Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

Old 5th Jul 2014, 05:10
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aye : Once wuz warriors ; now just wurryers. Pass the Prozac Leady old mate.. (Had to Google to find out what that stuff is, they even have it for dogs, can you believe it?).

Petition – HERESign NOW, Choccy frog for 1000 th customer.

Don't let the site bother you. The petition site is 'tricky', consider un-ticking the two options at the bottom of the sign in box and once you have 'signed in' and 'voted' look in the top right corner – make sure you log out – or you stay logged in (sneaky). My 'system' says the certification is not trusted, but that just may be the way my 'box' is rigged. I have checked the site as well as I can, nothing nasty has arrived – yet.

Toot toot...-.-
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 09:42
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[I]t seems almost like someone in CASA thinks the only way to keep pilots and the public safe is to keep them on the ground.... for any spurious reason they can think of!
It's a bit more complex than that.

When you read all the material about "evidence-based risk management" of aviation medical issues, one of the purported benefits is that people who might otherwise not have met the 'standard' for medical certification may still be able to fly.

Great idea!

In principle.

After all, we can see all the people who would, in the past, have not achieved the standard but are now allowed to fly, subject to limitations.

The reason it's not such a good idea in practice is that it is a perfect platform for a bureacrat on a crusade to demand to know everything about every aspect of a person's life that could impact on his or her 'safety' in the air, so that the bureacrat can condescend to kindly grant (at a fee and after a delay) a conditional permission for the person to be present in the sky (hopefully accompanied by grovelling thanks for the privilege).

How else would the bureacrat be able to understand the risk, so as to manage and protect the public by preventing the 30,000' death plunge? The bureacrat must know everything about an individual in order to make a proper assessment about how to protect the public against the individual's 'conditions'. The bureacrat must have powers to demand information relevant to the assessment of the risk and must have power to place limitations to deal with the assessed risk.

Who else will protect the public from these risks?

Although it pains me to say it, the number of respondents to the Petition confirms for me a concern that I've had for a long time: Most participants in aviation in Australia are apathetic or cowards. That's why they continue to be treated like livestock.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 11:57
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YLIL
Posts: 250
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Creampuff
The reason it's not such a good idea in practice is that it is a perfect platform for a bureacrat on a crusade to demand to know everything about every aspect of a person's life that could impact on his or her 'safety' in the air, so that the bureacrat can condescend to kindly grant (at a fee and after a delay) a conditional permission for the person to be present in the sky (hopefully accompanied by grovelling thanks for the privilege).
Exactly right Creampuff, happened to me on a non-CVD related medical issue - my DAME and specialist had no issues with me flying, but AvMed took 3 months to finally issue the medical (renewal subject of course to CAsA audit). The deskbound medicos would not even discuss the matter with me during that time, preferring to hide behind the insidious veil of bureaucracy.

And, of course, I was mightily thankful in a grovelling sense .

Folks, sign the petition!
triton140 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 23:10
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You know, I have the odd day when I ponder my profession and despair of industry; rare but they happen (before first coffee, disappearing after second coffee). Then I read the stuff you guys pop up with, faith restored, - always makes me smile. Now, 1000 + is a good result; not great, but very good. It's great that enough folk can see beyond their rice bowl. The CVD issue goes to the very heart why a holistic reformation of the regulator is so desperately and urgently needed.

Do what you can, use your overseas contacts, the butcher, the baker or candlestick maker; anyone who cares about a fair go and honouring the umpires decision. Remember, the pilot associations are not just paying lip service to this issue; they carry a lot of clout, have influence and are quite happy to 'pick up sticks' in a good cause, in support their workmates.

Fear no more the heat o' the sun,
Nor the furious winter's rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages;
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.

Fear no more the frown o' the great;
Thou art past the tyrant's stroke:
Care no more to clothe and eat;
To thee the reed is as the oak:
The sceptre, learning, physic, must
All follow this, and come to dust.

Fear no more the lightning-flash,
Nor the all-dreaded thunder-stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finished joy and moan;
All lovers young, all lovers must
Consign to thee, and come to dust.

No exorciser harm thee!
Nor no witchcraft charm thee!
Ghost unlaid forbear thee!
Nothing ill come near thee!
Quiet consummation have;
And renownéd be thy grave!”

Selah...

Shakespeare poem for Sunday reading - Here-
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 01:05
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 91 Likes on 34 Posts
The problem CASA doesn't realise it's courting is deliberate non compliance.

