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

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

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

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

Old 28th Aug 2014, 23:14
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,291
I am just wondering if the stats are skewed somewhat compared to the overall percentage of colour defective males because many who know of their condition do not try and pursue aviation activities in the first place on the misunderstanding that they would be excluded totally?

I wonder if the term CVD is appropriate when having discussions in a medical sense? Many doctors I have spoke to, when they see these letters think it is referring to cardio vascular disease.
YPJT is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 01:45
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Remember that if you can pass any one of the Ishihara, Farnsworth or Tower signal light tests (or potentially now the CAD, which passes more people than the lantern tests), you meet the standard. It is only those who can't pass any of those that are considered to be "CVD pilots", which is a far lower number than the prevalence of abnormal colour vision in the population.
Not quite, but you’ll get there eventually, ausdoc.

It is correct to say that a person who passes any one of the tests mentioned in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. One of those tests is a test that simulates an operational situation.

The CAD test does not simulate an operational situation. Once the zealots on a medical crusade in Avmed are dragged into compliance with the law and determine tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that do, in fact, simulate an operational situation, all of the pilots who’ve been unnecessarily stuffed around will be able to get on with their lives and careers.

As to the numbers of pilots with CVD, I have to say that I was appalled by the implications of Mr McCormick’s statement that there are “only” X of “them”.

What difference does the number make?

If CASA decided that pilots with black skin may, as a consequence of the colour of their skin, be a danger to the safety of air navigation, would the fact that there are “only” 3 or 30 or 300 of “them” make any difference to the validity of a medical crusade to save the world from potential dangers of pilots with black skin?

It’s appalling.

Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Aug 2014 at 04:54. Reason: Corrected operation"al"
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 04:01
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Next time you apply for a certificate, you should insist that CASA apply and comply with the provisions of 67.150(6). If you pass any one of the 3 tests listed in 67.150(6) you have demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. Provided you meet the other aspects of the medical standard, you are entitled to a ‘clean’ certificate.

Any note on your certificate in those circumstances is as relevant and valid as a note that says “The holder is left handed”.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 05:15
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 06:02
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
PMO's Inconsistency

It is correct to say that a person who passes any one of the tests mentioned in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. One of those tests is a test that simulates an operation situation.
It's a shame this PMO can't understand how simple the matter actually is and just comply with the law like some of his predecessors once did. It seems that passing an "operational" flight test once satisfied AvMed that a person met the requirements of 67.150 (6)(c).

Bill Smith's experience is a case in point.

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges. Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.
So in 2014, Pooshan tries the same trick again on this pilot revoking his ATPL privileges. See here.

A few months later, Pooshan once again reverses his decision and reinstates his ATPL after being challenged and publicly exposed.

...a certificate is being reissued without the ATPL limitation.

As you know, your class 1 medical is being issued despite your failure to meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception
I'd say the problem is not that this pilot, nor any of the other CVD pilots fail to meet the applicable medical standard, but rather that the PMO doesn't understand what the definition of an "operational situation" is.

For the PMO to re-issue Bill's ATPL privileges (for the second time) must mean that he is obviously satisfied that he doesn't pose any safety risk. After 17 years experience, 12000 hrs and not just one test (as required by (6)(c)), but numerous flight and simulator test passes "simulating operational situations", it is fairly obvious to most ordinary people that he meets the standard required.

Why then is the PMO being inconsistent and failing to apply this same logic to the other CVD pilots who have not been given this same opportunity?

My guess is because he and the promoters of more stringent CVD standards are afraid of what the results will be. It might just prove that their prejudices are unfounded and that CVD pilots can perform just as safely as colour "normals" when it comes to operating in the real world. I wonder where that would leave those (particularly some in the optometry profession) who've staked their entire careers on promoting the myth that CVD's can't fly safely?
brissypilot is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 09:40
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
What is a waiver? The word doesn’t appear in the Regs.
You're right Arthur, but it is a commonly used term to describe when someone is issued a certificate with restrictions when they don't meet the standards. Perhaps you could ask Clearedtoreenter who said, not that long ago,
When my waiver was issued years ago,
.
ausdoc is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 09:42
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research.
Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could.
ausdoc is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 19:59
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Bravo AA and Gisick.

Michael Gisik is to be thanked and congratulated, twice. Once for taking the time to 'investigate' and 'journalate'. It's one of the very few aviation related articles which provides a balanced offering allowing the reader to form an opinion or, interest piqued, dig a little deeper....

The second for a nicely crafted article which shames the MSM spin doctors mouthpieces, rehash jokers and press release trolls. Gisik stands alongside Phelan and Sandilands on my 'always read' list.....

The magazine deserves a thank you for not only having the courage and commitment to publish but for the editorial commitment to 'reporting' rather than promoting. Kudos for an independent report rather than just publishing the spoon fed slop dished out. ...

It's a rare treat to have something good to say about Australian aviation media. Well done all and thank you.

Last edited by Kharon; 29th Aug 2014 at 21:02.
Kharon is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 23:24
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
QUOTE Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA QUOTE.


