The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots
So here's my WAG at what CASA will argue in the AAT.
CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150. By operation of law, neither CASA nor the AAT has any discretion but to refuse to issue a 'vanilla' Class 1 medical certificate, if a candidate does not demonstrate compliance with the standard, by:
- passing the test in paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150(6), or
- having failed the test in paragraph (a), by passing the test in paragraph (b), or
- having failed the test in both paragraph (a) and (b), by passing the test in paragraph (c).
It's a little like having a criterion for something that requires a candidate to be at least 18 years old or, if the candidate is less than 18 years old, is at least 17 years old and has obtained a Higher School Certificate or, if the candidate is less than 17 years old, is at least 16 years old and has obtained a School Certificate and a Bronze Medallion.
Each step is a 'yes' or 'no' that does not allow the exercise of any discretion, leading inevitably to a final 'yes' or 'no'.
(Don't confuse the choice as to what CASA pressed to be put in the regulation in the first place, or the efficacy of each 'yes'/'no' criterion, as a discretion as to application and operation of that regulation once it is made. Once it's law, it's binding on CASA and the AAT, unless the validity of the regulation is successfully challenged - not the AAT's jurisdiction - or the regulation is changed or repealed - not the AAT's jurisdiction.)
Assuming a candidate achieves a 'no' against paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150 and a 'no' against paragraph (b), the outcome is dictated by whether the candidate gets a 'yes' or a 'no' against paragraph (c). (There's a deeming provision in regulation 67.150(7) that applies to changed standards, but let's not complicate things with that at the moment.)
Paragraph (c) requires the candidate to demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion by:
On the current terms of CASR 67.150 and noting the content of CASA's correspondence, my WAG is that paragraph (c) will be where the new CVD war will be fought in the AAT.
My WAG is that CASA will argue that it, and it alone, has the power to determine the test or tests for the purposes of paragraph (c), and its determination is not reviewable by the AAT. In other words, the AAT does not have power to decide that the test determined by CASA was not the correct and preferable test. If that argument gets up, the consequence is that the AAT cannot determine and substitute its own test, and subject the candidate to that substitute test and find that the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in that test. Instead, the only question, if any, for the AAT, is whether the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in the test determined by CASA.
I will have to think hard about all of that....
CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150. By operation of law, neither CASA nor the AAT has any discretion but to refuse to issue a 'vanilla' Class 1 medical certificate, if a candidate does not demonstrate compliance with the standard, by:
- passing the test in paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150(6), or
- having failed the test in paragraph (a), by passing the test in paragraph (b), or
- having failed the test in both paragraph (a) and (b), by passing the test in paragraph (c).
It's a little like having a criterion for something that requires a candidate to be at least 18 years old or, if the candidate is less than 18 years old, is at least 17 years old and has obtained a Higher School Certificate or, if the candidate is less than 17 years old, is at least 16 years old and has obtained a School Certificate and a Bronze Medallion.
Each step is a 'yes' or 'no' that does not allow the exercise of any discretion, leading inevitably to a final 'yes' or 'no'.
(Don't confuse the choice as to what CASA pressed to be put in the regulation in the first place, or the efficacy of each 'yes'/'no' criterion, as a discretion as to application and operation of that regulation once it is made. Once it's law, it's binding on CASA and the AAT, unless the validity of the regulation is successfully challenged - not the AAT's jurisdiction - or the regulation is changed or repealed - not the AAT's jurisdiction.)
Assuming a candidate achieves a 'no' against paragraph (a) of CASR 67.150 and a 'no' against paragraph (b), the outcome is dictated by whether the candidate gets a 'yes' or a 'no' against paragraph (c). (There's a deeming provision in regulation 67.150(7) that applies to changed standards, but let's not complicate things with that at the moment.)
Paragraph (c) requires the candidate to demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion by:
correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights, in a test determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.
My WAG is that CASA will argue that it, and it alone, has the power to determine the test or tests for the purposes of paragraph (c), and its determination is not reviewable by the AAT. In other words, the AAT does not have power to decide that the test determined by CASA was not the correct and preferable test. If that argument gets up, the consequence is that the AAT cannot determine and substitute its own test, and subject the candidate to that substitute test and find that the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in that test. Instead, the only question, if any, for the AAT, is whether the candidate correctly identified all relevant coloured lights in the test determined by CASA.
I will have to think hard about all of that....
Last edited by Creampuff; 14th Jul 2014 at 18:55.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am alive!
how would you like a spell as director of aviation safety?
even if you spent 9 months a year off fishing you'd still do a more competent job of it than McComic.
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fereday's latest letter seems to indicate that pilots who have passed one of the practical tests to get the restrictions lifted may be retested as they won't be compliant with the latest standard. Are these guys included in the figure of 400 CVD pilots currently flying???
