not demand a DAMP test AT THE TIME? – why the delay?– why was the company system not alerted before Avmed got involved? Two options, either the company system is so flawed that only direct contact with 'authorities' could guarantee that action would be taken, which implies 'everyone' knew but did nothing. Alternatively, this was a cowardly, vicious personal attack executed as an underhand act with much malice and aforethought.

It is easy for the layman to become an instant 'expert' on – DRUGS (http://www.addictions.com/cocaine/commonly-missed-cocaine-addiction-symptoms/)– and – BOOZE (http://blogs.psychcentral.com/addiction-recovery/2012/02/high-functioning-addict/) – easy to arrive at a wrong conclusion and easier again to make an accusation without foundation. I can see why, with a failed DAMP, the company would suspend; I could even understand why the company would suspend against a genuine 'suspicion', properly lodged and supported. What beats me (without all the data) is why? an unsubstantiated 'accusation', without clear proof, is so completely supported and protected by the regulator.

Just imagine the "the risks to aviation safety caused by the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade". CP.

How about the case where the 'regulator' failed to demand a DAMP test against a 'suspicion' when all facilities and witnesses were freely and readily available; then waited for six months to lodge a 'complaint' in a very disingenuous fashion asking for and receiving the maximum punitive action that could be taken at a critical time. No failed test evidence was provided, lies were told (and discovered) and Avmed were encouraged to and happily obliged in enforcing a further 24 months of quarterly testing; despite clear, qualified, expert evidence there was not, never had been or was there likely to be, a problem. No matter, the Chinese whisper is much more effective than evidence anyway.

Crumbs; it's gone pandemic – of what it is I'm unsure. – HERE. (http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/544990-drunk-disorderly.html#post8594196)

Selah.

[Sarcs]

4dogs (TESB thread):after reading Ryan I was just stunned...

Creamie's comment about "...the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade." seems to go to the heart of the real medical threat to aviation safety.

And the little gem about the consequences of reporting a DUI conviction (unconfirmed but inferentially a singular event):

Quote:
That disclosure prompted the Authority to require him to provide an assessment by a psychiatrist in relation to his alcohol consumption and its associated risk.
also stunned me, not only for the potential for an immediate effect on open reporting but also for the reasoning that would allow the imposition of the cost and inconvenience of a psychiatric assessment which, prima facie, would seem extremely unlikely to serve any useful purpose.

Methinks the PMO has exceeded his usefulness in that role... :*
Totally agree with 4dogs summation the current PMO's position has become extremely untenable and solely in the interest of returning respectability & trust to the AVMED office he should resign forthwith.

But first let us backtrack a little and try to define where it was that things started heading South for our seemingly shambolic, Hubris Syndrome diagnosed PMO...:ugh:

Unfortunately for the PMO, not long after starting with FF he was handed a potential time bomb of a case, that was totally not of his making, in the form of the doctor shopping Barry Hempel case. Although it cannot be said that he handled the matter with total aplomb, it can be said that he took the criticism on the chin and carried on regardless.

However was this the point in time that set the PMO on the path to his first crusade i.e. serious brain injuries that could heighten the risk of post traumatic epileptic seizure with consequential risk to human safety and that of any aircraft a pilot might operate.

Fortuitously (or not) for the PMO not long after the Hempel tragedy he was handed a first real test case that he could exert his authority and hopefully return some respect to the AVMED office. This was in the form of the review decision on suspending Jonathon Hazelton's Class One medical, which eventually ended up in the AAT.

This was to be the first significant loss in the AAT by the PMO & I wonder, in hindsight, if the PMO would have wished to not have taken on Mr Hazelton and perhaps gone for a little less profile case like this one last year: Landers and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 465 (5 July 2013) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/465.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority)


However the Landers (and similar wins were) in effect, too little too late for the PMO and the knock-on effect of the AAT Hazelton decision would ultimately return to haunt him in the form of...Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/941.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority).

Respectable losses or road to perdition??

In both Hazelton & Bolton not only was the PMO's decision making processes and his impartiality questioned but also his credibility as an AAT expert witness.

From para 500 of Hazelton (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority) decision:In so concluding we note in a complementary way, that the respondent’s case was not uniformly robust. In particular, we placed weight adversely for the respondent on the fact that three of the doctors, the Principal Medical Officer, Dr Navāthé and the medical officer Dr Drane, and Dr Wallis from his New Zealand consultancy, who had worked together previously had inconsistent opinions with other doctors from within CASA and with external expert opinion, and we were not satisfied that all of the views of those doctors were objective assessments. We considered Dr Drane’s evidence, who had the benefit of the opinion of Dr Hastings, the United States specialist, but we found Dr Drane seemed unduly influenced by Dr Navāthé’s opinion. {pssst Dr Drane?? Where have I heard that name before...:confused:}



And from Bolton decisionCASA called Dr Pooshan Navathe, its principal medical officer and the primary decision-maker. Some of Dr Navathe’s evidence detailed, quite unnecessarily, the legal framework for regulatory aviation medicine, the processes of aviation medicine decision-making within CASA, risk management and suchlike. The relevance of that evidence was never explained to me. Dr Navathe’s statement discussed, and annexed, various articles from medical research before expressing the opinion that[15] (http://www.pprune.org/#fn15),

... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.


Dr Navathe witness statement concluded in this way:

Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal
Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.
And so ended the PMO's first crusade perhaps??:rolleyes:

But the end result is a severely discredited, in the eyes of the IOS & AAT at least, regulatory decision maker...errr not a good look...:=

Since Bolton AAT hearings that involve medical Avmed (PMO) issues: McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/119.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority) (FF loss)

Walker and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 169 (28 March 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/169.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority) (FF win)

Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/292.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority) (FF loss)

Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/494.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority) (FF loss)

Wonder what the next PMO 'Great Crusade' will be and how much more taxpayer green will be spent in the process...:ugh: But back to the thread..

Kharon:You could reasonably expect that between the WLR recommendations 14 and 35 the department would become essentially 'administrative'; reducing cost to government, red tape and solving one of industries major headaches. But the litigious, interfering, penchant for subjective judgements and AAT grand standing habit has become deeply engrained to the point of addiction. The case being discussed on the Tiger thread is an indication of the 'norm' as are the CVD issues and the many other matters medical confronting industry. It's time to put a stop to it. Notice the RAAA recently had a bit to say on the subject of CVD, DAMP & AVMED :D: RAAA SUBMISSION CUTTING RED TAPE (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/submissions/RAAA-Response-Cutting-Red-Tape-July14.html)

"Medical Renewals
Early implementation of ASRR recommendation 35 to allow Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs) to renew medicals would save time, money and much frustration.

The medical section of CASA also requires urgent review given its well documented (within the ASRR) overly bureaucratic, inefficient approach to its duties. This feedback is consistent across the industry."

And I note from the ProAviation ASRR submission...

"We are reliably informed that some 450 pilots of one single carrier alone are affected by these policies and practices, which appear to embrace the development of new standards in the complete absence of empirical validation or external consultation.

As with some other matters we are convinced that the Panel will be amply provided with well-informed information on these issues..."

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

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

CASA should rely on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.
Hmm..maybe the PMO would be better advised to put his resources (our resources) into addressing these outstanding issues, rather than going on personal crusades...:=

MTF..:ok:

[mack44]

You are spot on the money. The injustice that occurred in my particular case McSherry V CASA is taking a long time to address through the Ombudsman and my local MP. I am back to flying and re-establishing my business. Unlike the CVD Pilots Association I am one single individual that the PMO attempted to crush for purely personal policy reasons. Thanks to the AAT the PMO was not successful, however, I will not rest until the checks and balances are returned to the system to prevent future unlawful decisions by the PMO.