I've been trying to ring "my mates" in CAsA for months now, but nobody's answering the phone.


(we're from CAsA and we're here to help).
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 00:33
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could.
But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.

Surely if there is "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be", the research would be published and a person with your expertise would be aware of it and be able to cite and quote from it.

Given the profound consequences for the careers of pilots and aspiring pilots, and the disruption caused by the correspondence with AOC holders, CASA would not merely invent or exaggerate the implications of some "recent medical research". That would not only be intellectually dishonest: it would be unlawful.

It is passing strange that CASA has yet to quote one syllable from the recent medical research to which CASA refers, to support the assertions made by CASA about the implications of that research.

Last edited by Creampuff; 30th Aug 2014 at 06:12.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 08:46
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.
Not me. That's a pretty big (and incorrect) assumption to make. There are a number of colour vision experts in this country, and I'm not one of them.
ausdoc is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 09:05
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area.
... Where possible, colour should not be used as a stand-alone indicator (like in the PAPI) because all sorts of things can disrupt the signal, even for colour "normals". I agree wholeheartedly with Arthur on this one, that the T-VASIS was a much better system, as it was not reliant on normal perception of colour, and was less likely to be corrupted by atmospheric conditions/dirty lenses etc. That doesn't mean that colour coding should be removed altogether, as it provides very useful additional information.

The aviation colour environment is far more complex than a tower signal lamp or a PAPI.
And still not a syllable quoted from the "recent medical research".
Creampuff is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 10:13
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area.
Indeed.....although there is quite a difference between having a degree of background knowledge and an opinion, and having expertise.

There are quite a lot of posters on PPRuNe who post like they think they have expertise.

You may recall that I simply suggested a possible explanation to Arthur's question over pilot numbers, and you again try to make it personal. If you think the explanation was wrong, how about explaining why you think that. The repetitive "what is the recent medical research" thing is just getting a bit boring.
ausdoc is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 10:57
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The "recent medical research thing" that is "getting a bit boring" for you is the basis on which the regulator has purported to cast doubt on the safety of pilots who fly to feed their families. The fact that the focus of your concern is the affront to you, personally, of being asked perfectly reasonable questions, while appearing oblivious to the fact that this matter is intensely personal for the people whose careers the zealots on a medical crusade treat as playthings, says much about what is going on in your head.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 11:28
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
And again the twisting of words, selective quoting, and personal attacks. Nothing substantive to offer then.

What I said was that your persistently asking the same question, when I have over and over again told you I don't have any more information than you, is getting a bit boring. Perhaps you think that if you ask enough times you'll get a different answer.

A large part of my professional life is devoted to keeping pilots flying with all sorts of medical conditions. It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you could turn your keen legal mind (probably better than your amateur psychiatry) to getting the regulations changed, as you are obviously very passionate about it. You appear to have expertise in aviation law. That would be of far greater use to the CVD pilots than calling names and playing word games on here.
ausdoc is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 19:30
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.
That appears to be the key issue. Based on evidence casa accepted that CVD pilots were not unsafe and therefore an acceptable risk. Yet, it appears that based on the same evidence they or individuals within the organization have now changed their mind. As Creampuff and others keep asking show us this new evidence that supports casa change of position. Still waiting! It is the fundamental point. Support your case with empirical evidence. If they can't it smacks of bullying, harassment and victimization of CVD pilots.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 30th Aug 2014 at 19:32. Reason: Stuff
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 20:44
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A Sunday growl.

CP # 486 –"Given the profound consequences for the careers of pilots and aspiring pilots, and the disruption caused by the correspondence with AOC holders, CASA would not merely invent or exaggerate the implications of some "recent medical research". That would not only be intellectually dishonest: it would be unlawful."
Half Baked " If they can't it smacks of bullying, harassment and victimization of CVD pilots.
One of the more subtle, even subliminal side effects of this 'smear' campaign the Pooh-Shambollic system is trying to run are the 'residuals'. Two candidates for a position – one CVD; subconscious memory "Oh, wasn't there some issues with CVD pilots raised by CASA a while back, best not stir that pot". FLICK. The culture of fear is deeply ingrained; an office wallah would have no concept of the arguments or issues; simply two facts CVD plus CASA = Trouble.

It's bad enough that there is an overt grab for glory; but once that is caned, the residual notions will unfairly discriminate against a CVD pilot. The construct supporting a 'clean' medical certificate, issued on the spot by the DAME has real merit.

While I'm 'at it'; the entire 'application' form is in need of an overhaul; the signed confession is discriminatory and readily lends it's self to a deteriorating safety standard. An honest, responsible man (or mannette) may confidentially own up to recurrent in-grown toe nails and seek the advice of the medico; but is this any business of the 'administrator'?. No; so why the invasive 'questions' – what a doctor treats a patient for is strictly 'private'. All the administrator needs to know – is the candidate fit to fly (Yes or No) pick one. If Yes, pay the fee, place certificate in wallet and bugger off; if No, take the tablets and go into the desert; come back when you feel better.