SN
SN
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
A re-test! The proposer should be deported as an illiterate with a short attention span if he can't understand the proof of concept exhibited over the past 25 years. Probably can't even read Sanskrit let alone Gaelic.
Long post alert!
I have been doing some hard thinking. (My brain hurts...)
If the test determined by CASA for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) does not "simulate an operational situation", it seems to me that the determination is not valid.
What test should be determined?
I note that the words of regulation 67.150(6)(c) are "a" test determined by CASA, not "the" test determined by CASA. It therefore seems open to CASA to determine more than one test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c). This appears reasonable and consistent with the safety intent of the legislation, because (presumably) the operational circumstances in which a CPL/ATPL may find him or herself are very different to the operational circumstances in which an air traffic controller may find him or herself, when performing duties.
My reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue suggests to me that the use of PAPI is the most safety-critical task that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights (that happen to be coloured). If that is true, and the point of this whole rigmarole is to find out whether a CPL/ATPL's CVD causes him or her to be less safe than non-CVD colleagues, the test determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs would seem self-evidently to be the simulation of an operational situation involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD population.
The words "simulates an operational situation" are very important here. A valid test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) cannot be conducted in an unrealistic environment that bears no semblance to the actual operational environment of (in this example) an approach using PAPI. The simulated operational situation must include the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to the pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality, if the test is to be valid.
And what do decades and tens of thousands of hours of real life operations show about CVD pilots' performance using PAPI? (Rhetorical question...)
(As an aside, I note another exquisite irony that again shows why the focus on CVD is so bizarre. On my reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue, it seems to me that non-CVD pilots get fooled by PAPI indications in some atmospheric conditions. Instead of dealing with the substantive risk posed by the flaws in the technology itself, we instead devote all this energy to dealing with an issue that will not address the substantive risk. Ridding the skies of CVD pilots is not going to remove the risk posed by the PAPI technology itself. This is another manifestation of cognitive bias: Punters are blissfully ignorant of the risks posed by non-CVD pilots relying on PAPI in certain atmospheric conditions, but will scream to be saved if one of the pilots has CVD.)
What if CASA uses a test that is not valid and a candidate fails, and the AAT has no jurisdiction to substitute and administer its own test?
CASA's obligation to issue a medical certificate is in regulation 67.180(1). The obligation arises if an applicant satisfies the list of requirements in regulation 67.180(2).
So far as the CVD controversy is concerned, it seems to me the essential requirement out of the list is in paragraph (e):
The Empire's armour has a chink here.
Note that, by operation of law, the outcome is the same whether the candidate "meets the relevant medical standard" (sub-para (i)) or "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation" (sub-para (ii)): Either way, the candidate gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (e) 'box'. Assuming the candidate gets ticks in all the other boxes in the list in regulation 67.180(2), CASA is obliged to issue the certificate.
Key point: The AAT steps into CASA's regulation 67.180 'shoes' and it is open to the AAT to find that "the extent to which [a candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation", and therefore decide the AAT is bound to issue the certificate. The very existence of sub-para (ii) (and other provisions to which I will refer) shows that someone can be entitled to (note: Not that the regulator may condescend to begrudgingly gifting a certificate - the applicant is entitled to be issued the certificate) even if the applicant does not meet the relevant medical standard, provided that (quite reasonably) "the extent to which [the candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It is open to the AAT to find that the operational history of a CVD candidate demonstrates that his or her CVD is not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation.
What should happen if a candidate does not meet the relevant standard but is entitled to a certificate?
This is where I think CASA may have recently gone off the rails.
It appears that the way in which CASA has recently started dealing with CVD pilots who are taken not to meet the colour perception standard, due to failing the test determined by CASA, is to restrict the operations in which the holder may engage. I don't reckon the legislation permits CASA to deal with the circumstances in that way.
Regulation 67.180(8) deals expressly with (and I reckon exhaustively with) circumstances in which a candidate who does not meet the standard is nonetheless entitled to a certificate because "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation".
Regulation 67.180(8) relevantly says:
[My bolding] (The omitted text relates to another provision of regulation 67.180(2) that I will discuss, but I reckon it leads to the same end result.)
The only thing that I reckon should happen is the certificate should have a "note" that says: "Does not meet the colour perception standard in CASR 67.150 item 1.39". I don't reckon there should be any CVD-related conditions or limitations because, by definition, to get the certificate in the first place the candidate has been given a tick the box that says "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It does not make sense to me to have assessed the candidate as not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation, but then impose limitations or conditions purportedly to deal with a risk that has already been assessed as not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation. Yet this appears to be what CASA is doing.
If conditions and limitations were the mechanism intended to deal with the circumstances, why have regulation 67.180(8) at all?
