The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots
And by the way, what is this crap? I have a whole swag of degrees, but never quote them because I would hope people judge me by my achievements not by a collection of letters from the distant past, but then I'm comfortable in my own skin and don't need to seek refuge from my own insecurity in a whole lot of essentially meaningless qualifications - in all seriousness I can't understand why anyone would put this out - FFS what is SAVMO(ADF) anyway?
"MBBS, Dip Occ Med, Dip Aviation Safety Regulation, B Ed, MD, MBA, PhD
FAFOEM (RACP), FRACMA, FRAeS, FAeMS, FAsMA, FACAsM, AIAMA, SAVMO (ADF)"
exactly...Triton
Be very wary of folk like Pooshie that have a big list of unknown acronyms/letters after the name. Suss is the immediate thought
Jack of all trades and master of none??
Proud to have but 3...IOS. Goes with my Anti CAsAist gold badge.
I did have MIBB on my letterhead some years ago ..and after about a decade someone asked what it stood for. Member, Institute of ???
NO
Minimal Involvement in Bureaucratic Bull****.
If you can be so lucky in this country...being Regulatastan and all that
Not waving ...drowning in it
Jack of all trades and master of none??
Proud to have but 3...IOS. Goes with my Anti CAsAist gold badge.
I did have MIBB on my letterhead some years ago ..and after about a decade someone asked what it stood for. Member, Institute of ???
NO
Minimal Involvement in Bureaucratic Bull****.
If you can be so lucky in this country...being Regulatastan and all that
Not waving ...drowning in it
SAVMO (ADF)
When did he work with the ADF??
Senior Aviation Medical Officer (SAVMO). An AVMO within Defence, with additional qualifications detailed in HD 305. A SAVMO has advanced aviation medicine (AVMED) expertise that will, in addition to performing all the duties of an AVMO:
(1) provide authoritative advice and consultation on Aircrew fitness;
(2) participate in or preside over a Central Aircrew Medical Employment Classification Review;
(3) provide advice to Joint Health Command, Commands and operational units on aviation medicine issues; and
(4) provide technical assistance in the event of Defence aircraft accident.
Senior Aviation Medical Officer (SAVMO). An AVMO within Defence, with additional qualifications detailed in HD 305. A SAVMO has advanced aviation medicine (AVMED) expertise that will, in addition to performing all the duties of an AVMO:
(1) provide authoritative advice and consultation on Aircrew fitness;
(2) participate in or preside over a Central Aircrew Medical Employment Classification Review;
(3) provide advice to Joint Health Command, Commands and operational units on aviation medicine issues; and
(4) provide technical assistance in the event of Defence aircraft accident.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a sport for a gentleman..
Pause for thought – are the only 'letters' that really mean anything here AAT? It's a very strange battle ground and to be avoided if at all humanly possible. There have been some very weird findings made against what should have been 'no-brainers'. Every logical, moral and operational truism mentioned here will not, does not and cannot signify – it's a battle of law; not justice and the opposition are masters of manipulating the AAT rule set. It has been an 'in house' speciality for many, many years and 'they' are very good at it. There are no certainties in an AAT hearing – I won't bore you with details, but I have sat through enough and read many more AAT findings where CASA was involved – and it ain't a pretty picture.
I have no idea how to avoid this conflict – Sen. Fawcett is, for my money, on the right track. The notion of an 'inquiry' rather than a 'hearing' has much merit. I hear a whisper that funding such an event may prove' problematic; despite the fact that it will cost less than the CASA legal bill and produce much more.
If DPM Wuss is serious about reform, perhaps it's a good time for him to put our money where his mouth is – stop this fiasco before irreparable damage is done. This matter is a perfect, mirror image in miniature of what industry has to endure. I do worry the AAT hearing will reflect, as it has done so many times in the past, that CASA is above any law not subservient to their current 'policy'. To retain that control they will happily destroy the aspirations of both industry and the individuals hope for fairness at law; any notion of 'justice' being served an irrelevant side issue. AAT has, on many occasions served to support the CASA claimed omnipotence...Delay is an ally, perhaps a new DAS and PMO will eventually turn up and an appeal for sanity may be heard with 'open ears'.