When Regulation becomes too onerous and compliance becomes virtually impossible then at some point pilots and operators will decide that disobedience and hiding are cheaper.

At that point CASA faces an impossible task because it can't be everywhere at once. From anecdotal comments from pilots far more experienced than I am, this is already rife with medicals. It sounds to me that maintenance is going to go the same way shortly.

To put that another way, as a student I worked at a highly unionised chemical plant one summer; the first thing the leading hand taught me in reference to managers and foremen was "tell 'em nothing!". The truss review is the last chance to tell them anything. If nothing is done, communication by industry will be reduced to the bare minimum. Nothing will be reported. Safety issues won't be raised and a blind eye will be turned to events at every opportunity.

Grudging, minimal, compliance will be attempted as we descend to Third World standards.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 01:56
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In The US flying is a gift. In Australia flying is a privilege. When granted that privilege, one had a right to exercise it. The trouble now is everything is becoming gratuitous and one wonders if it's all worth it. Pilots are forced to fight for that privilege and are having a difficult time exercising what is left of it. CAsA are making aviation safety an uncertainty and people "WILL" beat the system because it is natural to do so. The travelling public should be advised of the broken incompetent and dangerous system.


All pilots have a duty of care to advise the public they are operating in a bureaucratic induced fog that refuses to lift. You are Pilot in Command. It's no good saying after the crash, "I told you so" or "I was acting under orders". The Nuremburg Trials found this excuse lacking.


It's too late for Truss to blame the other mob for this. He had his chance and passed. He now has another chance to rectify the problem and he needs to be put on notice that if he fails he alone will be responsible.


Do anything, do something, or be branded that apathetic coward!


At least sign the petition and start another. Let Brandis know what is going on and don't assume he knows anything. Write him a letter before his interim report is published.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/fre...erms-reference
http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 6th Jul 2014 at 02:03. Reason: Links.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 10:21
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A fear of aviation?

It's too late for Truss to blame the other mob for this. He had his chance and passed. He now has another chance to rectify the problem and he needs to be put on notice that if he fails he alone will be responsible.
Very true Frank. It's interesting that Mr Truss, as a government representative, has taken an oath to the Australian public. It's time that he honoured that oath...
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited spiralling debt - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited an expensive 'boat problem' - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited a crooked carbon tax - and have committed to fixing it.
• It's interesting how the current government has inherited a diseased, broken and out of control aviation industry, a condition decades in the making and predominately at the hands of government bureaucracies - yet it refuses to act, refuses to acknowledge the problems, refuses to listen to industry, refuses to act proactively with honesty and integrity??? What are you scared of Miniscule?

Tick Tock Minister? Oh yes indeed Minister - TICK TOCK!
004wercras is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 12:45
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It's interesting how the current government has inherited a diseased, broken and out of control aviation industry, a condition decades in the making and predominately at the hands of government bureaucracies - yet it refuses to act, refuses to acknowledge the problems, refuses to listen to industry, refuses to act proactively with honesty and integrity??? What are you scared of Miniscule?
No, he is not the least bit scared, there were no serious election promises about aviation, because to most voter aviation is airlines, and CASA and the "Australian Rules" are great, must be, because we have the "world's best safety record"(which we don't).

I can think that I can say, with great confidence, that in order of importance, aviation is not on his top 10 "to do" list, indeed, about the only aviation matter of interest to the Government is: "Would it have any effect on re-election of the Government if Qantas went broke or real control was sold off".

Sad, but true.

At the recent NP national conference, aviation as a policy matter was not mentioned in any meaningful way.

The best hope we have is Senator David Fawcett chipping away.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 00:46
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One should be mindful of the possibility of a D/D election if the current Senate proves unworkable. If Abbott can't govern with what he has, he will loose nothing by calling another election. It's a 50/50 chance and the plebs will eventually get the government they deserve.


A joint sitting of parliament to break the deadlock could work, but this is only a short term budget solution. (I'm certain Labor won't block supply). The LNP may attempt to legislate minor parties out of existence, (with the help of Labor), but he still needs a new election sooner or later.


If this be, aviation must be put on the table of "promises". Fawcett certainly has the runs on the board to get this seen to and he must make Brandis aware of the goings on at FF, the CVD situation and the AAT.


http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-fodder-5.html


Read post #92 by scavenger.


