The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PMO to DAME's
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.
The CVDPA folk have also published "Dr" Navathe's email to DAME's a few weeks ago. See here.
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Colleague,
As you are probably aware, there has been much discussion recently about issues related to colour vision deficiency (CVD) and its implications for holders of flight crew licences.
Over the past several years, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued class one medical certificates to a number of commercial pilots who have either failed the Ishihara test and not gone to any further testing, or who have failed to satisfy the applicable medical standard after further testing. The same has been true for holders of class two medical certificates.
Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant are than they were initially considered to be. Accordingly CASA is writing to all affected pilots, asking them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the conditions to which they are currently subject, and whether modifications to their flying practices such as limiting their flights to day only, VFR only, or other such limitations as may be appropriate. To help pilots to make this decision, we are urging them to get in touch with their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.
We are also writing to AOC holders to let them know that we have written to the pilots and to let them know that they could be employing a pilot who has a CVD.
In the expectation you will be approached by pilot-patients with questions about this matter, I thought it would be useful to provide you with some information that can illuminate the issues and facilitate your discussions. Dougal Watson, Principal Medical Officer of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, has recently published an article in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine about the differences in medical certification with respect to colour vision deficiency worldwide Lack of international uniformity in ... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI. For those of you who have access to the Flight Safety Foundation’s publication AeroSafety World, there is a ‘plain language’ article about colour vision based on the Dr Watson’s article AeroSafety World | Flight Safety Foundation . I am also providing a link to an interesting and relevant report, Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew, which was published by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf
Of course, it is for you to determine whether, and if so how, to advise any pilot who may approach you in connection with this matter. At this point, it is for the individual pilots concerned to make their own decisions; although I am sure you will agree that making such a decision on a medically informed basis would be advisable.
At this point, CASA has no plans to change the existing endorsements on the medical certificates of anyone who has a CVD-related limitation. Our current approach to the matter is described on the CASA website at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Medical Certification frequently asked questions (see How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?). However, we are continuing to review current research and are closely monitoring the consideration and disposition of certain evidentiary materials that are being assessed in pertinent proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
As CASA’s position on this matter develops further, we will keep all of our stakeholders advised accordingly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any particular questions or concerns. Probably the best way to contact me is to email [email protected]
Kind Regards,
Dr Pooshan Navathé
MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer
Dear Colleague,
As you are probably aware, there has been much discussion recently about issues related to colour vision deficiency (CVD) and its implications for holders of flight crew licences.
Over the past several years, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued class one medical certificates to a number of commercial pilots who have either failed the Ishihara test and not gone to any further testing, or who have failed to satisfy the applicable medical standard after further testing. The same has been true for holders of class two medical certificates.
Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant are than they were initially considered to be. Accordingly CASA is writing to all affected pilots, asking them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the conditions to which they are currently subject, and whether modifications to their flying practices such as limiting their flights to day only, VFR only, or other such limitations as may be appropriate. To help pilots to make this decision, we are urging them to get in touch with their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.
We are also writing to AOC holders to let them know that we have written to the pilots and to let them know that they could be employing a pilot who has a CVD.
In the expectation you will be approached by pilot-patients with questions about this matter, I thought it would be useful to provide you with some information that can illuminate the issues and facilitate your discussions. Dougal Watson, Principal Medical Officer of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, has recently published an article in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine about the differences in medical certification with respect to colour vision deficiency worldwide Lack of international uniformity in ... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI. For those of you who have access to the Flight Safety Foundation’s publication AeroSafety World, there is a ‘plain language’ article about colour vision based on the Dr Watson’s article AeroSafety World | Flight Safety Foundation . I am also providing a link to an interesting and relevant report, Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew, which was published by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf
Of course, it is for you to determine whether, and if so how, to advise any pilot who may approach you in connection with this matter. At this point, it is for the individual pilots concerned to make their own decisions; although I am sure you will agree that making such a decision on a medically informed basis would be advisable.