Regards
Peter McSherry

I really appreciate all the effort put into these threads:D

[Kharon]

Sarcs post above begs a question though, don't it? Is the new crusade on CVD is little more than part of the well tried smoke, mirrors and deflection system; a distraction from the main event.

Pro Av ""We are reliably informed that some 450 pilots of one single carrier alone are affected by these policies and practices, which appear to embrace the development of new standards in the complete absence of empirical validation or external consultation

AOPA "[and] where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion."

Drane - Tiger thread (Rumour 13 (http://www.pprune.org/8602762-post1578.html))

There are other published articles reflected in threads here on Pprune which raise many of the issues surrounding the Avmed department; much expert opinion, supported by 'judicial' ruling and remarks has been published; all of which roundly condemns the department and it's boss. Add to this the embarrassing performances in various AAT and Coronial hearings during which those presiding have questioned probity and doubted the expertise of the CASA PMO, to the point where any rational judge will hardly bother to ask questions of CASA, as the value of their 'expert' witness testimony has been discounted so many times as to be rendered nugatory.

Without reform it can only end in tears and if Truss and Forsyth are to maintain even a shred of credibility or trust McComic and his intimate crew of circus performers, charlatans, actors and ventriloquists have to go; soon would be great; now would be better.

Second the motion for PMO resignation, the cynical act of deflecting attention away from the many duck ups and lack of professional credibility by resurrecting the CVD issue speaks volumes of how detached from reality CASA is and why Real Reform Right now with a capital R is expected and demanded. Now would be good..

Toot toot.

I wonder, if the aircraft Truss was on caught fire, would he expect the crew to have a little sit-down and discuss the matter, then refer to other crew, then call the company for a preferred outcome, then call their Mum's, then the wife to discuss dinner and eventually, maybe, actually do something about the flames leaping through the cabin? – I don't think so.

Mack44 "I will not rest until the checks and balances are returned to the system to prevent future unlawful decisions by the PMO."

Well said that man, but it's not just the medical department is it?, some of the 'quasi-legal' embuggerance the operational side have produced is simply beyond belief. Agree, it has to stop.

[Sarcs]

Mack:The injustice that occurred in my particular case McSherry V CASA is taking a long time to address through the Ombudsman and my local MP. I am back to flying and re-establishing my business. Unlike the CVD Pilots Association I am one single individual that the PMO attempted to crush for purely personal policy reasons. Thanks to the AAT the PMO was not successful, however, I will not rest until the checks and balances are returned to the system to prevent future unlawful decisions by the PMO.
Kudos to you Mack & good win...:D:D I wonder though how timely the Bolton decision was & how influential it was in your getting the right AAT decision?? Para 50 says a lot IMHO:We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other. This false dichotomy is also evident in the CVD correspondence from the PMO, which has been consistently changing over time...:ugh:

The best part Mack in your AAT decision is in the 2nd last paragraph...

"...For completeness, we should also add that we sought further submissions from the parties after the hearing as to the significance for our decision of the endorsements on the relevant medical certificate issued to Mr McSherry,[45] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/119.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority#fn45) the “special requirements” referred to in CASA’s letter of 6 August 2013, and the “condition” that Mr McSherry’s certificates remain valid only for 12 months. In the event, essentially for the reasons set out in the submissions filed by Mr Abbott SC on behalf of Mr McSherry, dated 18 February 2014, we are satisfied that none of these matters constituted “conditions” within the meaning of CASR reg 11.056. We are further satisfied that, in light of our conclusion that Mr McSherry meets medical standards 1 and 2, he is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, pursuant to CASR reg 67.180. In these circumstances, there is no power to impose conditions on his certificates pursuant to CASR reg 11.056, and we do not propose to do so..."

For mine that should have given you a huge sigh of relief...;)

Cheers & keep up the good fight Mack..:ok:

ps Mack at #50 well maybe Bolton owes you a beer instead...:}...either way I think the worm turned at Hazelton.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Peter,

Thanks for your input. The common theme here is bullying and harassment. The senators are onto it. But there needs to be action and redress.

It would be interesting to see if any legal firm would/could take up a group case.

[mack44]

Sarcs,
My appeal was lodged in April 2013 the hearing concluded in November 2013 however the AAT's decision wasn't published until March 2014 we didn't have the benefit of the Bolton decision.

[brissypilot]

Well done Peter for standing up to the PMO's bullying tactics :D

Totally agree with 4dogs summation the current PMO's position has become extremely untenable and solely in the interest of returning respectability & trust to the AVMED office he should resign forthwith.

Couldn't agree more :ok:

I'd say the PMO has been on a crusade to make pilot's lives more difficult ever since he got here.

The Boys Are Back in Town: Regulatory Meltdown (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2009/09/regulatory-meltdown/) (2009)

In the medical area, CASA is now seeking to “get tough” on the issue of pilot colour vision tests, which have been studied to death in the past, particularly by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We’re told this may include annual colour vision tests (currently required only on initial issue) and that this is so far from international practice and research that it can only be described another uniquely Australian regulatory aberration. Principal Medical Officer Dr Pooshan Navathe is reported to have told a medical conference in Vanuatu recently that CASA intends to be “a regulator with a capital R.” Does this make you see red? (Or green?)

Also came across post #14 from Frank Arouet from two years ago.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/483620-problems-casa-avmed-make-submission.html#post7163103

Liddell was a gentleman, transplanted by Dr No who was the "Antiquack" of "quackery" and then the standard was re-set. He once told me he "was" God, and whilever I understood that, we would get on fine.

Sarcs:
{pssst Dr Drane?? Where have I heard that name before... }
AvMed seems to be a bit of a boys club by the looks of things:

CAA News - July / August 2004 (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Publications/CAA_News/CAA_News_2004_Issue-2_Jul-Aug.pdf) - Medical Matters (page 6)

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

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

Michael Drane, Medical Officer, is the newest doctor to join the CMU. Michael grew up around aeroplanes. His father is an aeronautical engineer and was involved with the Buccaneer and Concorde. Michael was taught to fly by the Royal Air Force and has approximately 50 hours, but says that “becoming a doctor in the UK largely thwarted any flying ambition!”

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

Let's take a look at some of the work this energetic team got up to whilst they were previously working together in NZ:

Colour deficient pilots: Is there light at the end of this tunnel? (http://www.caa.gen.nz/colour-deficient-pilots-light-tunnel/)

The NZ CAA Medical Unit and the various Principal Medical Officers employed over the past 25 years have placed restrictions on NZ colour deficient pilots. This is for both Class 1 and Class 2 medicals. A range of testing methods has been used and classifications used to describe to what extent limitations have been placed on the certificates.

The basis for these restrictions, in most cases, has been found to be simply the opinion of the PMO at the time. This has evolved over many years and typically these restrictions are:

♦ No night flying
♦ No IFR
♦ Not valid for ATO air transport operations with passengers
♦ Not valid for special air operations

Over the years, CAA has also provided ‘dispensations’ to many pilots ranging from minor constraints to the use of their pilot licence to fully unrestricted certificates, even with the licence holder having a colour deficiency that CAA today would severely limit the pilot in exercising the privileges of their licence.

Fortunately during our research we discovered the work that Australian Dr Arthur Pape had done with regards to Colour Deficiency amongst pilots and its relevance to aeromedical significance.