The words I omitted from the quote of the text of regulation 67.180(8) refer to an applicant "to whom subparagraph [67.180](2)(f)(ii) applies". That subparagraph is about "relevant tests" and tests "directed by CASA". CASA (and therefore the AAT) may decide that a candidate who has undergone a test of that kind gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (f) 'box', if CASA (and therefore the AAT) "is satisfied that issuing a medical certificate to the applicant would not endanger the safety of air navigation." Once a candidate gets a tick in that box and is therefore entitled to the certificate, it seems to me that we end up in the same place: The only thing that should happen is that the certificate be marked with a "note" in accordance with regulation 67.180(8).
It seems to me that conditions on medical certificates may validly be imposed for things like vision correction. If the only way someone can meet the vision standard is by wearing glasses, it makes sense that the person's medical certificate be subject to a condition requiring the holder to wear glasses while exercising the privileges of his or her licence.
I have been doing some hard thinking. (My brain hurts...)
If the test determined by CASA for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) does not "simulate an operational situation", it seems to me that the determination is not valid.
What test should be determined?
I note that the words of regulation 67.150(6)(c) are "a" test determined by CASA, not "the" test determined by CASA. It therefore seems open to CASA to determine more than one test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c). This appears reasonable and consistent with the safety intent of the legislation, because (presumably) the operational circumstances in which a CPL/ATPL may find him or herself are very different to the operational circumstances in which an air traffic controller may find him or herself, when performing duties.
My reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue suggests to me that the use of PAPI is the most safety-critical task that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights (that happen to be coloured). If that is true, and the point of this whole rigmarole is to find out whether a CPL/ATPL's CVD causes him or her to be less safe than non-CVD colleagues, the test determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs would seem self-evidently to be the simulation of an operational situation involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD population.
The words "simulates an operational situation" are very important here. A valid test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c) cannot be conducted in an unrealistic environment that bears no semblance to the actual operational environment of (in this example) an approach using PAPI. The simulated operational situation must include the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to the pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality, if the test is to be valid.
And what do decades and tens of thousands of hours of real life operations show about CVD pilots' performance using PAPI? (Rhetorical question...)
(As an aside, I note another exquisite irony that again shows why the focus on CVD is so bizarre. On my reading of the material said by CASA to be relevant to the CVD issue, it seems to me that non-CVD pilots get fooled by PAPI indications in some atmospheric conditions. Instead of dealing with the substantive risk posed by the flaws in the technology itself, we instead devote all this energy to dealing with an issue that will not address the substantive risk. Ridding the skies of CVD pilots is not going to remove the risk posed by the PAPI technology itself. This is another manifestation of cognitive bias: Punters are blissfully ignorant of the risks posed by non-CVD pilots relying on PAPI in certain atmospheric conditions, but will scream to be saved if one of the pilots has CVD.)
What if CASA uses a test that is not valid and a candidate fails, and the AAT has no jurisdiction to substitute and administer its own test?
CASA's obligation to issue a medical certificate is in regulation 67.180(1). The obligation arises if an applicant satisfies the list of requirements in regulation 67.180(2).
So far as the CVD controversy is concerned, it seems to me the essential requirement out of the list is in paragraph (e):
(e) either:
(i) the applicant meets the relevant medical standard; or
(ii) if the applicant does not meet that medical standard—the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation; ..
(i) the applicant meets the relevant medical standard; or
(ii) if the applicant does not meet that medical standard—the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation; ..
Note that, by operation of law, the outcome is the same whether the candidate "meets the relevant medical standard" (sub-para (i)) or "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation" (sub-para (ii)): Either way, the candidate gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (e) 'box'. Assuming the candidate gets ticks in all the other boxes in the list in regulation 67.180(2), CASA is obliged to issue the certificate.
Key point: The AAT steps into CASA's regulation 67.180 'shoes' and it is open to the AAT to find that "the extent to which [a candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation", and therefore decide the AAT is bound to issue the certificate. The very existence of sub-para (ii) (and other provisions to which I will refer) shows that someone can be entitled to (note: Not that the regulator may condescend to begrudgingly gifting a certificate - the applicant is entitled to be issued the certificate) even if the applicant does not meet the relevant medical standard, provided that (quite reasonably) "the extent to which [the candidate] does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It is open to the AAT to find that the operational history of a CVD candidate demonstrates that his or her CVD is not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation.
What should happen if a candidate does not meet the relevant standard but is entitled to a certificate?
This is where I think CASA may have recently gone off the rails.
It appears that the way in which CASA has recently started dealing with CVD pilots who are taken not to meet the colour perception standard, due to failing the test determined by CASA, is to restrict the operations in which the holder may engage. I don't reckon the legislation permits CASA to deal with the circumstances in that way.
