Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Petition to Minister Truss

Old 7th Aug 2014, 23:45
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2014, 04:52
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
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...
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2014, 01:30
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2014, 20:16
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

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 - 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 – (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' - 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 – and – BOOZE – 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.


Last edited by Kharon; 10th Aug 2014 at 20:55. Reason: Self evident - in the new psychic era.
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 11:37
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
DAMP - The new PMO crusade perhaps??

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):

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...

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)

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).

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 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...}

And from Bolton decision
CASA 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],
... 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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??

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) (FF loss)

Walker and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 169 (28 March 2014) (FF win)

Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014) (FF loss)

Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014) (FF loss)

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

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 : RAAA SUBMISSION CUTTING RED TAPE

"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...


Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Aug 2014 at 22:37. Reason: Stand corrected Mack cheers
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 20:31
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 8
Well said Sarcs!

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.

Peter McSherry

I really appreciate all the effort put into these threads
mack44 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 20:45
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Nettles and the grasping thereof.

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)
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.

Last edited by Kharon; 12th Aug 2014 at 20:53. Reason: Adda Mack,
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 22:08
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Well done that man!

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... 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...

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] 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..

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

Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Aug 2014 at 22:50.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 22:12
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 547

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.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 22:22
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 8

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.
mack44 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 23:07
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 105
The origins of the PMO's crusade

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

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

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 (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.

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.
{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 - 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?

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.

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).

Bring back Doc Liddell I say

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
brissypilot is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 08:49
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
AOPAA speaking up on CVD/AVMED

Following on from BP's post #457 off the ESB thread and in particular the miniscule's COS reply to AOPAA:

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..

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...

Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 21:21
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,051
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.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 22:49
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
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.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 23:44
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,334
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.
thorn bird is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2014, 02:14
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Addendum to my last...

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...

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...

At the same time it should come as no great surprise that AOPAA are taking such a strong (belated) stand on CVD.. 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':
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
Dr Arthur Pape is a former Vice-President of the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).

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 decision was handed down...

For the benefit of the PMO......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?

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...:
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 ), 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)...

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


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

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

Last edited by Sarcs; 14th Aug 2014 at 02:27.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2014, 15:49
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Grrr evidence, show me the evidence

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?
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2014, 22:13
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,051
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 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2014, 00:29
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,051
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 [in AVMED], 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 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)

Last edited by Creampuff; 16th Aug 2014 at 05:20. Reason: Typo: "if" changed to "of"
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2014, 06:41
  #60 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Friday arvo offtrack PNR

Absolute pure GOLD Creamy love it!

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

Came across an interesting report from the Aviation Safety Network website: ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 168683
De Havilland Canada DHC-8-402Q Dash 8

Registration:G-JECJC/n / msn:4110
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 51
Other fatalities:0
Airplane damage:None
Location:Belfast City Airport (BHD/EGAC) - United Kingdom
Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport:Birmingham International Airport (BHX/EGBB)
Destination airport:Belfast City Airport (BHD/EGAC)
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.

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.."

Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.