If the AAT hearing cannot be prevented then the 'legal' team must be of the trained killer variety and be as prepared as the opposition to bypass fair play and not to scruple about getting their hands (or conscience) dirty in a good cause. The Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply in an AAT refereed street fight.
This pony-pooh Shambollic argument is not so much about CVD but control, power and ego. Brother Creampuff has provided an excellent place to start, but don't forget a very skilled, practiced crew of AAT manipulators are sitting in the other corner awaiting the bell for round 1 and when the seconds are out of the ring they will, from the off, not be sparring but seeking to destroy any challenge to their title; preferably before the bell for end of round 1.
FWIW – if you must fight a man (or city hall) be sure you have as much foreknowledge of the tactics likely to be used; Harvey has his pugmarks over many of the CASA 'victories' and his 'style' is easily assessed. It's all there in transcript – but you must know the strengths and weakness of the opposition, better than you know your own; if you want to win in the AAT arena that is. Oh, and learn to keep an eye on the referee, just in case your toes are stood on – accidental like – as you have a good punch lined up.
Selah.
C_Steve – I'd like to think there'll come a day when all involved can have a few beers together, red football Guernsey's and green hats – (or 'tuher way around no difference). Creampuff shall have his beers as we toast John for his courage, Arthur for all his work and, with a bit of luck, the end of a dark, unenlightened era. We may even invite the new DAS along; if he's a good lad....(or ladette)...
Toot toot -
I have no idea how to avoid this conflict – Sen. Fawcett is, for my money, on the right track. The notion of an 'inquiry' rather than a 'hearing' has much merit. I hear a whisper that funding such an event may prove' problematic; despite the fact that it will cost less than the CASA legal bill and produce much more.
If DPM Wuss is serious about reform, perhaps it's a good time for him to put our money where his mouth is – stop this fiasco before irreparable damage is done. This matter is a perfect, mirror image in miniature of what industry has to endure. I do worry the AAT hearing will reflect, as it has done so many times in the past, that CASA is above any law not subservient to their current 'policy'. To retain that control they will happily destroy the aspirations of both industry and the individuals hope for fairness at law; any notion of 'justice' being served an irrelevant side issue. AAT has, on many occasions served to support the CASA claimed omnipotence...Delay is an ally, perhaps a new DAS and PMO will eventually turn up and an appeal for sanity may be heard with 'open ears'.
If the AAT hearing cannot be prevented then the 'legal' team must be of the trained killer variety and be as prepared as the opposition to bypass fair play and not to scruple about getting their hands (or conscience) dirty in a good cause. The Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply in an AAT refereed street fight.
This pony-pooh Shambollic argument is not so much about CVD but control, power and ego. Brother Creampuff has provided an excellent place to start, but don't forget a very skilled, practiced crew of AAT manipulators are sitting in the other corner awaiting the bell for round 1 and when the seconds are out of the ring they will, from the off, not be sparring but seeking to destroy any challenge to their title; preferably before the bell for end of round 1.
FWIW – if you must fight a man (or city hall) be sure you have as much foreknowledge of the tactics likely to be used; Harvey has his pugmarks over many of the CASA 'victories' and his 'style' is easily assessed. It's all there in transcript – but you must know the strengths and weakness of the opposition, better than you know your own; if you want to win in the AAT arena that is. Oh, and learn to keep an eye on the referee, just in case your toes are stood on – accidental like – as you have a good punch lined up.
Selah.
C_Steve – I'd like to think there'll come a day when all involved can have a few beers together, red football Guernsey's and green hats – (or 'tuher way around no difference). Creampuff shall have his beers as we toast John for his courage, Arthur for all his work and, with a bit of luck, the end of a dark, unenlightened era. We may even invite the new DAS along; if he's a good lad....(or ladette)...
Toot toot -
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Jul 2014 at 21:22.
it's a battle of law; not justice
are the only 'letters' that really mean anything here AAT?
My WAG is that the key issues in the AAT will include:
- whether the AAT has jurisdiction to decide that the determination of the CAD test is not a valid determination for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c), because the CAD test does not ‘simulate an operational situation’, and
- whether the AAT has jurisdiction to determine its own test and subject the applicant to that test, and find that he is able to pass that test (in which case all this unnecessary stupidity goes away).