At this point, CASA has no plans to change the existing endorsements on the medical certificates of anyone who has a CVD-related limitation. Our current approach to the matter is described on the CASA website at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Medical Certification frequently asked questions (see How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?). However, we are continuing to review current research and are closely monitoring the consideration and disposition of certain evidentiary materials that are being assessed in pertinent proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
As CASA’s position on this matter develops further, we will keep all of our stakeholders advised accordingly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any particular questions or concerns. Probably the best way to contact me is to email [email protected]
Kind Regards,
Dr Pooshan Navathé
MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer
MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
I wouldn't be surprised if someone is, as we speak, researching each of the PMO's qualifications in detail: Which institution awarded it? What is that institution's academic credentials and reputation? What were the criteria for the award? What has been published in the PMO's name and do the authorities cited in those publications exist and support the claims made?
The PMO can have no reasonable objection to, and should have no discomfort in, research that confirms his stated qualifications, experience and authored publications are substantive and accurate.
I stress I am not suggesting anything inappropriate or inaccurate in the PMO's stated qualifications, but I cannot help but recollect a person by the name of Marcus Einfeld whose "Who's Who" entry was discovered to contain a number of "Wheeties Box" and non-existent qualifications and experience, after he was convicted of perjury and intending to pervert the course of justice. (Not a good look for a judge.) From an article in The Australian, 20 March 2009:
... As his story unravelled so did his CV. He had unwittingly invited scrutiny and the media took up the challenge. It emerged that he had bought degrees from American "universities", had not been a director of Marks and Spencer and that his judgements adopted others' work without attribution.
The public was reminded that his presidency of the Human Rights Commission came to an end soon after he was challenged for allegedly twice claiming compensation for the same property - an overcoat - lost on an overseas trip.
He had also falsely used the "I wasn't driving excuse" on three previous occasions, blaming friends who were visiting from overseas. It would become known as the Einfeld defence and promoted a change in the law when it was discovered that hundreds of drivers had used it avoid traffic and parking fines. ...
The public was reminded that his presidency of the Human Rights Commission came to an end soon after he was challenged for allegedly twice claiming compensation for the same property - an overcoat - lost on an overseas trip.
He had also falsely used the "I wasn't driving excuse" on three previous occasions, blaming friends who were visiting from overseas. It would become known as the Einfeld defence and promoted a change in the law when it was discovered that hundreds of drivers had used it avoid traffic and parking fines. ...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps he went here;
Corllins University – The Place for Effective Learning & Education
Corllins University - FAKE university, Review 468391 | Complaints Board
I don't know if he did or not, just asking the question.
Corllins University – The Place for Effective Learning & Education
Corllins University - FAKE university, Review 468391 | Complaints Board
I don't know if he did or not, just asking the question.
And the letters to the employers of CVD pilots casting doubt on their safety is not a personal attack on them? 
Dr Pooshan Navathé MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer of CASA is an employee of a public authority, and is therefore subject to public scrutiny.
[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]
Dr Pooshan Navathé MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)
Principal Medical Officer of CASA is an employee of a public authority, and is therefore subject to public scrutiny.
[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Jun 2014 at 06:26. Reason: Added PS
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooshan - Is he a real "professor"
I believe that there is a reasonable question to be raised here. Pooshan is put up as an "expert witness".
Having been in the situation as an expert witness, it is essential to ensure that all the proper and directed procedures are adhered to by the expert.
The following is an excellent summation by J. Craig
Having been in the situation as an expert witness, it is essential to ensure that all the proper and directed procedures are adhered to by the expert.
The following is an excellent summation by J. Craig
EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NSW: A SYNOPSIS
The Hon. Justice Malcolm Craig Judge of the Land and Environment Court of NSW
Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment Courts and Tribunals
Perth, 28 August – 2 September 2012
Expressed at a level of generality, it can be accepted that the intended role of an expert has been to provide the court or tribunal with impartial and objective assistance in drawing inferences and conclusions from primary facts in respect of which the court is not able to do so without the assistance of a person possessing expert knowledge.
The obligations of an expert witness have recently been stated by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal2 in a series of propositions, summarised in the following way:
(i) Expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.
(ii) An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of an objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his or her expertise. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate.