In the meantime, sign the CVD petition ad write Brandis a letter.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 7th Jul 2014 at 00:51. Reason: missing link.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 07:50
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,114
Received 15 Likes on 4 Posts
It's all about VOTES!!

Sad, but there are few votes in aviation - change that and we may have some hope!
triadic is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 13:01
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AOPA Writes to CASA & Truss

A late entry from AOPA, but better late than never...

7th July 2014

Mr. Peter Fereday
Executive Manager
Industry Permissions
Avmed Branch
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Re: Colour Vision Deficiency

Dear Mr. Fereday,

As we are sure that you are aware the issue of Aeromedical safety in colour deficient pilots was examined very thoroughly at two Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings about 25 years ago. To the best of our knowledge this examination of the Pape and Denison appeals was the most comprehensive carried out anywhere in the world and lasted for over 30 days.The AAT overturned CASA's ruling about colour deficient pilots not being able to fly at night. To the best of AOPA's knowledge this examination still remains the most comprehensive carried out anywhere. Pilots have been able to fly at night and undertake IFR operations in Australia for 25 years. More recently they have been using modern "glass cockpit instrumentation", again without incident. AOPA strongly supported these appeals at the time and we continue to support the current rules pertaining to colour deficient pilots.

To the best of AOPA's knowledge there has never been an aviation accident or incident in Australia directly attributable to a pilot being colour deficient. AOPA agrees with the use of evidence based procedures in evaluating aeromedical disposition but in this case where is the evidence that colour deficient pilots may be unsafe?! With now 25 years of safe operations utilizing these pilots the evidence surely indicates the opposite situation.

This is why we and many of our members are distressed by a letter sent out under your name on 6th June 2014 to all colour deficient pilots and to their employers asking them to reconsider their current flight crew privileges and for pilots to seek the advice of their DAME and/or their personal physician. This letter was apparently based on some alleged medical research which reportedly indicated that the safety implications of colour vision deficiency were greater than first thought.

The aviation industry has been kept ignorant of this evidence. If it is so important then why has it not been released for proper evaluation?
AOPA is aware of a further letter from you stating that any changes could be far down the track and would only occur after proper evaluation and consultation, however the first letter has already placed seeds of doubts in the minds of aviation employers and pilots could well be overlooked for promotion and progression to more complex aircraft due to possible implications of employing colour deficient pilots.

To our mind this initial letter should never have been sent without proper evaluation of this alleged new evidence. It most certainly should not have been sent to aviation employers.

AOPA respectfully requests your Department to write again to all of the affected pilots and their employers stating that CASA does not intend to proceed with any action in relation to colour deficient pilots unless genuine strong evidence emerges of a safety issue and, if that does become the case, then the evidence is thoroughly examined by expert ophthalmologists and that proper consultation is conducted with the aviation industry.

Yours Sincerely,

Aaron Stephenson
CEO

CC: Mr John McCormick
GPO BOX 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Minister Warren Truss
PO Box 283
MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650
brissypilot is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 13:40
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could CASA's action constitute bullying and harassment of CVD pilots. I feel their reluctance to engage in open discussion does not put them in a good position.

If they believe there is a safety risk surely they need to be more open to resolve rather than take such an adversarial approach.

Mr Fereday is not the driver on this issue but I bet he'll end up the fall guy if needed.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 18:15
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 91 Likes on 34 Posts
AOPA's letter is far too polite.

I have direct personal and business experience of a "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) campaign waged by people paid more, and with more brains than CASA and I know one when I see one.

The correct technique is to boot the bastards in their Armani suits out the door.

From Wiki:

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information........................

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry but has since been used more broadly.[3][dubious ] FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 21:44
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Windsock. A short treatise.

Pathetic as it is, the AOPA windsock points in the right direction, for nothing, short of an act of the gods would provoke them to stand up against CASA; unless they were certain sure. The letter pitiful, the message beautiful....There are two beautiful parts to the CVD issue; one is the very public way in which it defines 'how' the system can be and is manipulated to suit; two, is that this can be clearly seen and is 'understandable' to that famous 'man at the back of the room'.

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

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

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

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

The serious effect of a "potential liability for CASA" has had a long history of resulting in very adverse and regressive CASA decisions.
This argument carries some merit; and perhaps, if we were dealing with 'normal' humans it could be considered the prime motivation. Standing alone, the need to reduce 'liability' seems a reasonable enough argument. Even so; there are much more civilised means of achieving that end than we are now witnessing.