My WAG is that CASA will argue that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to do either and therefore - so the argument will continue - the AAT cannot find anything other than that the applicant has failed the test determined by CASA. The inevitable consequence – so the argument will continue – is that the applicant does not meet the colour perception standard. (The war is not lost there for the applicant, by the way, but the aim must be to try to make the entire stupidity go away by getting CASA to determine tests that simulate operational situations.)
As anyone with any aeronautical experience knows, the CAD test doesn’t ‘simulate’ ****, just as the Ishihara plate test doesn’t simulate ****. (No…. wait, I remember now: On a standard ILS approach, a bunch of pink marshmallow shapes with coloured numbers in the middle appear in the windscreen to tell you your height …)
The CAD test is just another glorified colour vision test.
However, CASA is evidently going to try to defend the CAD test as a test that simulates an operational situation in accordance with CASR 67.150(6)(c). That suggests to me either that:
- the PMO is stubbornly refusing to accept advice to the effect that the CAD test doesn’t simulate ****
- the people advising the PMO do not have sufficient aeronautical experience to know that the CAD test doesn’t simulate ****, or
- everyone’s too scared, proud or embarrassed to revoke the determination of the CAD test and instead determine some tests that actually simulate actual operational situations.
(Must feel comfy to be able to spend all that time and (other people’s) money defending the indefensible, while putting all current and aspiring pilots with colour vision deficiencies through unnecessary trauma in the interim.)
If it turns out that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to find the CAD test is not a valid test and determine its own test, that’s not the AAT’s fault. Its jurisdiction is not a matter of its choice or discretion.
However, as I said, all is not lost if that happens.
First, it is still open to the AAT to find that there should be no “no ATPL” condition on the applicant’s medical certificate, even if the AAT is bound to find the applicant is, as a consequence of the operation of CASR 67.150(6), effectively deemed not to meet the colour perception standard.
Secondly, the Federal Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to make orders prohibiting CASA from using the CAD Test and requiring CASA to determine tests that actually simulate operational situations, if the Court can be convinced that the CAD test does not simulate an operational situation in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c). That shouldn’t be too hard. A few pilots with a century or so and a hundred thousand hours or so of combined experience across the aeronautical spectrum averring to the fact that the CAD test doesn’t simulate any operational situation in which they’ve ever been involved, should do it. (What pilot with even a modicum of aeronautical experience would be prepared to swear an affidavit that says the CAD test simulates an operational situation? What would that operational situation be? Watching a youtube video of the old ‘pong’ computer game, while high on LSD? Online Ping Pong Game,Free Internet Arcade Games for Kids to play on computer )
Hopefully, if and by the time the Federal Court option becomes inevitable, someone will have given CASA advice to the effect that its prospects of success in defending the CAD test as test that ‘simulates an operational situation’ in terms of CASR 67.150(6)(c) are somewhere between buckley’s and none, and someone in CASA will listen to that advice. It shouldn’t have to get that far, but it seems to me that the relevant decision maker in CASA is currently oblivious to what CASR 67.150(6)(c) means.
Last edited by Creampuff; 24th Jul 2014 at 02:13.
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
QUOTE "colour perception standard" QUOTE
Redefining white. Or what happened at the AVMED Christmas party.
We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels 'cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
But the crowd called out for more
The room was humming harder
As the ceiling flew away
When we called out for another drink
And the waiter brought a tray
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
She said, "There is no reason
And the truth is plain to see."
But I wandered through my playing cards
And they would not let her be
One of sixteen vestal virgins
Who were leaving for the coast
And although my eyes were open wide
They might have just as well been closed
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
She said, "I'm here on a shore leave,"
Though we were miles at sea.
I pointed out this detail
And forced her to agree,
Saying, "You must be the mermaid
Who took King Neptune for a ride."
And she smiled at me so sweetly
That my anger straightway died.
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
If music be the food of love
Then laughter is it's queen
And likewise if behind is in front
Then dirt in truth is clean
My mouth by then like cardboard
Seemed to slip straight through my head
So we crash-dived straightway quickly
And attacked the ocean bed
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale.
Thanks to Procol Harum. Sums it up nicely I thought.
We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels 'cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
But the crowd called out for more
The room was humming harder
As the ceiling flew away
When we called out for another drink
And the waiter brought a tray
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
She said, "There is no reason
And the truth is plain to see."
