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 12th Dec 2013, 22:13
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Thumbs up Yes kudos to VIPA...MMSM article

VIPA initiative is gaining momentum...

Today's the Australian article:
CASA denies rule changes on colour vision
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority has denied that it is trying to wind back the colour vision policy for pilots or conduct a de facto appeal of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on the issue.

Virgin pilots are lobbying the federal government in an attempt to head off what they believe will be new restrictions on colour vision-defective pilots they say could destroy hundreds of careers.

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association is worried that an AAT appeal involving CASA has implications for the 1987 Pape and 1989 Denison decisions that opened to the door to pilots with colour-impaired vision.

They have approached senators Nick Xenophon and David Fawcett (dynamic duo strikes again or is it Hans Solo & Luke Skywalker.. ) about an appeal lodged in the AAT by a pilot against a decision by CASA to refuse to reclassify him as a captain because of his performance in a signal gun tower test.

VIPA says the test is outdated and it knows of no accident or incident where an impaired colour vision was a causal factor. It says the performance of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots is no different to that of their peers with normal colour vision.

VIPA executive director Simon O'Hara said CASA was using the case as a de facto appeal against the earlier AAT decisions, which allowed hundreds of CVD pilots to fly with no restrictions across the industry. "VIPA believes there is little doubt that the current action planned by CASA and its defector appeal will, if CASA succeeds, impact on hundreds of competent and safe pilots across the industry, including those presently employed in all of Australia's major airlines," he said.

Mr O'Hara said 8-10 per cent of the pilot population was affected by colour vision impairment, and this could have implications for future pilot shortages. "This means you have a lot of first officers who will not be able to become captains because of the restrictions placed on their medical," he said.

But in an answer to a Senate committee question, CASA said the Denison and Pape decisions were not binding in the face of current aviation medical standards requiring a person to be able to readily distinguish colours relevant to safely performing their duties, but it was unaware of any proposed amendments in relation to the regulations.

CASA said the regulations required applicants to take an Isihara pseudoisochromatic 24-plate colour vision test and, if they failed, a Farnsworth Lantern Test. Those who fail the second test may be required to identify coloured lights in a test simulating an operational situation.

Although the third level of testing included the signal gun tower light test, CASA conceded its value had been called into doubt. It said it was looking at a British test as an alternative.
Hmm..no mention about the FF defo action but I'm sure the DD will be all over that...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 10:17
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 10
Despite CASA's denial that they're not seeking to wind back the clock, I concur with Arthur Pape's original post that documents lodged with the AAT tell a very different story.

Although the third level of testing included the signal gun tower light test, CASA conceded its value had been called into doubt. It said it was looking at a British test as an alternative.
For an example of the British test (the CAD) which they are looking to introduce refer to my post #18 on Page 1 of this thread. It's not representative of anything that 'simulates an operational situation' as required by the regs. It's just a glorified game of Tetris.

If they want to test an operational situation, why not come for a few jump seat rides or better yet observe some simulator sessions? I guess the problem with that is that they would actually realise that CVD's perform identically to pilots with normal colour vision in all situations.

No wonder they're not interested in a common sense approach like that - perhaps they're a little worried that the entire CVD standard might just be proven irrelevant?
johnobr is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 21:11
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
And maybe they might feel they have lost face and their r'aison d'être if they let what they think are 'somewhat blind' people fly planes.

If only they could see the science and logic in the argument that they appear blind to themselves. I'm sure they are being affected by pressure from their overseas counterparts. They should show some backbone and trust the evidence.

Oow
outofwhack is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 00:20
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Update: FAA Sleep Apnea policy

We seem to have concurrent conflicting aero-med issues in the US and here that involve both countries regulators and their apparent disregard for contrary medical, empirical and accident/incident historical data & evidence.