Dr Pape, a licensed and experienced pilot with multi-engine IFR qualifications (and with a CVD) was initially denied anything but a day VFR medical certificate. Dr Pape challenged CASA over this ruling and after many years took his case to the Australian Administrative Court of Appeals. Dr Pape presented significant scientific evidence supported by practical flight test data. In this case he demonstrated that colour deficiency has no ‘aeromedical significance’. The court found in his favour.

Since this ruling was made, CD pilots within Australia can fly unrestricted (with the exception of an ATPL as Pilot in Command on Air Transport operations). Once a person passes the Control Tower Signal Light Gun test, they are then issued an unrestricted medical certificate.

CVA published advertisements in NZ domestic aviation publications in order to see just how many pilots, and/or those who want to be pilots, have been affected by CAA policy on colour deficiency with their medical certificates. What was received was an overwhelming response from CD pilots. Many live in New Zealand with severe certificate restrictions. Many pilots work offshore with no restrictions as they hold a CASA licence. Most would love to return home to work in New Zealand.

Each pilot had a unique story to tell as to how they had been treated by the NZ CAA and the PMOs’ decision over the years. Many inconsistencies by the CAA have been disclosed through our research. What CVA has discovered is clear examples of discrimination towards pilots with CVD.

There are many CD pilots who are currently flying commercially, unrestricted, based and employed here in New Zealand with either foreign registered airlines or Air New Zealand. These pilots are safely carrying passengers on domestic and international routes. In some cases these pilots have received a dispensation from a previous CAA PMO. Some have simply been allowed to undertake the Control Tower Signal Light Gun Test. (This is currently used by the Canadian CAA, FAA and CASA Australia.)

Now we would like to bring you back to the beginning of this update. We noted that the basis of CAA medical certificate restrictions was the concern of CD pilots being able to fly safely in New Zealand skies.

The question exists, if the entire basis of placing restrictions on CD pilots is safety, then why are some pilots allowed to fly in New Zealand and others are not because they happened to have applied for a medical certificate at a time between the changing of opinion of PMOs, or they fly a foreign-registered aircraft?

This is a blatant case of discrimination!

CVA has also uncovered in our investigation that the current PMO, as early as 2009 and without consultation, changed and added new restrictions on two commercial student pilots’ Class 1 medical certificate. Upon their first annual renewal, both of these student pilots had just completed their CPL Rotary Licence. Each obtained $100,000 student loans. Because of these new added restrictions, both of these pilots have been unable to obtain work here in New Zealand and were forced to travel to Australia. There they secured CASA Class 1 medical certificates in order to utilise their licences.

We have recorded many more cases for future evidence when needed, but want to now move on to the most current activities.

In February of this year, we approached MP Winston Peters with the evidence and research that we had compiled.

After reviewing the situation, Mr Peters had us provide him with three relevant questions that he would present during Q&A in the month of May in Parliament, directed to the Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee.

After correspondence between the MOT, Mr Peters and the CVA, we then directed our concerns to the Director of the CAA. A General Directive soon surfaced from the CAA for public submissions regarding the policies towards colour vision.

l6H_MR1xCXA

Are we not surprised that the PMO is now trying to do the same thing to Aussie CVD pilots that he and his mate Dougal Watson did in NZ when they worked together across the Ditch previously? It's little wonder the PMO placed so much emphasis on Watson's recent report as evidence of CASA's "recent medical research" (see Paul Phelan's article (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/15/fifty-shades-of-red-and-green-opinion/)).

Bring back Doc Liddell (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/02/23/dr-liddell-speaks-out-for-australian-pilots/) I say :ok:

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

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

Dr Robert Liddell

:D

[Sarcs]

Following on from BP's post #457 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-23.html#post8605824) off the ESB thread and in particular the miniscule's COS reply to AOPAA:

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/TrussResponse_zpsb6996fe1.jpg

Although the message from the miniscule's office is somewhat disjointed (double speak) & disconcerting, as it appears to be almost a complete regurgitation from the PMO correspondence to CVD pilots. It is quite heartening to see that AOPAA are stepping up to the advocate plate in support of CVD pilots..:D:D

I was also pleased to see that AOPAA didn't let the miniscule non-response letter deter them from also corresponding directly to the PMO on more general Avmed complaints from members...

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

MTF...:ok:

[Creampuff]

It is clear to me that Associate Professor Navathe is a zealot on a medical mission, untroubled by mere trivialities like the law.

Mr McCormick's defence of the CVD crusade says much to me about his character as well.

Truss is off with the fairies.

Aviation in Australia will be slightly less of a mess when they are all gone.

[Kharon]

Well said that man, but it's not just the medical department is it?, some of the 'quasi-legal' embuggerance the operational side have produced is simply beyond belief. Unlimited support for any embuggerance you like.

Will no one rid us of these turbulent priests of ignorance, darkness and the 'approved' method of bending the law (as and when required to suit).

Perhaps if we all go slightly Ga ga – it will make perfect sense then. We may even yet understand when Terry takes over (temporary like) as the boss of the dirty wash. Makes perfect sense when you see it our way – don't it?

GWM for ever and for ever, and forever and forever for ever and for ever, and forever and forever for ever and for ever, and forever and forever for ever and for ever, and forever and forever for ever and for ever, and forever and forever for ever and for ever, and forever and forever.

[thorn bird]

Now boatman,

"for thine (I think the angry man substitutes "Mine" in there) is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever" would have done mate.

[Sarcs]

Creamy:It is clear to me that Associate Professor Navathe is a zealot on a medical mission, untroubled by mere trivialities like the law. I would also suggest that the PMO is not much of a scholar of history, well at least not beyond the last decade or two...:ugh:

In recent years many on here have been extremely critical of AOPAA and some merely see them as simply a handmaiden of the big 'R' regulator, a facilitator of regulatory pineapples. However with the recent AOPAA correspondence to the miniscule & the PMO maybe there are signs that the worm is turning...:rolleyes:

At the same time it should come as no great surprise that AOPAA are taking such a strong (belated) stand on CVD..:D Despite the rumoured inner turmoil & subsequent waning membership, AOPAA have had a long and fondly remembered history of fighting for the aviation underdog and AOPAA (unlike the PMO) truly respect their history and their collective achievements of the past.

From CVDPA 'History of the Challenge' (http://cvdpa.com/the-facts/history-of-the-challenge): Support for my stand grew and CVD pilots from all over Australia started to contact me, telling me of their experiences, their successes and their frustrations. Meetings were held. Pilots and organisations, in particular Australian AOPA, got behind me in the push to rid us of this irrational standard. Donations were made, politicians were lobbied.AP's campaign back in the '80s was just such a moment in time that many older members (including Arthur of course)...AOPA articles (http://cvdpa.com/further-reading/aopa-articles)
Dr Arthur Pape is a former Vice-President of the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) (http://www.aopa.com.au/).

AOPA offered huge support through the Administrative Appeals Tribunals challenges of the late 1980’s and still supports the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association today.
The following series of thirteen articles written by Dr Pape were published in the AOPA magazine during the late 1980’s to keep members informed of the progress of the challenge....will never forget especially when after 28 days of hearings the Denison v CAA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/1989/84.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Authority)decision was handed down...:ok:

For the benefit of the PMO...:E...some quotes from AP & the Denison AAT WIN! So the Denison case came to court. By the direction of the Tribunal, and with agreement of the parties, the case was conducted as a ‘Test Case’ with the scope of evidence to include all types of colour vision defects (not just Denison’s) and all levels of professional aircraft piloting. The case took up 35 days of hearings. Not a thread of evidence was left unexplored. I have no doubt that the conduct of the AAT’s examination of all the evidence available at the time pertaining to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard, was then, and remains to this day, the most comprehensive examination ever conducted of the topic anywhere in the world.