(iii) An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. That witness should not omit to consider the material facts which could detract from his or her concluded opinion.
(iv) An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside the expertise of that witness.
(v) If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because that expert considers there to be an insufficiency of available data, this must be stated, with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an expert who has prepared a report cannot assert that the report contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.
(vi) If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his or her opinion on a material matter, having regard to the other side’s expert reports, or for any other reason, such change of opinion should be communicated (through legal representatives) to the other side without delay and, when appropriate, to the court.
(vii) Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses, measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports.
These obligations upon expert witnesses are of longstanding. It was the perceived failure of experts in many cases to observe these obligations which identified the need for reform, directed to the manner in which evidence should be prepared and presented to a court or tribunal vested with jurisdiction to resolve a dispute.
The manner in which courts and tribunals in various jurisdictions have grappled with the need to preserve the integrity of expert evidence has differed in its detail.
However, at a level of generality there can be no doubt that achievement of the obligations upon expert witnesses that I have identified has informed the measures taken in many jurisdictions.
The Hon. Justice Malcolm Craig Judge of the Land and Environment Court of NSW
Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment Courts and Tribunals
Perth, 28 August – 2 September 2012
Expressed at a level of generality, it can be accepted that the intended role of an expert has been to provide the court or tribunal with impartial and objective assistance in drawing inferences and conclusions from primary facts in respect of which the court is not able to do so without the assistance of a person possessing expert knowledge.
The obligations of an expert witness have recently been stated by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal2 in a series of propositions, summarised in the following way:
(i) Expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.
(ii) An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of an objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his or her expertise. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate.
(iii) An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. That witness should not omit to consider the material facts which could detract from his or her concluded opinion.
(iv) An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside the expertise of that witness.
(v) If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because that expert considers there to be an insufficiency of available data, this must be stated, with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an expert who has prepared a report cannot assert that the report contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.
(vi) If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his or her opinion on a material matter, having regard to the other side’s expert reports, or for any other reason, such change of opinion should be communicated (through legal representatives) to the other side without delay and, when appropriate, to the court.
(vii) Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses, measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports.
These obligations upon expert witnesses are of longstanding. It was the perceived failure of experts in many cases to observe these obligations which identified the need for reform, directed to the manner in which evidence should be prepared and presented to a court or tribunal vested with jurisdiction to resolve a dispute.
The manner in which courts and tribunals in various jurisdictions have grappled with the need to preserve the integrity of expert evidence has differed in its detail.
However, at a level of generality there can be no doubt that achievement of the obligations upon expert witnesses that I have identified has informed the measures taken in many jurisdictions.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 29th Jun 2014 at 03:39. Reason: minor editorial and spacing
If you have any concerns, take them up with the mods or take action in defamation. 
[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]
[PS: This post only makes sense in the context of ausdoc's now-deleted posts.]
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Jun 2014 at 06:27. Reason: Added PS
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Creampuff, I deleted the posts. Mainly because I realised that after your reply to my suggestion that playing the ball rather than the man may be more productive, that you are not interested in rational debate, rather in the shutting down of anybody who might question your methods. Editing your posts after I had replied to them is pretty similar, is it not?
I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.
As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.
I'll take no further part in this.
I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.
As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.
I'll take no further part in this.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Creampuff on this one. If a person uses a whole heap of titles and puts themselves forward as a man of letters, then it is fair and reasonable that their credentials be the subject of scrutiny.
There is nothing at all sinister about such investigation (I have no knowledge of the exchange between CP and the good Ausdoc, here). Indeed, such investigation should be see as for the common good.
There is nothing at all sinister about such investigation (I have no knowledge of the exchange between CP and the good Ausdoc, here). Indeed, such investigation should be see as for the common good.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way casa introduced drug and alcohol testing and subsequent changes made could have relevance to CVD? Too quick to introduce a one size fits all and the safety argument didn't support leading to changes.
CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing
CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing
12 Jun 2012
Small AOC holders will be able to use new simplified rules to comply with important drug and alcohol management requirements.