To have that 'private' information available to the Hoi Polloi clerical staff and to have someone, not your doctor pawing through your record and deciding whether or not any condition precludes safe operations is risible, an invasion of privacy and a poke in the eye to your own, qualified, accredited DAME who is not trusted it seems to issue your license. The tension generated by the two month wait, after the examination to see if you have been issued a certificate is a constant niggle; (Q) "Can you fly next Monday?" – (A) "Dunno, medical extension expires Sunday, I'll let you know when (if) it arrives in time". The next hour is spent on the telephone pleading for your paperwork to be delivered. This is a bollocks - it's a money making racket, built into an incompetent, bureaucratic, Shambollic empire, by a self serving, self aggrandising megalomaniac.

There, better now.....
Kharon is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 21:27
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them.
And there, writ large, is the fundamental error made by the zealots on a medical crusade.

The risk that is acceptable is already built into the regulations and does not require anything to be acceptable or unnaceptable to anyone in CASA. If they actually read the regulations and complied with them, the zealots on a medical crusade would realise that there is actually no role to play for any medical expert in the process of demonstrating compliance with the colour perception standard.

Let's remind ourselves of what the actual rule about demonstrating compliance with the colour perception standard actually says:
(6) A person must demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion in item 1.39 of table 67.150 by:

(a) in daylight, or artificial light of similar luminosity, readily identifying a series of pseudo‑isochromatic plates of the Ishihara 24‑plate type, making no more than 2 errors; or

(b) for somebody who makes more than 2 errors in a test mentioned in paragraph (a), readily identifying aviation coloured lights displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour‑perception lantern, making:

(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or

(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of lights; or

(c) for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.
A person who passes the Ishihara test in (a) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test can be administered by a trained monkey.

A person who passes the Falent test in (b) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test can be administered by a trained monkey.

A person who passes the simulated operational situation test in (c) has demonstrated compliance with the standard. It doesn't matter whether that outcome is acceptable to CASA or not. That test cannot be administered by a trained monkey. It must be administered by a person with operational expertise.

The test for the purposes of (c) can't be determined by a medical expert. It must be determind by an operational expert. The point of the test is not to find out whether the candidate has a defect in colour perception: We already know that s/he does. The point of the test is to find out whether the candidate is able to perform simulated safety-critical operational tasks that depend on the identification of the meaning of lights that are coloured, as effectively and efficiently as candidates who don't have colour vision deficiency. Medical experts wouldn't have a clue about that. It's been proved: The CAD test doesn't simulate sh*t.

But because zealots on a medical crusade are superior and need to save the world, mere trivialities like the law are but a minor irritation. It's all about them and what's "acceptable" to them. (That's why they need to pry into and know everything about your personal life, Kharon.)

Last edited by Creampuff; 30th Aug 2014 at 22:10.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 02:24
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 67
Posts: 1,129
creampuff has highlighted the essence of the insanity that CAsA has become.

you cannot predict the future.

you can have a good guess at it but the inherent randomness of life is always a confounding factor.

What the semantic weakness in the act has done is cause the "we know safety" nutters in CAsA to try to force the future.

"safety" and "luck" are exactly analogous. neither is an actual entity in itself. they are descriptions applied to the successful outcome of some activity.

if the act was changed so that the Western Australian Lotteries commission was charged with assuring that every person who bought a lotto ticket won the lotto you would immediately see the stupidity.
Mix a bit of the fear of death in and CAsA is charged with an impossible undertaking. Nobody seems to see the idiocy built into the Act. You cannot predict the future.

The people with colour vision differences are not deficient.
Look at them. 25 years of safe aviation and they are all healthy individuals.

CAsA on the other hand are demonstrably insane.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2014, 20:24
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
I'm a stranger in Paradox. La dah de de dum.

WF.."Now if only more people would think like you in Europe, the cad test would be just confined to a museum..."
This is perhaps one of the worst, among the many travesties the current PMO has committed against the aviation community. When the Denison 'test' case findings were handed down the Avmed crew at the time were determined to expand the research and promote the findings. After 25 years the world could have adopted the Australian standard, at least for civil pilots, the relaxed ruling supported by facts and research.

Creamy – lets suppose a meeting with the minuscule could be arranged to discuss the subject; (i) What do we 'want' from the meeting? < and (ii) what could we realistically expect the minuscule do? (if indeed he could be persuaded to 'do' anything).

The notion you suggest of simply abiding by the rules seems to be a 'sound' solution and goes to the heart of real 'reform' in both spirit and intent. Is that enough? what's to stop the old Pooh-Shambollic regime from finding a back door and setting off on the same regressive journey again. A simple solution would be to fire the buggers as part of the reform package and start again, gods know Avmed needs an overhaul. The department taken back to 'tors' and performing original design function would save a shed load, keeping Avmed out of the AAT would save another; especially if DAME were trusted to sign off the certificate.

It's a strange little excursion this CVD thing, I still can't quite define the "Why" of it. But then again; I'm easily puzzled.

Exeunt: stage right, scratching head and mumbling.
Kharon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.