But I wandered through my playing cards
And they would not let her be
One of sixteen vestal virgins
Who were leaving for the coast
And although my eyes were open wide
They might have just as well been closed
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
She said, "I'm here on a shore leave,"
Though we were miles at sea.
I pointed out this detail
And forced her to agree,
Saying, "You must be the mermaid
Who took King Neptune for a ride."
And she smiled at me so sweetly
That my anger straightway died.
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
If music be the food of love
Then laughter is it's queen
And likewise if behind is in front
Then dirt in truth is clean
My mouth by then like cardboard
Seemed to slip straight through my head
So we crash-dived straightway quickly
And attacked the ocean bed
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale.
Thanks to Procol Harum. Sums it up nicely I thought.
In May 2012 when Duncan Kerr was sworn in as head of the AAT
there were things said that promised the appellant representing
himself a better go. It is worth a read, if only to shine some light
on a man whose roots and work for the man in the street over the
years deserve more than a perfunctory nod.
Ceremonial Sitting of the Tribunal for the Swearing In and Welcome of the Honourable Justice Kerr as President
there were things said that promised the appellant representing
himself a better go. It is worth a read, if only to shine some light
on a man whose roots and work for the man in the street over the
years deserve more than a perfunctory nod.
Ceremonial Sitting of the Tribunal for the Swearing In and Welcome of the Honourable Justice Kerr as President
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
83 is the new black!
Sarcs, thanks for the laugh with the video
Senator MacDonald was on fire. I especially enjoyed it when Heff wanted a piece of the Skull and the dapper Nick held him back! It was also exciting to see Hampton sitting in the front row and having some input, however I was sure I could hear JPY's "Love is in the Air" playing! Terry sat there as usual like a store shop front mannequin and Pumpkin Head sat there with his giant head at one point resting in his hand. And what about the Skull making sure he mentioned that 'he and two of his cronies' took time out on a Saturday to attend a meeting'! Oh how terrible, a man on $500k per year, and then some, having to work on a single Saturday, heaven forbid!!! Yep, bureaucrats disconnected from reality.The fact is this - CAsA has a legacy of bullying. Sen MacDonald provided an example of it, and it was the very top person in CAsA who did it. You don't need much more proof than that. If it starts at the top it certainly transcends down the line, but we already knew that. CAsA's top secret 'star chamber training program for managers' ensures that the IOS are dealt with in an expedient manner with no mercy.
How does this link in with CVD? CAsA's nonchalant arrogant manner in dealing with Pilots over the CVD issue is indicative of how they behave. Pooshan is totally incorrect, Ferreday has been a disgrace in this, and so has the executive tier who are supportive of the letter that was sent out. This is CAsA 101. They would rather see the world annihilated in a nuclear holocaust 10 times over than admit they got it wrong, and fix the problem...and as long as this is allowed to continue, it proves the government supports and sanctions CAsA's actions.
Senator MacDonald was on fire. I especially enjoyed it when Heff wanted a piece of the Skull and the dapper Nick held him back! It was also exciting to see Hampton sitting in the front row and having some input, however I was sure I could hear JPY's "Love is in the Air" playing! Terry sat there as usual like a store shop front mannequin and Pumpkin Head sat there with his giant head at one point resting in his hand. And what about the Skull making sure he mentioned that 'he and two of his cronies' took time out on a Saturday to attend a meeting'! Oh how terrible, a man on $500k per year, and then some, having to work on a single Saturday, heaven forbid!!! Yep, bureaucrats disconnected from reality.The fact is this - CAsA has a legacy of bullying. Sen MacDonald provided an example of it, and it was the very top person in CAsA who did it. You don't need much more proof than that. If it starts at the top it certainly transcends down the line, but we already knew that. CAsA's top secret 'star chamber training program for managers' ensures that the IOS are dealt with in an expedient manner with no mercy.
