CASA Release OCVA Replacement - The ACVA
Thread Starter
CASA Release OCVA Replacement - The ACVA
CASA have finally released the long awaited replacement for the OCVA. It is now called the ACVA and looks like it's morphed into a PAPI test. The major difference now is that you only get two attempts and if you fail those attempts a lockout is enforced and you cannot be a professional pilot.
One very strange thing is that you cannot carry passengers at night until you get ATPL requirements. It basically removes a huge amount of GA jobs to any prospective pilots!
Please see the link below for more information;
https://www.casa.gov.au/designated-a...-colour-vision
One very strange thing is that you cannot carry passengers at night until you get ATPL requirements. It basically removes a huge amount of GA jobs to any prospective pilots!
Please see the link below for more information;
https://www.casa.gov.au/designated-a...-colour-vision
Wow.
is this retrospective? What about existing pilots with CVD?
So you don’t pass the normal tests, so now you can fly at night no pax. Once you get to ATPL you can do a flight test to see you can use a PAPI.
Bit bloody late to find that out!
Concept of a practical PAPI test is good. But why not do the test at PPL or earlier to know whether you’re going to pass it at all?
and which PAPI will they use. I hope they check them first…
is this retrospective? What about existing pilots with CVD?
So you don’t pass the normal tests, so now you can fly at night no pax. Once you get to ATPL you can do a flight test to see you can use a PAPI.
Bit bloody late to find that out!
Concept of a practical PAPI test is good. But why not do the test at PPL or earlier to know whether you’re going to pass it at all?
and which PAPI will they use. I hope they check them first…
Thread Starter
Hi compressor stall,
At this stage we have had no indication of it being retrospective, however CASA last year sent out threatening letters to people who have previously passed an OCVA. So this still remains to be seen.
As the ACVA currently reads it seems you can sit the ACVA as soon as you get a medical, then once you get the ATPL hours you can apply to have those restrictions removed. It doesn't even seem this test is yet available it just seems it's been written.
So many questions remain on this. For example could one instruct at night to gather experience seeing as students aren't technically passengers. Has this been an oversight that a new CPL cannot operate in a Barron or equivalent up in Darwin under IFR?
Don't totally agree with the PAPI test comment. I flew GA at night in Chieftains and various other things into regional ports with no PAPI indications safely. Now I have access to advanced EFIS with VNAV guidance and simple 1 in 10 rule checks. I understand colour normal pilots relying heavier on PAPI as that's all they've ever known however most CVD pilots can see PAPI the majority of the time and just use the above tools as cross checks. It's not as simple as the candidate can or can't see the PAPI. Colour normal pilots have trouble seeing the PAPI on bright and hazy days. It's a lot like that for CVD pilots just the point at which they become hard to distinguish happens sooner.
At this stage we have had no indication of it being retrospective, however CASA last year sent out threatening letters to people who have previously passed an OCVA. So this still remains to be seen.
As the ACVA currently reads it seems you can sit the ACVA as soon as you get a medical, then once you get the ATPL hours you can apply to have those restrictions removed. It doesn't even seem this test is yet available it just seems it's been written.
So many questions remain on this. For example could one instruct at night to gather experience seeing as students aren't technically passengers. Has this been an oversight that a new CPL cannot operate in a Barron or equivalent up in Darwin under IFR?
Don't totally agree with the PAPI test comment. I flew GA at night in Chieftains and various other things into regional ports with no PAPI indications safely. Now I have access to advanced EFIS with VNAV guidance and simple 1 in 10 rule checks. I understand colour normal pilots relying heavier on PAPI as that's all they've ever known however most CVD pilots can see PAPI the majority of the time and just use the above tools as cross checks. It's not as simple as the candidate can or can't see the PAPI. Colour normal pilots have trouble seeing the PAPI on bright and hazy days. It's a lot like that for CVD pilots just the point at which they become hard to distinguish happens sooner.
Of course: The zealots cling to PAPI as the weapon to wield against people with CVD. One only has to look at the extraordinary lengths to which the zealots went to ensure that the FO’s CVD was found to be a contributing factor in the Tallahassee FEDEX accident. I defy any objective reader to come to the same conclusion.
I’m no longer surprised at the extent of the intellectual dishonesty of the bloated leaches on the CVD pilot and aspiring pilot population. CVD is such an easy target and the source of such interesting Guinea pig data to be discussed at conferences and used to scare the public into cries to be saved. Pilot CVD is now a lucrative religion dressed up as science.
(And no: I don’t have CVD.)
I’m no longer surprised at the extent of the intellectual dishonesty of the bloated leaches on the CVD pilot and aspiring pilot population. CVD is such an easy target and the source of such interesting Guinea pig data to be discussed at conferences and used to scare the public into cries to be saved. Pilot CVD is now a lucrative religion dressed up as science.