Regulation 67.180(8) deals expressly with (and I reckon exhaustively with) circumstances in which a candidate who does not meet the standard is nonetheless entitled to a certificate because "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation".
Regulation 67.180(8) relevantly says:
A medical certificate issued to an applicant who does not meet the relevant medical standard for the issue of the certificate ... must bear a note of that fact.
The only thing that I reckon should happen is the certificate should have a "note" that says: "Does not meet the colour perception standard in CASR 67.150 item 1.39". I don't reckon there should be any CVD-related conditions or limitations because, by definition, to get the certificate in the first place the candidate has been given a tick the box that says "the extent to which he or she does not meet the standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation". It does not make sense to me to have assessed the candidate as not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation, but then impose limitations or conditions purportedly to deal with a risk that has already been assessed as not likely to endanger the safey of air navigation. Yet this appears to be what CASA is doing.
If conditions and limitations were the mechanism intended to deal with the circumstances, why have regulation 67.180(8) at all?
The words I omitted from the quote of the text of regulation 67.180(8) refer to an applicant "to whom subparagraph [67.180](2)(f)(ii) applies". That subparagraph is about "relevant tests" and tests "directed by CASA". CASA (and therefore the AAT) may decide that a candidate who has undergone a test of that kind gets a 'tick' in the paragraph (f) 'box', if CASA (and therefore the AAT) "is satisfied that issuing a medical certificate to the applicant would not endanger the safety of air navigation." Once a candidate gets a tick in that box and is therefore entitled to the certificate, it seems to me that we end up in the same place: The only thing that should happen is that the certificate be marked with a "note" in accordance with regulation 67.180(8).
It seems to me that conditions on medical certificates may validly be imposed for things like vision correction. If the only way someone can meet the vision standard is by wearing glasses, it makes sense that the person's medical certificate be subject to a condition requiring the holder to wear glasses while exercising the privileges of his or her licence.
Last edited by Creampuff; 17th Jul 2014 at 02:11.
Have any tests been determined by CASA?
One of the unsolved mysteries of the CVD issue relates to the determination, by CASA under CASR 67.150(6)(c), of a test (or tests) that simulate/s an operational situation.
Is anyone aware of any piece of paper anywhere that has words to the effect that a delegate of CASA has determined a test or tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c)?
If so, can you provide a link or post a quote of what the document says?
Is anyone aware of any piece of paper anywhere that has words to the effect that a delegate of CASA has determined a test or tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c)?
If so, can you provide a link or post a quote of what the document says?
Last edited by Creampuff; 17th Jul 2014 at 01:41.
I've just had a look at what is represented as the 'CAD Test'.
What I saw was just a big square comprising a mosaic of much smaller squares of various shades of grey, on which a medium sized square mosaic of various shades of a colour moves around. See Slide 3 of the UK CAA document here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/2009082...rCMOsForum.pdf. I also found a video on youtube:
If that is really the 'CAD Test' and CASA has really determined it to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), I'm confident the latin maxim "accipere pisiāre" applies: Your Honour, CASA is taking the piss.
Funny one, CASA! Got us a beauty!
Could you now put the competent adults back in charge of the CVD issue, please?
What I saw was just a big square comprising a mosaic of much smaller squares of various shades of grey, on which a medium sized square mosaic of various shades of a colour moves around. See Slide 3 of the UK CAA document here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/2009082...rCMOsForum.pdf. I also found a video on youtube:
If that is really the 'CAD Test' and CASA has really determined it to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), I'm confident the latin maxim "accipere pisiāre" applies: Your Honour, CASA is taking the piss.
Funny one, CASA! Got us a beauty!
Could you now put the competent adults back in charge of the CVD issue, please?
Gotta say I'm a bit dubious about all this. 
If that is the 'CAD test', and if CASA has determined the 'CAD test' to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), CASA is doing more than taking the piss.
Are there really candidates with CVD in Australia who've been asked to do the 'CAD test' in order to demonstrate compliance with the colour perception standard as required by 67.150(6)?
Really?
If you have been asked to do the CAD test in order to obtain a medical certificate from CASA, please send me a PM.
If that is the 'CAD test', and if CASA has determined the 'CAD test' to be a test "that simulates an operational situation" for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), CASA is doing more than taking the piss.
Are there really candidates with CVD in Australia who've been asked to do the 'CAD test' in order to demonstrate compliance with the colour perception standard as required by 67.150(6)?
Really?
If you have been asked to do the CAD test in order to obtain a medical certificate from CASA, please send me a PM.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, good posts.
What I'd like to see is evidence that a test is consistent with perception in a real environment "that simulates an operational situation". Prove the test has validity. Most just prove the condition of CVD and that some people perceive colours differently they don't prove a lot else and certainly not whether a CVD pilot is less safe than a non CVD pilot.