Of interest is the fact that on the final day of submissions, all parties agreed that the hearing had been thorough, unbiased and exhaustive. The Authority’s legal team indicated to the Chairman of the Tribunal that whatever the outcome, the Authority intended to promote the result on the international stage; such was their satisfaction with the encounter.

What happened next?

WE WON THE CASE! In October 1987 we carried out a review of a similar decision that had been made in respect of Dr A. M. Pape, but only in respect of his private pilot licence. We understand that there are a considerable number of other pilots with defective colour vision who have requested the granting of licences which do not contain a condition prohibiting their piloting aircraft at night. For that reason the respondent indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case. Mr Rose, therefore, informed the Tribunal that the respondent intended to present its case in a manner which would encompass not only the applicant's situation but also broader issues relating generally to defective colour vision. At the request of the respondent the Attorney-General granted legal aid to the applicant to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by the respondent presenting his case in that manner. The matters which we have to consider in these proceedings have consequently been extended well beyond those which the applicant originally sought to raise, that is to say whether his defective colour vision made it unsafe for him personally to pilot an aircraft at night. The proceedings have taken 28 hearing days. In order to reach conclusions on those matters raised it is necessary for us to address a number of questions. Because of the amount of evidence given we cannot set all of it out in detail; however, we have taken the whole of it into account in making our decision and in expressing conclusions on the various matters raised for our consideration. And the questions...:confused:: The following are the questions which we consider have to be addressed. The final question must be answered strictly in terms of the applicant. However, as these proceedings have been conducted as a test case, we shall try to answer all the questions in as full and broad a manner as possible.
1. What is the nature of the following types of
defective colour vision -
(a) protanopia and protanomaly,
(b) deuteranopia and deuteranomaly,
(c) tritanopia and tritanomaly,
(d) other?
2. How is colour used -
(a) outside aircraft,
(b) in the cockpit of an aircraft,
relevantly to the safe piloting of an aircraft?
3. Does defective colour vision of any type or
degree make it unsafe for a person to pilot an
aircraft -
(a) at night,
(b) by day,
so that there is a significant and unacceptable
risk to the safety of the public?
If so, why?
4. If an unacceptable risk is found to exist, can
the risk be eliminated, or reduced to an acceptable
level, by the imposition of conditions or limitations
on the pilot's licence?
5. Are the answers to any of questions 2, 3 and 4
different depending on whether the aircraft is fixed
wing or rotary wing?
Now a quarter of a century later we have a PMO (ably backed by his STBR dictatorial, bully boy boss :yuk:), apparently on some ego driven crusade, choosing to totally disregard the legal & historical lessons of Denison (a decision now fully justified with solid empirical evidence of 25 years of incident free CVD pilot flying)...:ugh:

I'm with BP, CP etc.. the sooner this zealot is removed the better..:=

MTF..:ok:

Definition: zealot - ˈzɛlət, noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

[Prince Niccolo M]

In all of this, given that the Prince of Postnominals had his trousers pulled down when his "new international research on CVD" turned out to be his old mate Dougal's need to publish something that had nothing to do with the safety consequences of CVD, has anyone come up with any evidence, real peer-reviewed evidence, that might in any way upset the evidence considered so carefully in Denison?


Anything at all?

[Creampuff]

Of course not: it does not exist.

If it did, CASA would already have quoted the precise words of the precise research. AVMED is hoping to fool everyone with the mystique of aviation and the punters' fear of the 30,000' death plunge. AVMED will fail.

[Creampuff]

With attribution to an on-line review of Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, with my additions and amendments in square brackets:The Elements of the Crusade

The Warning of Danger

A great danger to the whole society is asserted, a danger to which the masses are oblivious (but to which the anointed are uniquely sensitive). [What was it that Mr McCormick said about the CVD issue? “When we get to the point where we are pushing the boundaries, where we are pushing the science, looking for other ways to get around what could possibly be indicated from the clinical side is a dangerous thing to do, we are starting to impact on my ability to discharge my duties under section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act, and that is to provide safety as outlined in that act. … I agree we should move forward, but we are already way out in front of half of the world, if not three-quarters or all the world, and as we move forward we will do it at a measured pace. When O'Brien goes through the AAT, we will see what the AAT has to say, what their preferred decision is, and that will give us the basis from which we can move forward, whether it be a practical test or whether it be a clinical test or whatever combination is required. To do it now unilaterally would be dangerous.” (Bolding added.) John. Psssst John. Psssst: We already know what the AAT has to say, and we already know there is no new high level evidence about the risk of colour visions deficiencies and the safe performance of pilot duties.]

The Call to Action

Urgent action is demanded to avert the impending catastrophe. Again, while malevolent forces [the IOS and pilots with CVD] try to preserve the status quo, the anointed [AVMED and McCormick] --wiser and more caring than others-- are fighting to rescue [punters from the risk of the 30,000’ death plunge posed by pilots with colour vision deficiency].

The Invocation of Authority

The government is called upon to set stringent limits on the dangerous behavior of [pilots with CVD], in recognition of the prescient conclusions of [AVMED]. Since most people aren't as enlightened as the anointed , it stands to reason that [pilots with CVD and the IOS] are part of the problem. They are thus likely to resist the proposed change, so--for their own good, of course--they must be forced via the threat or actual application of state power to comply with the new required behavior.

The Demonization of Critics

[This sounds [i]awfully familiar.]

Arguments which criticize any aspect of the crusade are dismissed as uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes. Since the self-esteem of the anointed rests on being perceived as a savior, anyone who threatens to reveal the truth --that the solution was worse than the supposed problem-- is by definition evil. Destroying such critics is a commendable act of "courage."

The Pattern of Failure

As all humans are imperfect, any human vision must be flawed as well. A key feature of any vision is the degree to which it recognizes its inherent imperfection and adapts itself to reality as new information is revealed.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the vision of the anointed is its astonishing resistance to accepting reality. So strong is the impulse toward moral superiority that evidence which contradicts claims made by the anointed is often ignored, dismissed, ridiculed, or shouted down. (bolding added)

[Sarcs]

Absolute pure GOLD Creamy love it!:D:D:ok:

Slight drift here but just to lighten the mood (but there is relevance...:E) before the weekend frivolities..;)

Came across an interesting report from the Aviation Safety Network website: ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 168683 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=168683)
Date:12-FEB-2014
Time:19:40
Type:http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/ICAOtype/DH8D.gif
De Havilland Canada DHC-8-402Q Dash 8 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=DH8D)

Owner/operator:Flybe
Registration:G-JECJC/n / msn:4110
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 51
Other fatalities:0
Airplane damage:None
Location:Belfast City Airport (BHD/EGAC) - http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/flags_15/G.gif United Kingdom (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=G)
Phase:Landing
Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport:Birmingham International Airport (BHX/EGBB)
Destination airport:Belfast City Airport (BHD/EGAC)
Narrative:
The aircraft was on a scheduled commercial air transport flight from Birmingham to Belfast City, with the commander, in the left flight deck seat, as pilot flying. It was night, and although there was no low cloud affecting the airport, the wind at Belfast was a strong west‑south-westerly, gusting up to 48 kt. Before the approach, the commander checked that his prosthetic lower left arm was securely attached to the yoke clamp which he used to fly the aircraft, with the latching device in place.
Although gusts over the crosswind limit for the aircraft were reported, the final wind report from ATC was within the limit, and the approach continued. The commander disconnected the autopilot and flew the aircraft manually. As he made the flare manoeuvre, with somewhat more than flight idle torque still applied, his prosthetic limb became detached from the yoke clamp, depriving him of control of the aircraft. He made a rapid assessment of the situation and considered alerting the co-pilot and instructing him to take control. However, because the co-pilot would have had little time to assimilate the information necessary to take over in the challenging conditions, the commander concluded that his best course of action was to move his right hand from the power levers onto the yoke to regain control. He did this, but with power still applied, and possibly a gust affecting the aircraft, a normal touchdown was followed by a bounce, from which the aircraft landed heavily.