Therefore I thought an update on the FAA's proposed (soon to be enforced) Sleep Apnea Policy and various industry stakeholders response will be of interest to some on here...:
FAA Will Fast Track Sleep Apnea Policy

Says Only Congressional Action Will Stop The Implementation

During a Dec. 12 webinar presentation to discuss the agency's controversial new OSA-screening proposal with industry stakeholders, Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton appeared determined to push ahead with the requirements. Tilton’s insistence on moving ahead with the plan was clear, despite the concern expressed by industry stakeholders about the need for more transparency, including the provision of a means for industry input, regarding the new mandate. “If Congress passes a law [forcing industry consultation], we’ll be compliant with it,” Tilton said during the webinar. “Until they do so, we will move forward with this.”
<A href="http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35AA9DF1-5DB9-4046-B5E1-D90B146436B2#" abp="107"></A abp="110">
AOPA reports that Tilton said requiring testing for sleep apnea is a "process change" and does not require the normal rulemaking procedures, so it would not be followed. He said AMEs would be given guidance by the FAA, and the policy would go into effect in January.

“This is unacceptable,” said Doug Carr, NBAA vice president for safety, security & regulation, who participated in the webinar. “The FAA is preparing to roll out a major new requirement on pilots without providing a data-driven justification for the policy, explaining its costs and benefits, or giving any means for the pilots who would be affected to give the agency feedback on it. For many of the pilots at NBAA Companies, flying an airplane is how they make a living, so we take very seriously the FAA’s seeming lack of concern, and lack of transparency, on this matter.”

The FAA’s OSA-screening mandate, first announced by Tilton last month, would require pilots with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or greater to undergo screening for the condition.

Shortly after Tilton’s announcement, it was revealed that the agency would require pilots to bear the significant costs of getting tested for OSA (as much as $5,000, according to some sources), and obtaining the requisite equipment to treat the condition, if necessary. The FAA has suggested that this policy would eventually apply to additional pilots, regardless of the class of medical certificate or the operation in which the pilot flies.

Following the webinar, Carr noted that, while the FAA may dispute the need for industry consultation on its new policy, some members of Congress clearly do not agree with the agency’s assertion, and have responded with legislative action.

A bipartisan bill (H.R.3578) introduced last month by House aviation subcommittee chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-2-NJ) would compel the FAA to follow established rulemaking processes, including a means for industry stakeholders to provide input, before moving forward with its OSA-screening requirements. At the time today’s webinar was held, the measure was awaiting consideration by the full House of Representatives.

“We will continue our efforts to aggressively support H.R.3578, because it will ensure the agency’s plans are vetted through the rulemaking process, which includes public comment and a cost-benefit analysis," Carr said.

NBAA has repeatedly questioned the FAA’s implementation plan for its new OSA requirement.

NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen expressed his continuing concern about the requirement in written testimony he submitted for a hearing on aviation policy and planning held by the aviation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday.

AOPA reported that Tilton admitted during the webinar that there have been no fatal FAA accidents that could be attributed to sleep apnea, but it is none the less "a serious problem in other modes of transportation and the agency believes many pilots may be flying with undiagnosed sleep disorders."
Hmm..that Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton character sure sounds familiar..??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 01:29
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Hmm..that Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton character sure sounds familiar..??
Sure does sound familiar... any relation to our own PMO?

For an interesting read, check out this AAT case from a few years ago:

Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010)

496. Having considered the conflicting evidence, we find that the risk of post-traumatic epilepsy for Mr Hazleton is well within the acceptable medical criteria for the aviation industry. We have taken account of all of the evidence and appropriately given weight to the factors affecting the disputed facts. In determining what are acceptable limits or tolerances in this case, we reject the oral evidence of Dr Wallis and Dr Drane and the written evidence of Dr Navāthé.

500. We find from the clinical and epidemiological evidence, Mr Hazelton’s virtually uneventful history since the accident (particularly in relation to the absence of post-traumatic epilepsy in that period), there appears to be a preponderance of weight pointing to an “inherent unlikelihood” of post-traumatic epilepsy for the applicant[638]. In so concluding we note in a complementary way, that the respondent’s case was not uniformly robust. In particular, we placed weight adversely for the respondent on the fact that three of the doctors, the Principal Medical Officer, Dr Navāthé and the medical officer Dr Drane, and Dr Wallis from his New Zealand consultancy, who had worked together previously had inconsistent opinions with other doctors from within CASA and with external expert opinion, and we were not satisfied that all of the views of those doctors were objective assessments. We considered Dr Drane’s evidence, who had the benefit of the opinion of Dr Hastings, the United States specialist, but we found Dr Drane seemed unduly influenced by Dr Navāthé’s opinion.