How does this link in with CVD? CAsA's nonchalant arrogant manner in dealing with Pilots over the CVD issue is indicative of how they behave. Pooshan is totally incorrect, Ferreday has been a disgrace in this, and so has the executive tier who are supportive of the letter that was sent out. This is CAsA 101. They would rather see the world annihilated in a nuclear holocaust 10 times over than admit they got it wrong, and fix the problem...and as long as this is allowed to continue, it proves the government supports and sanctions CAsA's actions.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last, but by no means least – the CVD tribe – who's woes are set to continue, unabated. Seems McComic is determined to continue his assault on the industry he loathes until the last minute. Driven by only the gods know what and terrified of 'liability' issues (not medical but legal it seems), he continues to use his willing accomplice to present the 'real' issues. The fact that Pooshams tenuous hold on any sort of reputation will be totally destroyed; whichever way it turns out is of no importance to the 49'ers Nemesis. I doubt the PMO can see past his well flattered ego and work this out. Word on the street is some of the McComic acolytes already carry 'show cause' notices and facing the future, 'grimly'; banished from the Sleepy Hollow sheltered workshops; perhaps the PMO can join them, maybe they will care about his woes...
Aye; I'd like to think Karma was real and active. Anyone got her number?, someone should ring and tell her there's real work to be done in the sun burnt country, lots of it.
Aye; I'd like to think Karma was real and active. Anyone got her number?, someone should ring and tell her there's real work to be done in the sun burnt country, lots of it.
maybe Creammie . . . . you more like ELEGANT MESS?
you want digression? .. . . I give you digression . . . . ok?
( better even than the best from our carousing cohort . .. the incomparable unincriminatable K.)
Bugs crashes Rocky's birthday party
Narrator: The boys decided to throw a party celebrating Rocky's birthday and the removal of
Agent Mess. (camera shows cake and gangsters surrounding Rocky) Among those attending... were Jack "Legs" Rhinstone, "Baby Face Half" Nelson, "Pizza Puss" Lasagna, "Pistol Nose" Pringle, and "Teeth" Malloy.
(Mugsy stands up)
Mugsy: Uh, Rocky, we'd like to present you a token of our esteem.
(Bugs Bunny pops out of cake, disguised as a flapper)
Bugs: (in flapper's voice) Hiya, suckers!
Rocky: Who's da broad?
Mugsy: (goo-goo eyed) She's some looker, eh Rocky? (nudges Rocky so that Rocky and chair fall over. Mugsy looks down) Duh, what happen, Rocky?
Rocky: (punches Mugsy up the jaw) You bonehead. (walks over to Bugs) You know, you're a lucky broad. I like you. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw) Stop the music. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw again, making him drop his guns) Stop... Stop the music! (Bugs kicks Rocky a third time, shoving him up his hat so he can't see. Rocky feels the floor for his guns) STOP! THE MUSIC!
(Rocky picks up guns and fires. Bugs flees out of his disguise. Rocky ceases firing)
Rocky: (turning to gangsters) Dat dame's not a dame! Quick! Don't just stand there gapin', go get 'im!
(Gangsters fall dead to the floor. Rocky gasps)
Mugsy: Gee, Rocky, you made a boo-boo.
Bugs: (disguised as a police inspector) Yeah, and I'm bookin' ya for moider.
Rocky: Oh yeah? Well, I'm da bookie around here and I'll do the bookin'. (whips out revolver)
Bugs: (whips out carrot) Stick 'em up, you're under arrest!
Rocky: Heh, heh, heh! Look Mugsy, He's gonna shoot us with a carrot! Heh, heh, heh... (carrot end opens up and blasts Rocky and Mugsy in the face) Heh...heh...ooooohhh.
(Bugs pulls hidden trigger on carrot only to make clicking noises)
Bugs: Dat's the trouble with carrots: Dey're only good once.
(Rocky fires revolver, causing Bugs to flee and begin the chase through the ACME Cereal Factory)
you want digression? .. . . I give you digression . . . . ok?
( better even than the best from our carousing cohort . .. the incomparable unincriminatable K.)
Bugs crashes Rocky's birthday party
Narrator: The boys decided to throw a party celebrating Rocky's birthday and the removal of
Agent Mess. (camera shows cake and gangsters surrounding Rocky) Among those attending... were Jack "Legs" Rhinstone, "Baby Face Half" Nelson, "Pizza Puss" Lasagna, "Pistol Nose" Pringle, and "Teeth" Malloy.