CASA is introducing the new processes for aviation organisations with seven or fewer employees engaged in safety sensitive activities. The new simplified processes do not apply to any aviation organisation engaged in or providing services to regular public transport operations.
Eligible aviation organisations will be able to use a standard drug and alcohol management plan provided by CASA. Full details of eligibility requirements are on CASA's web site. Operators will also use an e-learning package to educate and train their employees in drug and alcohol responsibilities.
Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, said the new processes recognised that the existing requirements could be unnecessarily onerous for these small operators.
"We are making life easier for small aviation organisations by streamlining the process of drug and alcohol management while maintaining high safety standards," he said. "Small aviation organisations will no longer have to develop their own drug and alcohol management plans.
"By using CASA's new drug and alcohol management plan and new on-line training small aviation organisations will save time and resources and still be confident they are meeting all the regulatory requirements.
"CASA has listened to the concerns of the aviation industry about the impact of drug and alcohol management plans on small organisations and found a solution that is simpler and protects safety."
Small aviation organisations using the new processes will still be required to report to CASA every six months on their drug and alcohol management performance and CASA will continue to check on compliance.
CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing
CASA Simplifies Drug and Alcohol Testing
12 Jun 2012
Small AOC holders will be able to use new simplified rules to comply with important drug and alcohol management requirements.
CASA is introducing the new processes for aviation organisations with seven or fewer employees engaged in safety sensitive activities. The new simplified processes do not apply to any aviation organisation engaged in or providing services to regular public transport operations.
Eligible aviation organisations will be able to use a standard drug and alcohol management plan provided by CASA. Full details of eligibility requirements are on CASA's web site. Operators will also use an e-learning package to educate and train their employees in drug and alcohol responsibilities.
Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, said the new processes recognised that the existing requirements could be unnecessarily onerous for these small operators.
"We are making life easier for small aviation organisations by streamlining the process of drug and alcohol management while maintaining high safety standards," he said. "Small aviation organisations will no longer have to develop their own drug and alcohol management plans.
"By using CASA's new drug and alcohol management plan and new on-line training small aviation organisations will save time and resources and still be confident they are meeting all the regulatory requirements.
"CASA has listened to the concerns of the aviation industry about the impact of drug and alcohol management plans on small organisations and found a solution that is simpler and protects safety."
Small aviation organisations using the new processes will still be required to report to CASA every six months on their drug and alcohol management performance and CASA will continue to check on compliance.
Yes Creampuff, I deleted the posts. Mainly because I realised that after your reply to my suggestion that playing the ball rather than the man may be more productive, that you are not interested in rational debate, rather in the shutting down of anybody who might question your methods. Editing your posts after I had replied to them is pretty similar, is it not?
I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.
As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.
I'll take no further part in this.
I can only conclude that your suggestion that I take action in defamation was an attempt to "out" me - also against the forum rules.
As I initially posted, when you have nothing to add to the argument other than personal attacks, dirt-digging, and attempts to shut down discussion, I think your contribution is starting to lose credibility.
I'll take no further part in this.
First, let me make this very clear: I am entitled to, and will, track down every last letter of every pre- and post-nominal of any and all qualifications, experience and publications that any occupant of any public position claims to have in his or her correspondence, if I choose to. If some public official wants to claim qualifications and experience, he or she better have them if he or she is going to use those claimed qualifications and experience as a basis to claim a right to the position and decisions that affect people's livelihoods.
And as I said earlier, no one in any public position has a reasonable objection to, and should have no discomfort in, research that confirms his or her stated qualifications, experience and authored publications are substantive and accurate.
To what 'rational debate' and 'argument' do you refer? A 'rational debate' depends on evidence.
If there is any evidence - other than the mere opinion of zealots - to demonstrate a causal link between pilot CVD and air safety, please produce it so that a rational debate and argument can occur, on this thread or anywhere else.
You understand the concept - the evidence is 'the ball'.
I don't need 'credibility': I'm nobody.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Fort Fumble breeding?
Does ausdoc and Flyingfiend work out of the same office in the same capital city? What will be next, an A380 endorsed old codger masquerading on Pprune? And why did ausdoc really delete his posts? Too incriminating perhaps?