Sources:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20Bulletin%208-2014.pdf Internal phone call from the top floor (Avmed PMO office) to the bottom floor (paper Archivist's office)...

PMO: "Listen could you stay back over the weekend I've got a little project I need done ASAP, could you research through all the IOS Pilot files how many pilots have prosthetic limbs, missing digits, bionic ears etc..etc.."

Chief Archivist moans to his 2IC: "Looks like the boss is off on one of his crusades again.." :ugh:

MTF...:ok:

[thorn bird]

Sarcs, mate, you really are a cynical Bast..ard :p!


and I wholeheartedly agree with your "in praise of Creamie" pure unadulterated Gold...Na... Platinum..:D

[Cactusjack]

Well, only a few hours to go, Friday 29th August 2014 will be remembered as the day that the Angry Man left the CASA building :ok:
He can officially, should he want to, join the IOS! No more criticism shall he endure...no more pineapples about pot plants, temper tantrums or running out of petrol...no more shall he be cruelly taunted by the 'ills of society', tendentious bloggers or AMROBA!
But what shall he do now? Run as an independent in Adelaide at the next federal election perhaps? Become a spokesman for ICAO? Go back to Hong Kong as president of the Stalag Star Chamber Society? Too many choices too many choices.
So Terry, the A380 endorsed senior citizen, welcome to Big Johns chair, even if it is a 'caretaker' role. Please try to stay awake though, we know how hard it can be. Maybe you can get Sky Sentinel to encompass a snooze button?

Let the fun begin.....

And John, don't bang the door on the way out!

[Sarcs]

Kharon - A happy start to the day (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-25.html#post8638678)

Media Release: 3 September, 2014.

CASA’s CAMPAIGN AGAINST CVD PILOTS

In a formal Submission to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) claims the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has mounted a coordinated and vigorous campaign to discriminate against pilots who have colour vision deficiency (CVD).

Members of the VIPA Executive, along with the President of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA), will meet with Minister Truss today to highlight how, despite assurances from CASA, changes to CVD practices have been introduced without full industry consultation.
“VIPA will tell Minister Truss that CASA’s claims relating to safety-related implications of CVD pilots’ abilities are palpably false, as no such evidence actually exists,” VIPA Executive Director, Simon O’Hara, explained.

“After a review of the Civil Authority Safety Regulation Part 67, CASA has unfairly ruled that 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.
“Under the regulations, three levels of CVD testing are available, with the third level test providing an opportunity for CVD pilots to gain an unrestricted medical certificate if they pass a test which simulates an operational situation.

“CASA are now dubiously using the CAD test for the purposes of this third level of testing. It is purely a clinical CVD test which does not simulate any operational situation encountered in an aircraft.

“Previously, CASA have accepted passes in practical flight and simulator testing as sufficient evidence that CVD pilots can safely carry out their flying duties.
“As a result of this past practice, several thousand CVD pilots have progressed their careers to the highest levels possible in aviation since the early 1990’s, with unblemished safety records.
“Now, any new pilots who fail the three levels of colour vision testing will be issued with a medical certificate which is valid for daytime operations in good weather only.

“We are all extremely concerned that these pilots are now unlikely to continue in a career in aviation and will simply walk away from the industry altogether.”

According to VIPA, CASA’s actions disregard 25 years’ of demonstrated safety cases and have been triggered by an appeal lodged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by CVD regional airline pilot John O’Brien, against a refusal by CASA to permit him to become a Captain.

“VIPA and its members, along with other industry groups, have lost confidence in the Aviation Medicine (AvMed) section of CASA,” Mr O’Hara said.

“Several recent AAT cases are littered with examples of the dubious decision making of CASA’s AvMed section and criticise its Principal Medical Officer (PMO) for making decisions which are inconsistent, ill-supported and ill-reasoned.

“Pilots are often left with no choice except to appeal these bureaucratic decisions through the AAT and in doing so, they are often financially crippled attempting to balance the uneven process against a regulator with unlimited access to tax payer funded resources.
“CVD pilots are just the latest group to be targeted by the PMO and their plight highlights the reason why VIPA and many in the industry are calling for an urgent overhaul of the AvMed section of CASA.”

Mr O’Hara will be joined by the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) President, Nathan Safe, along with Senator David Fawcett, Mr O’Brien and Dr Arthur Pape, an authority in CVD, at today’s meeting with Minister Truss in Parliament House.

VIPA media contact: Simon O’Hara: 0400 188 815.CVD pilots youtube rehash:

Colour Vision Deficiency - YouTube

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

MTF...:ok:

[Soteria]

So I am assuming that CASA FOI's are also required to meet these same vision standards as industry? After all, they too hold pilots lisences and endorsements, so one would assume they have the correct vision to adequately assess coloured annunciators and airport infrastructure, otherwise how could they accurately assess what actions a pilot is taking in the flight deck?

I applaud industry for taking this matter directly to Truss. The question now is will the Minister have the balls to direct Mr MrDak to mitigate this issue immediately, and at a minimum call for the scalps of the Ag DAS, Associate DAS, PMO and Ferreday? All of these individuals would have been aware of and supported CASA's direction in this matter. Enough is enough.

[Sarcs]

From CVDPA - @warrentrussmp (https://twitter.com/warrentrussmp) "Thanks for listening to the concerns of VIPA & AIPA on behalf of CVD pilots."

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/BwrAfC7CEAArDjh.jpg

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

That's got to make a few people nervous in casa! Estimates in October. Casa will need to have that new research to hand and put up a strong case. Where is the research still buried in trim or sky sentinel.

Perhaps the new test is can you see the elephant in the room.

[Kharon]

Dunno about spot the elephant Oh half baked one; there are so many queued up in the minuscule's office, spotting a bit of wall or the floor would be a tougher task.

Perhaps those of the pink variety have fogged vision and addled brains; perhaps the miniscule's tactic is to starve them out; or, drive 'em mad waiting, waiting, waiting.

Having now looked after the Gobbledock's mighty beast and a couple of it's mates for a while, there are some salient details related to the care, feeding and mucking out of elephants I should pass on to his office wallahs. Perhaps "The Gobbledock Report" would help him out, if I can get it done in time for the Estimates tea party.....