In the CVD matter, there has been no such discussion or explanation, if indeed such an argument ever existed in the woolly mind of Avmed. What we see is the preferred method; that of total, systematic absolute bastardry at work. I'll admit it's but a poor example when compared to some of the really stellar CASA actions mounted against operators and individuals. But it does serve to highlight why the reform process, weak as it, is must be brought into reality and made to work, properly, NOW...if not before; 2008 would have been a good time.

If the tip of the Pel Air iceberg was not enough justification for some form of 'judicial' inquiry into the abhorrent behaviour CASA will stoop to; the CVD matter must add significantly more bulk to the now clearly visible aberration.

Until one of the bullies has been dragged out in front of the class, publicly whipped and humiliated; the rest of the gang will continue their antics, unchallenged and unabated. There are a couple of prime targets suitable for use as example; loads of evidence, miles of facts and enough anger to get the job done. In public if need be, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the minuscule and his government. It would be better, all around, if this was done quietly, confidentially, in private; lest the world discover exactly what has been done in the name of 'aviation safety'; by whom, how and at what cost. The list of atrocities is long, the register of moral corruption full and the endless bastardry clearly visible.

Tick tock minuscule; don't forget to watch your Sunday papers. It would be amusing to watch the opposition using the WLR as a weapon against the man who did nothing – twice. What price the Qld elections then – no votes in aviation; wrong assumption, very wrong. Everyone who travels in an aircraft votes, they are easily swayed and even more easily scared witless. So think on....

Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Jul 2014 at 22:13. Reason: Pmail requirements.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 22:48
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sarcs is paying attention, perhaps the Fawcett speech – HERE – will persuade the last, hesitant few that's it's OK to have your say; even in a small way.

Colour me HAPPY.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 23:49
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done Senator Fawcett!

Perhaps we need to start a petition to make Senator Fawcett the Minister


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with AVMED

Dear Member,

As you are no doubt aware, AOPA has an advisory panel set up to assist members with issues relating to Medical, Maintenance, Insurance & Legal matters.

The vast majority of complaints to date are in relation to medical issues and problems with AVMED.

AOPA is concerned that AVMED / CASA & the Minister are not aware as to the extent of medical grievances currently suffered by pilots in Australia.
We are currently preparing correspondence to go to AVMED / CASA and the Minister and would like to include a petition/feedback from members who are currently experiencing problems with AVMED. This will allow us to demonstrate the widespread impact of the problems with AVMED.

We invite you to provide us with brief details of your complaint. Please keep the detail relatively brief, as we intent to attach the responses to our correspondence.

Please include:

· Name
· ARN #
· AOPA Member #
· Details of AVMED Issue

Please provide your response within 14 days by 24 July 2014.
Please email your response to:

Email: [email protected]
Fax: 02 9791 9355
Post: P.O. Box 26 Georges Hall NSW 2198

Yours faithfully,
Aaron Stephenson
CEO
brissypilot is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 06:27
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More dirty work presented by Fereday for the PMO. I think Fereday is being lined up to be the fall guy for this bastardry!




Last edited by outofwhack; 11th Jul 2014 at 07:06. Reason: 'done' changed to 'presented'. Fereday couldnt write this but he should be worried putting his name to it
outofwhack is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 06:50
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More weasel words, the stench of the sewer this guy resides in waft through his letters, have these people no shame?.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 07:20
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh - how could I forget - here's the list of references that CAsA avmed provided with the letter.

All 262 of them!

About 261 of these make the ASSUMPTION that defective colour vision is unsafe in aviation and discuss the testing of colour vision.

Nice of CAsA to include reference 41 by Clark, BAJ, Gordon, GE.
"Hazards of Colour Coding in Visual Approach Slope Indicators". Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

This paper predicted the Tallahasee accident years before it happened.
The captain was not CVD and he was monitoring the black-hole PAPI equipped approach.

The size of the list is proof that CAsA intend to use 'quantity rather than quality' to fight this case and beat up the little guy until he cannot afford to continue the case.

http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/CVD%20References.pdf

Last edited by outofwhack; 11th Jul 2014 at 07:25. Reason: I dislike CAsA intently because they are making GA untenable
outofwhack is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 07:27
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YLIL
Posts: 250
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Good to see CAsA is at the cutting edge of this research, one of their papers dates back to 1855 .

Looks like a cut and paste job to me to try to bamboozle us, the courts and the Parliament. No effort has been made to cull the list for relevance.
triton140 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.