(And no: I don’t have CVD.)
The following users liked this post:
Every time I read an article like this, I'm reminded of Avmed's approach to CVD - though there was a short period of enlightenment as a consequence of objectivity prevailing temporarily.
A couple of highlights:
A couple of highlights:
The fallacy of incomplete evidence
There is a big difference between evidence-based thesis or thinking and cherry picking or choosing data or evidence (they are not the same thing) that supports your argument or point of view.
The fallacy of incomplete evidence is a logical illusion or misinterpretation that occurs when we are only being given or only subject ourselves (through selective reading or only approaching experts who agree with our viewpoint, for example) to evidence that backs up one point of view or proposition. Because the evidence is incomplete, it creates a bias and a of assumptions that may be false or different to those we might otherwise have, if we knew the full facts.
As a result, any thinking or conclusions drawn are also likely to be biased. The fallacy of incomplete evidence refers to the phenomenon whereby people tend to become swayed and believe a proposition or argument, if there appears to be evidence for the argument, even if that evidence is incomplete or biased. This effect is particularly strong, if the argument put forward is in agreement with the individual’s values. In effect, people are unlikely to realise that the evidence they are being presented with is incomplete and biased.
Evidence suppression, reference mining and cherry-picking
It is actually manipulation to cherry pick evidence, (also known as evidence suppression or quote/reference mining). Finding evidence that only supports your argument and either ignoring or even actively misinterpreting, suppressing or hiding evidence that does not support, or disagrees with, your argument is a form of manipulation. The reason why people engage in such practices is to bolster their argument; if people are made aware of the counter-evidence, they may well question the argument.
Evidence suppression can be done for a variety of reasons, however, the effect is the same – to promote and enhance the claims made by a particular argument.
There is a big difference between evidence-based thesis or thinking and cherry picking or choosing data or evidence (they are not the same thing) that supports your argument or point of view.
The fallacy of incomplete evidence is a logical illusion or misinterpretation that occurs when we are only being given or only subject ourselves (through selective reading or only approaching experts who agree with our viewpoint, for example) to evidence that backs up one point of view or proposition. Because the evidence is incomplete, it creates a bias and a of assumptions that may be false or different to those we might otherwise have, if we knew the full facts.
As a result, any thinking or conclusions drawn are also likely to be biased. The fallacy of incomplete evidence refers to the phenomenon whereby people tend to become swayed and believe a proposition or argument, if there appears to be evidence for the argument, even if that evidence is incomplete or biased. This effect is particularly strong, if the argument put forward is in agreement with the individual’s values. In effect, people are unlikely to realise that the evidence they are being presented with is incomplete and biased.
Evidence suppression, reference mining and cherry-picking
It is actually manipulation to cherry pick evidence, (also known as evidence suppression or quote/reference mining). Finding evidence that only supports your argument and either ignoring or even actively misinterpreting, suppressing or hiding evidence that does not support, or disagrees with, your argument is a form of manipulation. The reason why people engage in such practices is to bolster their argument; if people are made aware of the counter-evidence, they may well question the argument.
Evidence suppression can be done for a variety of reasons, however, the effect is the same – to promote and enhance the claims made by a particular argument.
Those who fly into regions of red dust will note that PAPI is good for four pink lights. So much so it is almost useless, but a mere regulatory tick in the box. Red lights against a red background, that's just full of contrast.
If safety was truly the argument, we'd still have VASIS. Thanks, ICAO.
Another stupid hill CASA is willing to die on. Yes, my CV is fine.
If safety was truly the argument, we'd still have VASIS. Thanks, ICAO.
Another stupid hill CASA is willing to die on. Yes, my CV is fine.
The following 2 users liked this post by Led Zep:
Those who fly into regions of red dust will note that PAPI is good for four pink lights. So much so it is almost useless, but a mere regulatory tick in the box. Red lights against a red background, that's just full of contrast.
If safety was truly the argument, we'd still have VASIS. Thanks, ICAO.
Another stupid hill CASA is willing to die on. Yes, my CV is fine.
If safety was truly the argument, we'd still have VASIS. Thanks, ICAO.
Another stupid hill CASA is willing to die on. Yes, my CV is fine.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Here we are again. After promising the OCVA replacement would be ready a month ago this day has come and gone and now the metaphorical ball has once again been indefinitely kicked down the road with no end in sight.
Senator Fawcett has asked CASA various questions in senate estimates to which we got some very vague responses with no evidence offered to support the new stance nor a time frame on when this new generation of pilots can expect clarity. A lot of statements were also made claiming no retrospective changes will be made to pilot medicals even though I was expressly told by Tony Hochberg that this would be on 'a case by case basis'.
We also are aware of multiple cases where pilots sat the OCVA while it was current and were subsequently denied a clean medical as they were entitled to. This was expressly denied that this happened by CASA in these questions Senator Fawcett posed to CASA. Once again, zero accountability or zero requirement for CASA to prove this new approach is based on valid science. Just constant repeats of 'international consensus'.