This is a complex issue but it appears the letters aren't clear.
What I'd like to see is evidence that a test is consistent with perception in a real environment "that simulates an operational situation". Prove the test has validity. Most just prove the condition of CVD and that some people perceive colours differently they don't prove a lot else and certainly not whether a CVD pilot is less safe than a non CVD pilot.
This is a complex issue but it appears the letters aren't clear.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
I have had confirmation, from a person with first hand experience, that:
- CASA has required pilots to undergo the CAD Test, and
- the actual CAD Test is similar to but a more complicated version of the simplified one in youtube video, but in any event bears no semblance to any operational situation.
So here's where we are at, as far as I am concerned:
1. CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.
2. CASA is obliged to comply with the law, like everyone else.
3. A test determined by CASA for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) must "simulate an operational situation".
4. The CAD Test does not "simulate an operational situation", at least not for pilots. The CAD Test is merely another test that confirms what has already been determined by the application of the tests in paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.150(6).
5. Therefore, CASA cannot validly determine the CAD Test as a test under CASR 67.150(6)(c), for candidates who are pilots. (The fact that CASA has purported to use that test worries me, because it suggests to me that AVMED are blind to what the legislation requires, and why.)
6. If CASA complied with the law and determined a test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that properly simulates an actual operational situation in which the identification of lights (that happen to be coloured) is a safety-critical task, CASA would have a valid basis on which to decide whether a candidate has demonstrated that he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.
7. A candidate who passes a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) has, as a matter of law, demonstrated that he or she meets the colour perception standard. There is no valid basis on which CASA may require the candidate to undergo further testing: By law, the candidate meets the standard.
8. The test that should be determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs is the simulation of the most safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured: An approach involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD pilot population.
9. To be a "simulated operational situation" the test must be carried out in an environment that includes the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to any other pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality.
10. Assuming I am wrong and the CAD Test is a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), candidates who fail that test are still entitled to be issued a certificate if the extent to which he or she does not meet the colour perception standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation. The candidate's aeronautical experience is centrally relevant to the assessment of the likelihood of the candidate's CVD endangering the safety of air navigation. Assuming the candidate meets all the other standards, the certificate should merely bear a note of the fact that the holder does not meet the colour perception standard, and no more.
- CASA has required pilots to undergo the CAD Test, and
- the actual CAD Test is similar to but a more complicated version of the simplified one in youtube video, but in any event bears no semblance to any operational situation.
So here's where we are at, as far as I am concerned:
1. CASR 67.150(6) in effect dictates, exhaustively, the ways in which a candidate for a Class 1 medical certificate must demonstrate whether he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.
2. CASA is obliged to comply with the law, like everyone else.
3. A test determined by CASA for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) must "simulate an operational situation".
4. The CAD Test does not "simulate an operational situation", at least not for pilots. The CAD Test is merely another test that confirms what has already been determined by the application of the tests in paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.150(6).
5. Therefore, CASA cannot validly determine the CAD Test as a test under CASR 67.150(6)(c), for candidates who are pilots. (The fact that CASA has purported to use that test worries me, because it suggests to me that AVMED are blind to what the legislation requires, and why.)
6. If CASA complied with the law and determined a test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that properly simulates an actual operational situation in which the identification of lights (that happen to be coloured) is a safety-critical task, CASA would have a valid basis on which to decide whether a candidate has demonstrated that he or she satisfies the colour perception standard in item 1.39 of table 67.150.
7. A candidate who passes a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) has, as a matter of law, demonstrated that he or she meets the colour perception standard. There is no valid basis on which CASA may require the candidate to undergo further testing: By law, the candidate meets the standard.
8. The test that should be determined by CASA for CPL/ATPLs is the simulation of the most safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured: An approach involving the use of PAPI, in which the candidate is required to 'fly the PAPI' as safely and efficiently as the non-CVD pilot population.
9. To be a "simulated operational situation" the test must be carried out in an environment that includes the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to any other pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality.
10. Assuming I am wrong and the CAD Test is a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), candidates who fail that test are still entitled to be issued a certificate if the extent to which he or she does not meet the colour perception standard is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation. The candidate's aeronautical experience is centrally relevant to the assessment of the likelihood of the candidate's CVD endangering the safety of air navigation. Assuming the candidate meets all the other standards, the certificate should merely bear a note of the fact that the holder does not meet the colour perception standard, and no more.
Last edited by Creampuff; 18th Jul 2014 at 02:06.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAD Test & Task Analyisis
Brilliant posts Creamy 
From Bill Smith's letter:
And from the Senate Estimates:
February Hansard:
From Bill Smith's letter:
CASA has determined the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) Test to be an appropriate test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)(c).