(Mugsy stands up)
Mugsy: Uh, Rocky, we'd like to present you a token of our esteem.
(Bugs Bunny pops out of cake, disguised as a flapper)
Bugs: (in flapper's voice) Hiya, suckers!
Rocky: Who's da broad?
Mugsy: (goo-goo eyed) She's some looker, eh Rocky? (nudges Rocky so that Rocky and chair fall over. Mugsy looks down) Duh, what happen, Rocky?
Rocky: (punches Mugsy up the jaw) You bonehead. (walks over to Bugs) You know, you're a lucky broad. I like you. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw) Stop the music. (Bugs kicks Rocky up the jaw again, making him drop his guns) Stop... Stop the music! (Bugs kicks Rocky a third time, shoving him up his hat so he can't see. Rocky feels the floor for his guns) STOP! THE MUSIC!
(Rocky picks up guns and fires. Bugs flees out of his disguise. Rocky ceases firing)
Rocky: (turning to gangsters) Dat dame's not a dame! Quick! Don't just stand there gapin', go get 'im!
(Gangsters fall dead to the floor. Rocky gasps)
Mugsy: Gee, Rocky, you made a boo-boo.
Bugs: (disguised as a police inspector) Yeah, and I'm bookin' ya for moider.
Rocky: Oh yeah? Well, I'm da bookie around here and I'll do the bookin'. (whips out revolver)
Bugs: (whips out carrot) Stick 'em up, you're under arrest!
Rocky: Heh, heh, heh! Look Mugsy, He's gonna shoot us with a carrot! Heh, heh, heh... (carrot end opens up and blasts Rocky and Mugsy in the face) Heh...heh...ooooohhh.
(Bugs pulls hidden trigger on carrot only to make clicking noises)
Bugs: Dat's the trouble with carrots: Dey're only good once.
(Rocky fires revolver, causing Bugs to flee and begin the chase through the ACME Cereal Factory)
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
No matter what way you look at things, there's always a wascally wabbit in the plot with a loaded carrot. (or a NCN).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PMO changes his mind.... again
It seems the PMO can't stick to a decision about CVD pilot applicants.... The FAQ section of the CAsA website has been changed yet again today 
In April we had...
In May we had...
In June we had....
Today we have...
There is also the debacle of Bill Smith's ATPL privileges being withdrawn then re-instated.
Perhaps it's time for the PMO to resign and let someone else assume the role who can at least be consistent with their decisions? Perhaps someone who respects the advice of those who are more qualified and capable of making judgements?
How much longer will this bureaucrat be allowed to continue to destroy pilot's livelihoods and send them (and the taxpayer!) broke through the AAT before enough is enough?
I see Senator Fawcett is asking the same question in a written QON published a few days ago:
As Creampuff has eloquently highlighted, the CVD matter is boiling down to the PMO's inability to interpret CASR 67.150(6)(c).
He could even start by looking up some of the definitions in the new Part 61. It may give him a few hints on the meanings of those tricky words. 
CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2013 (NO. 1) - REG 61.010
In April we had...
You would have noticed that your recent medical certificate had a condition 13 which read "Limited to flights conducted inside Australian territory" instead of the earlier "Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1".
Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.
On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.
Aviation Medicine
Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.
On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.
Aviation Medicine
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass, as per Part 67. If all tests are failed, the class 1 certificate is refused.
Pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass, as per Part 67. If all tests are failed, the class 1 certificate is refused.
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
Initial issue of class 1 medicals
Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD. To satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150, the applicant must first attempt the Ishihara test. If they fail that test, they must then undertake the Farnsworth Lantern test. If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken. Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant’s CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.
Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD. To satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150, the applicant must first attempt the Ishihara test. If they fail that test, they must then undertake the Farnsworth Lantern test. If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken. Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant’s CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.
Perhaps it's time for the PMO to resign and let someone else assume the role who can at least be consistent with their decisions? Perhaps someone who respects the advice of those who are more qualified and capable of making judgements?
McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014)
50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other.
56. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions.
50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other.
56. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions.
I see Senator Fawcett is asking the same question in a written QON published a few days ago:
273
244
CASA
FAWCETT
Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
244
CASA
FAWCETT
Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
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 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.
CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2013 (NO. 1) - REG 61.010
"operational endorsement" means any of the following endorsements:
(a) an aerial application endorsement;
(b) a flight activity endorsement;
(c) a flight examiner endorsement;
(d) an instrument endorsement;
(e) a low-level endorsement;
(f) a night VFR endorsement;
(g) a night vision imaging system endorsement;
(h) a private instrument endorsement;
(i) a training endorsement;
(j) a flight engineer examiner endorsement;
(k) a flight engineer training endorsement.
"operational rating" means any of the following ratings:
(a) an aerial application rating;
(b) an examiner rating;
(c) an instructor rating;
(d) an instrument rating;
(e) a low-level rating;
(f) a night VFR rating;
(g) a night vision imaging system rating;
(h) a private instrument rating.
"simulated flight" time means time spent in a flight simulation training device during which a pilot is performing the duties of a pilot.
"simulated IMC" means flight in an aircraft or flight simulation training device during which the pilot is prevented from viewing the external horizon.
(a) an aerial application endorsement;
(b) a flight activity endorsement;
(c) a flight examiner endorsement;
(d) an instrument endorsement;
(e) a low-level endorsement;
(f) a night VFR endorsement;
(g) a night vision imaging system endorsement;
(h) a private instrument endorsement;
(i) a training endorsement;
(j) a flight engineer examiner endorsement;
(k) a flight engineer training endorsement.
"operational rating" means any of the following ratings:
(a) an aerial application rating;
(b) an examiner rating;
(c) an instructor rating;
(d) an instrument rating;
(e) a low-level rating;
(f) a night VFR rating;
(g) a night vision imaging system rating;
(h) a private instrument rating.
"simulated flight" time means time spent in a flight simulation training device during which a pilot is performing the duties of a pilot.
"simulated IMC" means flight in an aircraft or flight simulation training device during which the pilot is prevented from viewing the external horizon.
Why is it that CASA appears unwilling or unable to read and apply the law?
Today we have ... Applicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD.
The relevant requirement is not that the candidate "be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD."
The relevant requirement is, unsurprisingly, what the law says.
The law says the requirement is:
(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;
The requirement is not that the applicant "not pose a danger to safety". The requirement is that the applicant is "not likely to endanger" the safety of air navigation.
The test stated by CASA - "not pose" - is binary: Zero danger. The test stated in the law is a probability: "not likely". There is a profound difference.
Were CASA not blinded by prejudice, it would comprehend the reason for the requirement being a probability: Everyone and everything is danger to safety, but the probabilities and consequences are infinitely variable. The world is a dangerous place and life is full of risk. Witness the fact that most aviation accidents and incidents are caused by humans with perfect colour perception.
It's simple, CASA: Just apply and comply with the law in its terms.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Witness the fact that most aviation accidents and incidents are caused by humans with perfect colour perception.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 2 x AAT losses for AvMed
The poor PMO's not having a good run this year in the AAT...
It's interesting in para 46 of the second decision how he stresses the importance of "evidence based medicine". He's certainly not looking at any of the evidence in the CVD matter.
Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014)
Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014)
It's interesting in para 46 of the second decision how he stresses the importance of "evidence based medicine". He's certainly not looking at any of the evidence in the CVD matter.
Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014)
The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that a condition requiring the provision to the respondent of alcohol screening tests on a quarterly basis not be imposed on the applicant’s class 1 or class 2 medical certificates.
1. The applicant, Mr Peter Ryan, is a commercial pilot by occupation. He holds a commercial pilot (helicopter) licence and a private pilot (fixed wing) licence. The respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, is of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse. In February 2014, when the Authority renewed his aviation medical certificate, it imposed a condition which required him to undertake quarterly alcohol screening tests and to forward the results of those tests to the Authority.
2. Mr Ryan objects to the imposition of the condition. He says that it is unnecessary and unwarranted. He seeks a review of the Authority's decision to impose the condition.
3. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Ryan is correct. The evidence does not warrant the imposition of such a condition.
1. The applicant, Mr Peter Ryan, is a commercial pilot by occupation. He holds a commercial pilot (helicopter) licence and a private pilot (fixed wing) licence. The respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, is of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse. In February 2014, when the Authority renewed his aviation medical certificate, it imposed a condition which required him to undertake quarterly alcohol screening tests and to forward the results of those tests to the Authority.