501. We noted in particular, in July 2009 (8 months after Mr Hazleton’s assault incident), email evidence of the strong views taken by Dr Sham Tak Sum and the more moderate views of Dr Fitzgerald, both of whom are employed by CASA. Clearly, Dr Sham Tak Sum and Dr Fitzgerald would have been sympathetic to re-licensing Mr Hazelton, but those views seemed to have been minimised by the other medical officers at CASA and that evidence is at odds with Dr Navāthé’s written statement.
brissypilot is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 05:31
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
Back in the 1990s, Dr. Pape represented IAOPA at an ICAO medical standards conference in Warsaw, a conference where colour vision was "the" major subject.

At the time, the proponents of ever more restrictive standards were shouting the odds about the use of standard colours in glass cockpits, and how this settled the argument, once and for all time, of the nee for "standard" colour vision of pilots.

This was anticipated, we ensured Dr. Pape was equipped with a useful set of pictures of the glass cockpits of a B767, where the screens had lost the colour ( I forget the actual, defect) and became grayscale screens.

Dr. Pape was able to point out that the MEL operational limitations for the defect were precisely zero, the aeroplane was certified to operate without limitation in the absence of colour.

Quite simply, the point is that the need for standard colour vision has always been assumed, it has never been proven.

Put another way, it has never been proven that a CVD pilot in any way is a threat, and therefor increases the risk of the operation.


Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 10:59
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,286
Well said, Leadie.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2013, 22:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: In a land down under
Posts: 16
Hi all,
In 2010 I underwent a colour vision test to determine my aptitude to become a pilot. I passed the practical test (Farnsworth Dichtomat) however at my recent class one test I was told that CASA does not accept the practical test anymore. Has anyone else had this problem and if so how did they get through it? I really need some help, I've always wanted to become a pilot and this will stop me in my tracks.
WhiskeyKilo is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 00:35
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 45
Dear Whiskey Kilo, please write to me personally with your exact tests that you have done and I will try to sort it out for you. Arthur Pape
Arthur Pape is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 01:26
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 67
Posts: 1,129
Dr Arthur Pape if we were japanese you'd be one of our living treasures.

I dont know if Australia has ever considered the merits of the accolade, so we dont have an equivalent here in oz.

The standout best pilots on our airfield are all colour blind in at least red green.
...well except for me that is.

Two of the best electrical engineers I worked with were colour blind as well.

These people all stand out in my mind for their talent and intellect.

I do hope you are successful in beating the regulators into exercising some sense.
We simply dont need this stupid prejudice in a day and age when we can synthesis so many suitable durable alternate colours.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 04:13
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Clive Palmer is on the current list of Australia's Living Treasures.

Interpret that and do with that what you will...
Creampuff is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 05:46
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Direct from the CASA website:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Medical Certification frequently asked questions

If I fail the Farnsworth Lantern Test does that mean I can't get my medical?

Aviation Medicine Colour Vision policy is currently under review.
That kind of goes against their statement in The Australian last week that they're denying any rule changes on colour vision.

And then:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - 6.8 Other Special Examinations



Note: Colour vision testing for these applicants is to follow the sequence:
  1. PIP
  2. FALANT
  3. practical lantern testing
A pass on any of these tests will satisfy the requirements for issue of an unrestricted Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.
This also confirms that Avmed have now stopped the use of the control tower signal gun test which was previously an additional test available for option three (3) above. The practical lantern test that remains is simply a modified version of the Farnsworth test.

When will these people get that pilots don't fly aircraft around in laboratories having to name colours of tiny pin pricks of light?
brissypilot is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 06:02
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Thumbs up Dear Dr Pape

For your info Doc the QONs from Senate Estimates have just been released and there is three outstanding QONs (one written) posed by Senator Fawcett that will be of interest to you. These QONs are due answers by the 10 January 2014.

Cheers

Sarcs

132 CASA 02

FAWCETT: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency

Senator FAWCETT: I will come back to that at another time. Thank you for that clarification today. On another issue of safety, does CASA have any record of incidents or accidents in Australia arising from pilots who have a colour vision deficiency?

Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice.