Toot toot....:D

[Sarcs]

Slight drift here but the parallels of embuggerance are obvious...:yuk::yuk:

Warning this FF MR has a PG rating..:E:
Coober Pedy runway requirements (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102165)
CASA has been working closely with regional airline Rex and aircraft manufacturer SAAB to better ensure the ongoing safe operation of Rex flights at Coober Pedy.
However, aspects of the arrangements that have been in place for the Rex SAAB 340 flights at Coober Pedy do not provide for the appropriate continued management of safety on an 18 metre sealed runway with gravel edges.
An 18 metre sealed runway is classified by the International Civil Aviation Organization as a ‘narrow runway’.
CASA believes it is in the best interests of the travelling public to introduce new safety standards for all narrow runway operations across Australia, including Coober Pedy.
These arrangements will include an assessment of the capability of aeroplanes to conduct safe narrow runway operations.
Where an aeroplane type cannot safely use a narrow runway one option is to widen the runway surface.
The Coober Pedy Council Mayor has stated:
“The runway at Coober Pedy will be widened to a 30 metre homogenous surface and there are a number of dedicated people working to ensure this happens. Councils works department is ready to start work on the project and I have sought in principle support from the state minister for local government and regional development to undertake this work during the councils caretaker period.”
Given these assurances CASA will continue to permit Rex to operate the SAAB 340 to Coober Pedy while the runway widening work is carried out.
CASA expects the runway work will be completed as soon as possible in the interests of safety.
There will be no additional restrictions on Rex SAAB flights to Coober Pedy, although those conditions already in place to address known safety issues will continue.
It should be noted that leading aviation nations such as the United States, Europe and New Zealand do not allow narrow runway operations under the arrangements that have been in place in Australia.
However, CASA believes it is in the interests of the Coober Pedy community to allow these flights to continue in the short term because any restrictions could cause social and economic disruption.

Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected] ([email protected])
Ref: MR9714
Drift over (CLICK)...:ugh:

[Creampuff]

However, CASA believes it is in the interests of the Coober Pedy community to allow these flights to continue in the short term because any restrictions could cause social and economic disruption.But hang on a sec’. Isn’t the safety of air navigation the most important consideration? You’ve doomed passengers at Coober Pedy to an excursion off the runway and a death plunge down a nearby mineshaft!It should be noted that leading aviation nations such as the United States, Europe and New Zealand do not allow narrow runway operations under the arrangements that have been in place in Australia.It should also be noted that Coober Pedy rarely gets ice and snow, the operational consequences of which are part of the justification for the runway width standards …

[Kharon]

When a safety management system receives a report or audit result, particularly one from the regulator changes are initiated. Any request for Requested Corrective Action or notification of non-compliance is given priority, actioned and acquitted by the regulator. Should a company receive multiple NCN over a period of time; such as Barrier did, the company will be closed down, as Barrier was. CASA allow very little time to respond and even less for the discussion of issues; and, non whatsoever, of whether the company will or will not accept the audit result.

And yet the regulator seems impervious to audit report and will refute any unpalatable safety recommendation from the ATSB. There are literally thousands of pages which support the fact that despite all logic, CASA will not accept the recommendations of either coroner or the ATSB, but would rather spend time and money addressing and abrogating the identified area of responsibility, not with a view to improvement, but to reduction of 'liability' and responsibility.

I believe it is time the travelling public were made aware of just how little the regulator values their lives and how their safety will be sacrificed in order to preserve the safety of the regulator.

At the moment the CASA is staring down a damning report from a Senate committee, which through the investigation of one small incident uncovered a nightmare web of deception, incompetence, 'flexibility' of standards and a total disregard of expert advice. Notwithstanding the flagrant disregard for due process, protocol and the law the most sinister aspect of CASA process was revealed – a willingness to cloud over or cover up the absolute shambles. There can, from the evidence provided, be seen a clear trail of collusion, second agenda and the absolutely crystal clear intention of the manager overseeing the process to manipulate the investigation to suit a predetermined outcome. On May 23, 2013 the Senate released a damning report which, supported by an acknowledged aviation expert, made 26 serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the current Minister, the CASA board and CASA.

The Senate AAI report prompted Minister Truss to order a further report to be conducted by three independent, acknowledged 'safety' experts; two from overseas. The ASRR although limited in scope was released on June 03, 2014. The shocked panel produced 37 further serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the Minister, the CASA board and CASA.

This is a total of 63, serious, important recommendations, produced by expert, independent aviation specialists publicly demanding immediate, far reaching changes to the regulatory system and the regulator. IGNORED.

It begs the questions; is the Minister deliberately misleading the public? and if so, why? If the publicly available documents indicate that 63 changes must be made, how many more have been concealed from view?

There can be no doubt the current situation if not addressed will impinge on public safety, just as surely as it is impacting on industry. Australian aviation is clearly unsafe and becoming less safe each and every minute that slips by, without the serious, clear and imminent danger being addressed.

Shame on the Minister, shame on your sloth, obfuscation, lack of meaningful response or direction.

Shame on the Minister for failing to act in 2008 and failing again in 2014.

Shame on you Minister for denying your responsibility; the reports you ordered clearly indicate there are deep, significant flaws within the regulator, the abomination reflected in the toxic culture and abysmal, expensive almost useless regulations, you claim will protect the Australian people, who you, may I respectfully remind you; are sworn to serve.

Shame on you Minister, you are rapidly becoming a cornerstone of the problem and being made fully aware of the problems, by denying their existence and failing to act, become as culpable as those you are protecting.

By shaming yourself, you demean every Australian.

Selah.

[Sarcs]

Happy snaps aside, the truth of the matter (in all its ugly glory..:{) is laid bare in a few short paragraphs by Kharon - bucket of choccy frogs to that man..:D:D: There are literally thousands of pages which support the fact that despite all logic, CASA will not accept the recommendations of either coroner or the ATSB, but would rather spend time and money addressing and abrogating the identified area of responsibility, not with a view to improvement, but to reduction of 'liability' and responsibility.
I would add the empirical & historical evidence of over a quarter of a century, all dutifully recorded in many a CVD pilot's log book.

In the case of Cooper Pedy airport, the many safe landings & departures on the Shire's record of airport movements would again also more than adequately reflect an empirical safety record dating back over a quarter of a century.

From Aunty today I note that there is finally a Federal pollie, outside of the Senate, that dares to question Fort Fumble's BASR approach...:D (my bold): MP questions need for Coober Pedy runway widening (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/mp-questions-need-for-coober-pedy-runway-widening/5727380)

The federal Member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, is welcoming a decision over commercial flights to Coober Pedy but says he believes taxpayers' money will be wasted in widening the runway.

Regional Express has cancelled flights to the outback town from November 13 over new Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations concerning the width of the town's runway.

The authority says existing operations can now continue until the runway is widened to meet the new standards.

Mr Ramsay is questioning why it has reached this stage.

"My bottom line is how much of a safety issue is it when we've been landing on it safely for 27 years with the same or similar aircraft?" he said.

"I actually think at the end of the day, and this is only Rowan Ramsey speaking, but I think that the strip doesn't need widening at all - it's a waste of public money to do so.

"But if there is no backing off from the regulation, if there's no allowance for the fact that we've got such a strong safety record there and the strip has to be widened, well then the strip has to be widened."
Must admit the Member for Grey has a point...:ok:

[Soteria]

I know there has been robust debate about whether Truss is asleep at the wheel, well my belief is that he isn't. He knows the game and he knows it very very well. But that's my point, it's politics and it is a game. Do you really think these overpaid habitual rorters could give a bucket of donkey crap about aviation in general, regulatory frameworks and peace for all mankind? Sorry guys and gals, the horse well and truly bolted decades ago and we have been standing chest deep in its excreta ever since. Let us see, for example, what we have by way of politicians;
- The Hon Peter Slipper
- The Hon Troy Buswell
- The Hon Craig Thomson
- The Hon Geoff Shaw
- The Hon Eddie Obeid
- The Hon Russ Hinze
- The Hon Peter Dowling..........need I continue scraping the surface?

The point being is this - the most senior of politicians, and most in general, are lying and deceiving grubs (perhaps excluding the likes of Fawcett, Xenophon, and a handful of genuine Independents). So if this is the fabric of the guys at the very top, what hope is there that senior public servants, career bureaucrats and other assorted department CEO's, Directors or executive managers will ooze integrity, honesty and transparency? Yep, exactly......