I have attached the link to this latest video, until then I won't hold my breath for CASA to make headway on this as I will run out of oxygen before they've even gotten out of bed.
Senator Fawcett has asked CASA various questions in senate estimates to which we got some very vague responses with no evidence offered to support the new stance nor a time frame on when this new generation of pilots can expect clarity. A lot of statements were also made claiming no retrospective changes will be made to pilot medicals even though I was expressly told by Tony Hochberg that this would be on 'a case by case basis'.
We also are aware of multiple cases where pilots sat the OCVA while it was current and were subsequently denied a clean medical as they were entitled to. This was expressly denied that this happened by CASA in these questions Senator Fawcett posed to CASA. Once again, zero accountability or zero requirement for CASA to prove this new approach is based on valid science. Just constant repeats of 'international consensus'.
I have attached the link to this latest video, until then I won't hold my breath for CASA to make headway on this as I will run out of oxygen before they've even gotten out of bed.
The following users liked this post:
There have been lots of lies – that’s what they are: deliberate mistruths – told by commission and omission by various CASA people about what is and is not being done about the OCVA ‘replacement’, where it will 'fit' into the regulatory hierarchy and when. I will, for the time being, give Ms Spence the benefit of the doubt and assume that she’s been misled by her own staff.
Current and aspiring pilots with CVD should be in no doubt: The zealots have been left by CASA, once again, to recommence their crusade to rid the commercial skies of pilots with CVD by labelling and restricting them. The zealots are insouciantly indifferent to the levels of stress caused to you about the chronic uncertainty as to what the future holds and your consequential practical inability to make long-term plans. That assists their crusade.
They are also insouciantly indifferent to what the law says about how compliance with the colour perception standard must be demonstrated. As with most zealots on a crusade for a noble cause, they treat inconvenient laws as a mere bagatelle. The law exists only for them to wield against others in pursuit of the noble cause. The zealots are comfortable with that approach because they know how few victims are prepared to go through the time-consuming, costly and stressful process of external merits or judicial review.
(One of the CASA Avmed doctors said, at this year’s Avmed/DAME Conference, that the AAT doesn’t know what it’s talking about. That’s a manifestation of their arrogant contempt for anyone who differs with their opinions. It’s also a manifestation of CASA’s abject failure to put proper governance arrangements around these public officials and train them to understand their duties and accountabilities as public officials.)
The process of development of the OCVA ‘replacement’ involves an echo chamber of mostly like-minded zealots, citing the same dodgy evidence they always do to support their prejudices. CASA refused to reveal, under FOI, the names of all the special people who were invited to make noise in the AvMed echo chamber. But I’ll bet folding money that some of them make money out of administering the tests that CASA requires CVD pilots to undergo if they want to get a medical certificate. That’s AvMed’s concept of transparency and objectivity.
Unless Ms Spence and the CASA Board start doing their jobs properly and get these zealots back in check, it will have to be done the hard, expensive way again. Standby for more news on that front.
Current and aspiring pilots with CVD should be in no doubt: The zealots have been left by CASA, once again, to recommence their crusade to rid the commercial skies of pilots with CVD by labelling and restricting them. The zealots are insouciantly indifferent to the levels of stress caused to you about the chronic uncertainty as to what the future holds and your consequential practical inability to make long-term plans. That assists their crusade.
They are also insouciantly indifferent to what the law says about how compliance with the colour perception standard must be demonstrated. As with most zealots on a crusade for a noble cause, they treat inconvenient laws as a mere bagatelle. The law exists only for them to wield against others in pursuit of the noble cause. The zealots are comfortable with that approach because they know how few victims are prepared to go through the time-consuming, costly and stressful process of external merits or judicial review.
(One of the CASA Avmed doctors said, at this year’s Avmed/DAME Conference, that the AAT doesn’t know what it’s talking about. That’s a manifestation of their arrogant contempt for anyone who differs with their opinions. It’s also a manifestation of CASA’s abject failure to put proper governance arrangements around these public officials and train them to understand their duties and accountabilities as public officials.)
The process of development of the OCVA ‘replacement’ involves an echo chamber of mostly like-minded zealots, citing the same dodgy evidence they always do to support their prejudices. CASA refused to reveal, under FOI, the names of all the special people who were invited to make noise in the AvMed echo chamber. But I’ll bet folding money that some of them make money out of administering the tests that CASA requires CVD pilots to undergo if they want to get a medical certificate. That’s AvMed’s concept of transparency and objectivity.
Unless Ms Spence and the CASA Board start doing their jobs properly and get these zealots back in check, it will have to be done the hard, expensive way again. Standby for more news on that front.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 5th Nov 2023 at 09:43.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