February Hansard:
Senator FAWCETT: I have a letter dated 24 January this year from CASA to a gentleman saying, 'CASA has determined the colour assessment diagnosis test to be an appropriate test for the purposes of the regulation' and it appears to be the test that CASA is now using to apply. My question is, in accordance with your letter, who made the decision that it is an appropriate test and on what basis did they make that decision?
Mr Fereday: It would be the basis of medical evidence of the test's validity. We could provide on notice the actual details of why that approach was the appropriate one.
Mr Fereday: It would have been for an individual occurrence; it's not across the board. All testing for colour vision is on a case-by-case basis; in terms of that decision it would have been our principal medical officer.
Senator FAWCETT: Clearly at some point in time somebody has decided that the test has a degree of efficacy that makes it worthwhile to use. My question is: who made that decision and on what basis?
Mr Fereday: It would be the basis of medical evidence of the test's validity. We could provide on notice the actual details of why that approach was the appropriate one.
Noting the concerns which arise in ensuring the reliability of test results where repeat testing occurs, together with more recent developments in developing aviation specific colour vision tests, the recently devised CAD test was chosen by CASA’s Principal Medical Officer as the most suitable third level test for the assessment of this particular individual.
Dr Navathe: The point that you made about our flight tests and the difficulty of tests identifying people who have got colour vision deficiency, but not identifying people who may or may not be fit because of that colour deficiency to operate an aircraft, was very true a few years ago. Around 10 years ago, the UK CAA, with the local university, undertook a project to identify the specific colours which are important to aviation. This was a three phase project. The first phase was to look at the important colours outside the cockpit. The second phase was to identify the colours inside the cockpit, for which they used an Airbus and a Boeing cockpit. The third phase was to identify a test which would separate people who had abnormal colour deficiency from those who had abnormal colour deficiency but who were not colour safe. That was the intent of the project. That is how the CAD test has been developed. What the CAD test does is to specifically identify those colours and people who are able to meet the colour requirements for aviation...
So lets take a proper look at how this test was designed:
2.1.2 The approach undertaken was to carry out a task analysis. This required firstly, a detailed study of the many flight manuals (10, 11, 12) to achieve a detailed knowledge of the different operating procedures. This was followed by a number of interviews with operational pilots during scheduled flights. In addition some data gathering was undertaken in flight simulators.
2.3 A Human Factors Consultant for QinetiQ, Centre for Human Sciences, collected the information required for the task analysis. The Human Factors Consultant spent time on flights, travelling on the flight deck of an Airbus A321 and a Boeing 757, observing and questioning the pilots from the two airlines.
3.1.7 The perceived importance of colour in any particular task was, after discussions with pilots, placed into three categories:
1. Low importance for safety
2. Medium importance for safety
3. High importance for safety.
3.1.9 These categories relate, in the pilot’s perception, to the safety critical nature of the task. However, in almost all situations there were additional sources of information to aid the taking of a particular decision. Very few instances were found in which colour was the sole source of information and therefore likely to be safety critical in its own right. Because the task analysis was a very large undertaking, the scope was of necessity restricted to colour information.
7 It was concluded that the most colour critical elements in the pilots’ environment were the PAPI light lights and the parking lights
Ok - so we now have this brilliant CAD test derived on the basis of opinions from a task analysis undertaken by a human factors consultant, following discussions with colour vision normal pilots and observing how colour vision normal pilots operate. No details are provided as to the nature of those discussions and whether any attempt was made to objectively or empirically verify the comments made by those pilots. There was also no discussion on how an objective and empirical determination of the "importance for safety" was carried out.
Importantly, the task analysis did not involve any discussion with CVD pilots or request their expert opinion of how they perform tasks without full colour vision. This is probably because there are none in the UK to actually ask - which is what Dr Navathe is aiming to do here!
Not only were CVD pilots not even asked to give an opinion, most importantly the tasks themselves have never been validated by testing or observation of CVD pilots.
I wonder if anyone ever thought to come and ask the Aussie CVD pilots who've been flying for the last 25 years about their opinions?
It appears that CASA's only (flawed) argument for saying that the CAD "simulates an operational situation" is that it was derived as a result of this task analysis. The problem is however, that the task analysis leaves more questions than answers and so remains unconvincing. 
Last edited by brissypilot; 18th Jul 2014 at 04:17.
The CAD Test does not "simulate" anything, much less an "operational situation" remotely connected to aviation. Therefore, the CAD Test is not a valid test for the purposes of CASR 67.160(6)(c).
The PMO needs to brush up on his comprehension skills and look up the words "simulate", "operational" and "situation" in the dictionary. The phrase "simulates an operational situation" has an obvious and uncontroversial meaning.
The purpose of the test under CASR 67.160(6)(c) is not to find out whether the candidate has CVD. We already know the candidate has CVD, as a consequence of the results of the tests under paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.160(6).