Creampuff and I don't always see eye to eye, but I am happy to defend him on this occasion. Creamys robust and succinct line of questions as well as his musings were not presented in a way that may cause ausdoc to be 'outed'. In fact ausdoc's weak attempt at quoting Pprune rules so as to shut Creamy down is an interesting chess move. A somewhat threatening/bullying move orchestrated by a cornered cat! Funny thing is that CAsA often pull that trump card! Amazing coincidence to be sure.
Too much fun too much fun
Creampuff and I don't always see eye to eye, but I am happy to defend him on this occasion. Creamys robust and succinct line of questions as well as his musings were not presented in a way that may cause ausdoc to be 'outed'. In fact ausdoc's weak attempt at quoting Pprune rules so as to shut Creamy down is an interesting chess move. A somewhat threatening/bullying move orchestrated by a cornered cat! Funny thing is that CAsA often pull that trump card! Amazing coincidence to be sure.
Too much fun too much fun
Last edited by 004wercras; 29th Jun 2014 at 11:14.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You understand the concept - the evidence is 'the ball'.
Does ausdoc and Flyingfiend work out of the same office in the same capital city?
And why did ausdoc really delete his posts? Too incriminating perhaps?
So the evidence demonstrating a causal link between pilot CVD and risks to air safety is .... what?
Links will do.
Names of published articles will do.
Accident investigation reports will do.
Links will do.
Names of published articles will do.
Accident investigation reports will do.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No idea. As Flyingfiend doesn't seem to have made a post for more than 2 years, I'm not sure how it is relevant anyway.
Anyway ausdoc, I have digressed and believe the thread should be placed back on track. Creampuff has offered you some robust questions in his last post. I am sure that a skilled physician such as yourself could answer these and supply the requested evidence? Perhaps you can take Creampuffs questions on notice, discuss them with Flyingfiend tomorrow, then respond in around 3 years time?
P.S ausdoc, I am not part of Creampuffs 'fan club', however I do have the ability to smell CAsA and **** from 10 yards. And there is an incredibly foul smell emanating from your arena, so which is it?
Anyway, I'm off to raid the Weetbix Packet to see if I can get a PHD! Im collecting the whole set and only have 2 qualifications to get!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never once did I say I disagreed with the predominant view of the thread. Never once did I say I thought there was a link between CVD and aviation safety. All I said was that I thought that the argument would be better served with data than with personal attacks.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the principal tool in the box around here.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the principal tool in the box around here.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you can take Creampuffs questions on notice, discuss them with Flyingfiend tomorrow, then respond in around 3 years time?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S ausdoc, I am not part of Creampuffs 'fan club', however I do have the ability to smell CAsA and **** from 10 yards. And there is an incredibly foul smell emanating from your arena, so which is it?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what hypothesis would that be?
The only hypothesis I've got is that you and Creampuff seem to speak for each other, and the minute anybody suggests that there might be a better way to go about things, you gang up on them. I've got all the evidence I need for that. You've provided it in spades!
The only hypothesis I've got is that you and Creampuff seem to speak for each other, and the minute anybody suggests that there might be a better way to go about things, you gang up on them. I've got all the evidence I need for that. You've provided it in spades!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only hypothesis I've got is that you and Creampuff seem to speak for each other, and the minute anybody suggests that there might be a better way to go about things, you gang up on them.
You hold a strong view, and I actually respect that. All that has been asked is that you provide the research, data, reports, evidence to back up your CVD claims. Not that hard you know. Please provide it as that way I am sure that us nasty bullies will then go away. Is it really that difficult? I will be the first to eat the proverbial **** sandwich and apologise to you if you can provide the requested evidence.
And as for your comment about a better way of doing things, you must really be an imbecile. CAsA's sending out the CVD letters it did to pilots and AOC holders, based upon non factual evidence, plus taking into account the careers and untold damage its stance has already caused many pilots and its families, do you honestly think that is a better way? If you answer yes then you are exactly who I suspect you are, Doc.