Folks, the day that Truss buried the ASSR submissions and re-appointed MM to his old role of Chief spin doctor, Beaker to his old role of Commissioner of Budgets, and promoted Sleepy Terry to Ag DAS at CASA was the day that you got your answer about what the intent of the current government was in relation to improving aviation transparency and safety.
As Sunfish would say - BOHICA.

[Sarcs]

Well do we slash our wrists now Soteria...:{...or do we, like the Member for Grey, simply cut out the middleman...:D:D
Ramsey Angry at CASA’s Inflexibility (http://www.rowanramsey.com.au/MediaHub/MediaReleases/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/356/Ramsey-Angry-at-CASAs-Inflexibility.aspx)

Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey has responded angrily to a decision by CASA which threatens to kill off the Rex service to Coober Pedy.


“I am very angry that a Federal bureaucracy in CASA has shown its sheer bloody-mindedness in trying to hitch on to international regulations to which Coober Pedy has an exemption for 27 years.

“Rex airlines and before them Kendall have operated a safe, efficient and incident free service for almost three decades.

“A ruling by CASA has put air services to Coober Pedy in jeopardy and caused enormous angst in the business community, for tourist operators and locals.

“Because Coober Pedy is so isolated it is simply not acceptable that we would not have a commercial air service servicing the town, particularly when we have a very good operator happy to supply the service.

“Now after an edict on his last day of employment with CASA, the Director of Aviation Safety John McCormack, has effectively closed down Coober Pedy’s air services.

“Rex will be in contravention of the ACCC if they sell tickets beyond the period when service can be guaranteed and as a result has withdrawn bookings beyond Nov 13th. CASA has informed Rex it will not be able to land in Coober Pedy if there are cross-winds greater than 10 knots post November 13.

“Conditions outside this parameter occur approximately ten percent of the time and would render the service unviable.

“In effect, if the Rex service arrived in Coober Pedy in conditions of greater than 10 knot winds they would have to turn around and return to Adelaide with all their passengers.

“Since 2002 this service has been operated by Rex Airlines using their Australia wide of Saab 340’s.

“I have brought this issue to the Prime Minister’s attention and he is as concerned as I am regarding the ramifications this decision will have on Coober Pedy.

“The Government has no control of CASA, it merely appoints the board and CASA operates as an independent body at arms-length from Government.

“This is appropriate, however at the end of the day, CASA are public servants and I have always believed public servants should help the public, not ruin businesses and lives to satisfy some red-tape sensitive souls who are not prepared to stand up and make a common sense decision.

“I will pursue this to the highest office in the land to seek a reversal of this decision. If that is simply not possible, I believe the Federal Government has indirect responsibility for this decision and accordingly I will seeking the funding to widen the air strip, even though I believe, having operated the service safely for 27 years, such an undertaking is a complete waste of public money.”
Think you should add MP RR to the shortlist of Pollies that reside with the angels...:ok:

[Soteria]

Sarcs, happy to include RR on the list of politicians who possess integrity. I have just updated my spreadsheet :ok: However it is a very very small list. To clarify, there is no wrist slitting taking place here, I am merely pointing out the present reality. As an individual who has been personally affected by our industry's embuggerance I wholeheartedly support any change that will benefit us as a collective. I also support the passion and good will of Senators Fawcett and Xenophon, and other like minded Senators and Independents. However, based on evidence, I am yet to see any significant change in the past 20 years, change that would indicate the tide has turned. Mr Truss's accomplishment to date are reminiscent of that incompetent Albo. And don't forget that Truss had his chance back in the days before Albo, pink bats shenanigans and the sociopathic Rudd got their hands on the aviation train set.

I am more than happy to chow down on a giant **** sandwich or accept a robust pineapple in my ageing sphincter should I be 'shocked, delighted, and proved wrong about my views', but I am not lubing up just yet, sorry.

[brissypilot]

From the CVDPA website:

Pilot Union Support : Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support)

The delegation also presented the Deputy Prime Minister with a petition signed by over 1700 people who have expressed concern over CASA’s handling of the CVD issue and have called on the government to intervene.

Link to the petition HERE (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/CVDPA%20Petition.pdf).

Lots of good comments worth reading :D

While 1700 is not a huge number, let's not forget the support of each of the three major unions who also represent several thousand more pilots too.

Not a bad effort overall considering CVD pilots are a minority group.

Now, how do we wake the Minister up? :ugh:

[Soteria]

Now, how do we wake the Minister up?
Easy!! Stick a nice full taxpayer trough beneath his nose. Otherwise advise him that he has just received another 20% pay rise or that some special bill has been introduced into parliament that guarantees politicians superannuation entitlements are indexed yearly and will align with a 'special' CPI rate of 1000% p/a. Otherwise an impact crater filled with charred bodies, fragmented metal and lots of composite material might get the silly old Git's attention. I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you.

[Soteria]

What is it with these fools? Firstly CASA get embroiled in pot plant shenanigans, and now from Warren 'Errol' Truss's Farcebook page he is attending the Noosa district Orchard and Foliage anniversary celebration! Has farm boy lost the plot? Too much outback sun over the years? Did he turn up to the big event in a 1970's Volvo with a Panama hat sitting on the back seat next to some comfy sandals and flask of herbal tea? I guess Wazza could have checked to see if some of the CASA worm farm castings have been used to make the orchards grow in a robust manner, however he doesn't have the power to do such things apparently!!

[aroa]

I believe that the time has well and truly arrived that the Aviation Industry deserves an RC into the roque "regulatory"

If it can be done for abused folk and pink batts, it can be done for an abused industry
How the Guvmint can divest itself of responsibility for a Commonwealth agency and just let it run free and unrestrained, has got the place stuffed.

Its a Soviet State within a supposedly "free" and democratic country.

Some of the crap out of CAsA lately smacks of "make change, make work" to impose on the industry yet again...and keep the CAsA creche "doing something, anything.."

Apart from the colosssal waste of taxpayers funds with the reg circus...the endemic cronyism and corruption, and blatant disregard for the laws, that other people have to abide by, says it all. :mad::mad:

Enough is enough.FFS:mad:

Hello, hello Warren, please hop out of the foliage and DO SOMETHING !!
Sorry ...nobody at home.

Hello Tony, PMC and crowd.... There is something to see here, WE can show you.
Digitus extractus.:ok: This pic shows the removed thumb

[Frank Arouet]

Has the Canadian report surfaced yet?

[Soteria]

Has the Canadian report surfaced yet?
No. It has been buried under a beautiful Orchid. I believe next years flowering will be absolutely awesome, great fertiliser!!

[Sarcs]

Question no.: 265
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Proof Hansard Page: 145 (26 May 2014)

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: … Mr McCormick, may I move on to answers that you gave at estimates last year about the costs associated with an AAT case relating to colour vision deficient pilots. You indicated that, as of 1 December 2013, the costs were $43,500. Can you tell me, in terms of forecast costs, how many expert witnesses CASA plans to call for that inquiry or tribunal?
Mr McCormick: Are you talking about the upcoming O'Brien tribunal in July?
Senator FAWCETT: Yes.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.
Mr Rule: There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.
Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?
Mr Rule: I am not across the precise number that would be—
Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?
Mr Rule: I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.