2. Mr Ryan objects to the imposition of the condition. He says that it is unnecessary and unwarranted. He seeks a review of the Authority's decision to impose the condition.
3. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Ryan is correct. The evidence does not warrant the imposition of such a condition.
22. The case for the Authority relies upon studies that show an increased risk of alcohol-related accidents or incidents in pilots who had been convicted of drink-driving. These studies led Dr Pooshan Navathe, the Authority's Principal Medical Officer and the decision maker in the present case, to conclude:
1. A history of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is a serious issue from an aviation perspective.
Whether that is so or not seems to me not to matter. The issue in the present case is whether the material establishes that Mr Ryan engaged in, or had a personal history of, the problematic use of alcohol. In my view it does not. That being so, I conclude that Mr Ryan satisfies the only criteria in issue in these proceedings and thus meets the medical standard for class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.
1. A history of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is a serious issue from an aviation perspective.
Whether that is so or not seems to me not to matter. The issue in the present case is whether the material establishes that Mr Ryan engaged in, or had a personal history of, the problematic use of alcohol. In my view it does not. That being so, I conclude that Mr Ryan satisfies the only criteria in issue in these proceedings and thus meets the medical standard for class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.
Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014)
The Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 31 May 2013 to cancel Mr Hoore's medical certificates.
The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that at the time of the reviewable decision the extent to which the applicant did not meet the medical standards for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation if the following conditions are imposed..."
The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that at the time of the reviewable decision the extent to which the applicant did not meet the medical standards for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation if the following conditions are imposed..."
35. A/Prod Navathe went on to explain in oral testimony the possible consequences of a seizure of a pilot in the cockpit. During a seizure the person can have sometimes quite violent spasms, contractures of the body and limbs and would become incapacitated. In a single pilot operation this would be obviously disastrous. In a dual control cockpit with two pilots, a fitting pilot could interfere with the controls such as the rudder or the control column. An unconscious pilot could slump forward onto the control column. In addition the second pilot could find the situation distracting, which could be dangerous if in a critical stage of flight.
36. Mr Hoore does not contest this but highlights an inconsistency in the respondent's argument, pointing out that CASA does not regulate the health of passengers who can sit in the second control seat in dual control aircraft. Such passengers could be subject to seizures with the same potential outcome.
36. Mr Hoore does not contest this but highlights an inconsistency in the respondent's argument, pointing out that CASA does not regulate the health of passengers who can sit in the second control seat in dual control aircraft. Such passengers could be subject to seizures with the same potential outcome.
46. The respondent points out that every decision is made case-by-case and is based on individual circumstances. No two situations are the same. A/Prof Navathe explained in considerable detail the regulatory medical decision-making process in his written submission[5] and in oral testimony. He stressed the role of evidence based medicine and the collegial nature of the decision making process. He explained the medical staff of CASA are experienced in aviation medicine and many of the doctors hold pilots licences and are experienced pilots. A/Prof Navathe explained that before a decision is made to suspend a medical certificate, the case is referred to the Complex Case Management (CCM) Committee to gain a broader opinion from his colleagues in the medical branch of CASA. This process was followed for Mr Hoore and notes of the CCM of 29 May 2013 are included in evidence.
50. Mr Hoore also questioned the consistency of CASA's own regulations in relation to their risk analysis on the second pilot in his case. In his submission[7] he referred to CASR Part 61.405 that provides pilots with the option of having a drivers medical certificate, which he sees as being of a lesser standard but more easily achievable. This is evidenced by the restriction placed on such pilots by the regulation, that they can carry no more than one passenger. However, this restriction is lifted if there is a licenced pilot in the second control seat. This he asserts is clear evidence that CASA accepts the ameliorating effect a second pilot has on the risk to air safety.
63. We have concluded, and indeed it was never a contentious issue, that Mr Hoore does not meet the medical standard for the issue of either a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. The extent to which Mr Hoore fails to meet the standard is unlikely to endanger the safety of air navigation with conditions imposed to ameliorate that situation. The respondent believes no such conditions exist. We disagree with this determination. We have accordingly imposed conditions, which require, inter alia, that the applicant fly at all times with an appropriately qualified and rated pilot.