The purpose of the test is to find out whether the candidate is as capable as non-CVD colleagues in a safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured.
The PMO needs to brush up on his comprehension skills and look up the words "simulate", "operational" and "situation" in the dictionary. The phrase "simulates an operational situation" has an obvious and uncontroversial meaning.
The purpose of the test under CASR 67.160(6)(c) is not to find out whether the candidate has CVD. We already know the candidate has CVD, as a consequence of the results of the tests under paragraphs (a) and (b) of CASR 67.160(6).
The purpose of the test is to find out whether the candidate is as capable as non-CVD colleagues in a safety-critical operational situation that depends on the ability of pilots to identify the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured.
Thread Starter
9. To be a "simulated operational situation" the test must be carried out in an environment that includes the other relevant indications, information and cues that would be available to any other pilot during an approach using PAPI in reality.
Thread Starter
This was received today, in a broadcast email to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners. The tune is changing somewhat. Make what you will of it for now!
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Colleague,
In response to my email that I sent you recently, I have become aware of some confusion among some DAMEs and thought I should clarify a few points.
Perhaps the most important issue is of the meaning of the term CVD. CASA’s policy about CVD applies to those individuals who have a CVD such that they have not demonstrated that they meet the standard by passing one of the three levels of testing that is available to them. So if someone failed the Ishihara, but then passed the Farnsworth or the third level test (whatever it might have been) as required by CASA, these people are not being referred to as CVD pilots by CASA (and are provided unrestricted medical certificates). There are (to the extent that the MRS allows us to know), 134 Class 1 pilots, and 252 Class 2 pilots who have a CVD, ie, they have not demonstrated that they can pass the second or third levels of testing – either, because they have not undergone it, or because they have not been able to pass the tests.
I had said in my email, that “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”. That evidence consists of a large a number of papers, which I have not provided in my email. Should any of you wish to have the bibliography of CVD related evidence, I would be happy to send it to you for your information.
As I had said before, the policy is under review. CASA’s interim policy is http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_91593 .
Kind Regards,
Pooshan Navathe
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,
Mail: Office of Aviation Medicine, PO Box 1544, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
Courier: CASA, 16 Furzer St, Phillip, ACT 2606, Australia
Phone (DDI) : +61 2 6217 1005
Facsimile: +61 2 6217 1640
E-mail :[email protected]
Web: www.casa.gov.au
This e-mail and any attachments do not represent and do not purport to represent CASA policy or position.
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error, please advise me by reply to[email protected]immediately and remove this message and any attachments from your system. The information in the e-mail may be legally privileged or medical in confidence. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. Your co operation is appreciated.
There are two statements about human beings that are true: thatall human beings are alike, and thatall are different. On those two facts all human wisdom is founded - Mark VanDoren
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Colleague,
In response to my email that I sent you recently, I have become aware of some confusion among some DAMEs and thought I should clarify a few points.
Perhaps the most important issue is of the meaning of the term CVD. CASA’s policy about CVD applies to those individuals who have a CVD such that they have not demonstrated that they meet the standard by passing one of the three levels of testing that is available to them. So if someone failed the Ishihara, but then passed the Farnsworth or the third level test (whatever it might have been) as required by CASA, these people are not being referred to as CVD pilots by CASA (and are provided unrestricted medical certificates). There are (to the extent that the MRS allows us to know), 134 Class 1 pilots, and 252 Class 2 pilots who have a CVD, ie, they have not demonstrated that they can pass the second or third levels of testing – either, because they have not undergone it, or because they have not been able to pass the tests.
I had said in my email, that “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”. That evidence consists of a large a number of papers, which I have not provided in my email. Should any of you wish to have the bibliography of CVD related evidence, I would be happy to send it to you for your information.
As I had said before, the policy is under review. CASA’s interim policy is http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_91593 .Kind Regards,
Pooshan Navathe
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,
Mail: Office of Aviation Medicine, PO Box 1544, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
Courier: CASA, 16 Furzer St, Phillip, ACT 2606, Australia
Phone (DDI) : +61 2 6217 1005
Facsimile: +61 2 6217 1640
E-mail :[email protected]
Web: www.casa.gov.au
This e-mail and any attachments do not represent and do not purport to represent CASA policy or position.
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error, please advise me by reply to[email protected]immediately and remove this message and any attachments from your system. The information in the e-mail may be legally privileged or medical in confidence. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. Your co operation is appreciated.
There are two statements about human beings that are true: thatall human beings are alike, and thatall are different. On those two facts all human wisdom is founded - Mark VanDoren
The PMO doesn't need a policy on this issue and doesn't need to create further confusion with any more attempted clarifications.
The PMO just needs to shut up and comply with and apply the current law in its current terms.