Answer:
Fourteen persons (five being current or former CASA officers, four with current or past experience as aviation regulators and five medical specialists with expertise in relation to colour vision) have provided expert reports or statements at the request of CASA for the purpose of the Tribunal proceedings.
With the exception of Dr Navathe, it is unclear at this stage which of the medical or other expert witnesses will be required to give evidence in person to the Tribunal. A directions hearing was held on 24 June 2014 and CASA has, in accordance with current directions made by the Tribunal, initiated discussions with the applicant’s legal representatives in an effort to identify and potentially narrow the scope of the evidence at the hearing. The hearing has now been rescheduled to commence on 21 October 2014.

Question no.: 266
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Proof Hansard Pages: 145-146 (26 May 2014)

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: …you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?
Mr Rule: Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal. Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.
Mr Rule: We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.

Answer:
To date (18 June 2014), CASA has incurred the following expenses:
Barrister fees $8,566
Medical/ expert reports $34,550
TOTAL $43,116

Based on an expected five day hearing, CASA estimates it will incur the following additional expenses:
Barrister fees $20,000
Expert witness attendance fees $15,000
Expert witness travel/accommodation $4,000
Transcript fees $3,000
TOTAL $42,000

Question no.: 267
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Mandate the CAD Test
Proof Hansard Pages: 146-147 (26 May 2014)

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: I understand. You did also say in that period that you did not believe there was any intention to mandate the CAD test and that was not the direction CASA was going. But I have subsequently seen a couple of examples where CASA refused to renew the medical of people who previously had multiple renewables of their medical unless they sat the CAD test. Does that not contradict your comment that that is not CASA's intended direction? Mr McCormick: I will go back and check what I actually said at the time, my recollection of the conversation was that we were talking about using the CAD test as the principal test rather than the Ishihara test or something like that. As I said, I will check that on notice.

Answer:
As discussed during the Estimates Hearings on 24 February 2014, it is not CASA’s present intention to mandate the use of the CAD test in the regulations. Consistent with the applicable provisions of Subpart 67.C of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, CASA has used the CAD test as its third-level test in recent times, on a case-by-case basis. CASA will continue to utilise the CAD test as one of the testing options for the third-level test, on a case-by-case basis.

[thorn bird]

So about eighty grand to destroy around four hundred careers.

Not bad value for money Sarcsy.

That works out around two hundred Bucks per career.

Compared with the costs of other CAsA embuggerances per career destroyed its a very good result.

Congratulations CAsA, bravo, well done.

[aroa]

Can we take it that all these "expert" witnesses will be producing RECENT evidence?
After all Pooshie claims that "recent" material puts the kybosh on 25 years times 500 CVD pilots of safe pilotage.
It had better be good..but as we can attest from past AATs CAsA is well versed in the art of bull**** supreme and spin. :mad: :mad:

[Soteria]

My source tells me that there is definitely only two DAS candidates that remain in the running, one 'local' and one from overseas. The new DAS, whoever that may be, won't start until January 2015. After the settling in period has finished the A380 endorsed subordinate will be leaving the asylum, actual departure date not yet confirmed. An additional Fort Fumble rumour is that the bald eagle Campbell may also find himself without a long future also. Interesting. And finally there were many many champagne corks popped when the little man PJ left the building!!!!

[Soteria]

May I remind Mr Truss and his minions, who continue to sprout diatribe about how safe Australian aviation is, of the below cable leak:

Cable Viewer (http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09CANBERRA1081.html)

¶1. (C/NF) Summary: The FAA team concluded their audit
(reftels) and gave a brief assessment of preliminary
findings. While the team recognized improvements on previous
shortcomings and commended many areas, a few
problems remain. Australian officials seem committed to
overcoming the shortcomings before a second and final FAA
visit within the next three months, but the possibility of a
category downgrade does exist and is being taken
seriously. The team outlined the sequence of events going
forward and agreed to work closely with Embassy Canberra.
End Summary.

Naughty naughty Truss, nothing has changed my bucktoothed friend: MrDak reappointed. Beaker reappointed. Terry (of A380 and Sky Sentinel fame) still employed. Dr Voodoo still employed. Peter Boyd still employed. TO NAME BUT A FEW.

Natural justice for Quadrio denied. Natural justice for Ziggy chick denied. Natural justice for Shane Urquhart denied. Natural justice for Clarke Butson denied. Natural justice for Australian CVD pilots denied. TO NAME BUT A FEW.

C'mon sleepy Warren, time to get out from beneath your 10 tonne farmers hat, wake up, have a stretch and then get to fu#king work as you have a thoroughly raped Australian aviation industry to repair before the IOS start getting itchy feet.

[Eddie Dean]

In respect to the second FAA visit, what was the outcome?

[Sarcs]

Eddie - In respect to the second FAA visit, what was the outcome? Good question..:D If you read further on the Willyleaks cable:Preventing Worst-Case Scenario
-------------------------------

¶ (http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09CANBERRA1081.html#par5)5. (C/NF) A downgrade to Category 2 would be the worst-case
scenario, which would entail measures such as
freezing Australia-U.S. flight operations to current levels
and terminating code-sharing arrangements, such as the one
between Qantas and American Airlines. CASA officials are not
taking this possibility lightly and seem committed to
resolve the shortcomings in order to avoid a downgrade.

¶ (http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09CANBERRA1081.html#par6)6. (C/NF) Comment: FAA team members were extremely satisfied
with CASA officials' openness and eagerness to
make constructive improvements based on the assessment. FAA
Qmake constructive improvements based on the assessment. FAA
and CASA clearly have a good working relationship and
we will monitor progress toward maintaining Category 1
status. We will also monitor that CASA's efforts enjoy
adequate support at the ministerial level as well as from

CANBERRA 00001081 002 OF 002

Australia's commercial airlines.

BLEICH I think it is called diplomacy...:rolleyes:

Then we had the former DAS commissioning Wodger to write a largely plagiarised report:
11Internal CASA report titled "Oversight Deficiencies- Pel-Air and Beyond" also known as the Chambers report (dated 1 August 2010), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 6210KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=b2509175-b1eb-4ae1-b9c3-b3897323df48)
The DAS then went armed with the report and cap in hand to MM & Albo, best explained here from about 03:45...:E

Chambers report & the $89 million bucket - AAI inquiry 15/02/13 - YouTube

Whether that $89 million had the desired effect (i.e addressing the FAA concerns) well the jury is still out...:zzz: However after the PelAir debacle etc. the average punter (person at the back of the room) will definitely be struggling to see any major improvements in the way FF go about business. And now with the $89 million effectively spent, some would even surmise that the situation is in fact much, much worse...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Eddie –"[In respect to the second FAA visit,] etc"

No respect, whatsoever is the short answer. None to the FAA, none for industry, none for the Australian traveller, none for the Parliament which pays through the nose; or for the industry which funds the sheltered workshops and child day care centres CASA call 'training programs'. In short the Yanks got 'dissed' (as the youngun's say), perhaps, they'll visit again. I'd bet a choccy frog a downgrade to Cat 2 would get Truss, his minions, sycophants and 'advisors' off their collective posteriors. Quick smart.

We can only hope Uncle Sam is watching.

[thorn bird]

Fear not good boatman, they are watching with even growing alarm.

[Eddie Dean]

Thanks for the replies, it would seem that diplomacy was the winner.
The part of the industry I work in has missed, or maybe ignored, the problems you guys are talking about.

[PAIN_NET]

Eddie – the link – HERE (http://www39.zippyshare.com/v/47465479/file.html)– will take you to Zippyshare for a copy of the 2008 audit, that will start you off in the right place.

Please take care and only click on the – http://www39.zippyshare.com/images/download.png- button, to avoid spam and hassles. Enjoy.

P9 a.k.a. K9 – my turn tonight.....