Applying the current law in its current terms requires CASA to determine, for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), tests that simulate operational situations. The CAD Test does not simulate anything bearing any semblance with any operational situation in aviation.
If you are interested in air safety rather than perpetuating discrimination against people with a 'defect', PMO, the way forward is obvious: Determine tests that simulate safety-critical operational situations that depend on the ability of the candidates to identify the meaning of lights, that happen to be coloured, with the 'pass' standard being the same performance level achieved, in the same test, by candidates without a CVD.
My very real concern is that the reason tests of that kind have not been determined is that the outcomes will be rather inconvenient for zealots on a medical mission.
If you really want to clarify something important, PMO, please explain why flying an approach using PAPI, in a simulator, is not good enough as a test of CPL/ATPL candidates for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), given that PAPI has been identified as the most important safety-critical task requiring pilots to comprehend the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured. You might also explain how pilots with CVD have been conducting these approaches, in real life, for decades, without a single accident caused by CVD.
(I've been struck by another potential exquisite irony: Wouldn't it be ironic if the performance of pilots with CVD in simulated PAPI approaches were statistically significantly better than pilots without CVD ....)
The PMO just needs to shut up and comply with and apply the current law in its current terms.
Applying the current law in its current terms requires CASA to determine, for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), tests that simulate operational situations. The CAD Test does not simulate anything bearing any semblance with any operational situation in aviation.
If you are interested in air safety rather than perpetuating discrimination against people with a 'defect', PMO, the way forward is obvious: Determine tests that simulate safety-critical operational situations that depend on the ability of the candidates to identify the meaning of lights, that happen to be coloured, with the 'pass' standard being the same performance level achieved, in the same test, by candidates without a CVD.
My very real concern is that the reason tests of that kind have not been determined is that the outcomes will be rather inconvenient for zealots on a medical mission.
If you really want to clarify something important, PMO, please explain why flying an approach using PAPI, in a simulator, is not good enough as a test of CPL/ATPL candidates for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), given that PAPI has been identified as the most important safety-critical task requiring pilots to comprehend the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured. You might also explain how pilots with CVD have been conducting these approaches, in real life, for decades, without a single accident caused by CVD.
(I've been struck by another potential exquisite irony: Wouldn't it be ironic if the performance of pilots with CVD in simulated PAPI approaches were statistically significantly better than pilots without CVD ....)
Last edited by Creampuff; 18th Jul 2014 at 23:07.
No comment required
Better late than never....short article from SMH on AIPA correspondence to miniscule on CVD..:
No surprises there.. Bullying from the big "R" regulator is SOP, take a look here:
..short article from SMH on AIPA correspondence to miniscule on CVD..:
CASA accused of bullying
Date July 23, 2014
Pilots have accused the air safety regulator of ''blatant institutional bullying'' over its warning that colourblind pilots could be grounded if it implements stricter medical requirements under consideration.
The Australian and International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss complaining that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has exhibited a ''lack of regulatory courage and integrity'' in its handling of colour vision deficiency.
For the past 25 years, sufferers of colour blindness have been allowed to fly. But CASA has cited ''new research'' that could end the careers of hundreds of pilots.
Read more: CASA accused of bullying
Date July 23, 2014
Pilots have accused the air safety regulator of ''blatant institutional bullying'' over its warning that colourblind pilots could be grounded if it implements stricter medical requirements under consideration.
The Australian and International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss complaining that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has exhibited a ''lack of regulatory courage and integrity'' in its handling of colour vision deficiency.
For the past 25 years, sufferers of colour blindness have been allowed to fly. But CASA has cited ''new research'' that could end the careers of hundreds of pilots.
Read more: CASA accused of bullying
Bullying from the big "R" regulator is SOP, take a look here: Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Jul 2014 at 02:25.
My DAME sent Mr Pooshan a letter about “CVD” being cardiovascular disease and not anomalous colour vision- or more correctly and precisely, deuteranomalous vision or protanomalous vision....
(I had to cut and paste those big words!)
....when she wrote and asked for the "recent references" which she has since received. I can't be assed to look up the most "recent" CASA definition of "recent" but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..
(I had to cut and paste those big words!)
....when she wrote and asked for the "recent references" which she has since received. I can't be assed to look up the most "recent" CASA definition of "recent" but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I would have thought 1922 wasn't..
The medic concerned needs a stiff reminder that this is not a joking matter and a reference to 1922 research as "recent" is a step too far in the "poor taste" stakes.......but perhaps, in his current important job, Mr. Poosnan is a *bit* out of touch.........time to feed the national press newshounds a few scraps?
Really, that one item could reduce him to a laughing -stock and totally discredit him and his whole vindictive vendetta.
I reckon you guys really owe Creampuff a beer or three!
He's one sharp cookie and seems to have the measure of the situation with this shower of 5h1ts.