133 CASA 03

FAWCETT: AAT Challenge

Senator FAWCETT: I recognise that, and if you look at Australian aviation history, with things like DME and T-VASI we have led the world on a number of occasions and the rest of the world now thanks us for that. My concern is that there is considerable talk and concern within the industry that CASA is not only seeking to prevent this person from exercising the privileges of an ATPL but is in fact seeking to wind back the decision to pre-1989—pre the Denison case—to realign itself with the FAA and other people. I am just trying to understand whether there is in fact that intent, but, also, if the evidence base is very clear both in the Denison case and in the thousands of hours of flying since, that pilots can operate safely, then what is the safety case for not actually allowing someone to exercise the privileges of an ATPL?

Mr McCormick: As to the exact nature of the AAT proceedings, I would prefer not to talk about it. We will take on notice your question about whether we are attempting to withdraw anything. The issue around medical standards is that quite a lot of these medical standards are not set by CASA. In fact we do not set any medical standards. We use whatever the expertise in that particular area says is the requirement, unless we have good reasons to do otherwise. The fact that we have had many years without accidents or incidents—and I will assume for moment we have not, but I will take that on notice—I think we are in a situation where, to go even further, we would need more than a safety case. We would most probably need medical science to tell us that that is probably not too far. As I said, we are already out in front of the world on this. So, we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.

140 CASA 10 (written)

FAWCETT: Safety - Colour Vision Deficiency

1. What resources has CASA provided in the AAT investigation of colour vision deficiency in the current AAT investigation? Please provide details in terms of:

Current AAT case (to date)
CASA dollar inputs
Number of CASA personnel involved
Total CASA man hours
Third party man hours
Third party costs

2. What is CASA's total allocated budget for the current AAT hearing- forecast or approved as per table above?

3. How do all the above figures compare in broad terms to the AAT Denison case of 1989?
Link: QONs index

ps Oh and I forgot to mention that the bureau are conducting a search for incidents/accidents where CVD was a factor..
141 ATSB 01

FAWCETT: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency

Senator FAWCETT: I assume you have been watching on the monitor the proceedings with CASA. Are there any accidents or incidents or concerns in Australia that have been brought to ATSB's attention as a result of a pilot having a colour vision deficiency?

Mr Dolan: I am not aware of any investigations we have undertaken where a contributing factor to an accident was colour vision deficiency. My colleagues might have a different view.

Mr Walsh: No, we would have to take it on notice to do a search of the database to see if we have any cases on record.

Mr Dolan: We will search the database to confirm, but we are reasonably certain that we do not have one of those.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2013, 01:05
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: In a land down under
Posts: 16
Dr Pape, I have sent you an email.

You truly are a god amongst men
WhiskeyKilo is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2013, 00:40
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 31
Posts: 36
CAA CAD Test

Hi All,

I'm new to PPRuNe and so far I like what I'm seeing on pilots with colour deficiency.

I'm currently 4 hours and one ground school exam away from my PPL. I went to Gatwick last week to go through a class 1 medical examination because one day, I'd like to go commercial hopefully. I new I was colour blind to red/green and I'd read up on this CAD test. I thought at first the CAD test would give me the chance to pass the full medical. Unfortunately I couldn't have been more wrong. I thought the CAD test was a complete farce!! Not only did it make me feel extremely nauseous with the flickering around the screen but it was totally irrelevant to the safety of flying an aircraft at night! Where the hell did the CAD test come from?? What a complete waste of time and money! What gives them the say on whether or not I am safe to fly in the dark?!? Maybe I'm missing the point?

I've read up on that extra testing they do at the City University in London and was wandering if it's any more relevant than the CAD test. If so, does anyone out there know how to get in contact with the Uni to arrange an appointment.

I've been flying on an NPPL medical declaration since I started my PPL training. But now nearing the end, I'd like to hold a full class 1 medical so that I can go on and do my IMC and Night Rating.

Any help on the matter would greatly be appreciated. Thanks folks.
RONTOM-EGPD is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2014, 10:08
  #56 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
Close friend had a brill career in the RANR.

Retired with a brass hat.

As a younger Lt, passed the Navy unrestricted navigators "license" which Authorised him to navigate an RN ship worldwide and enter berth and leave any port without pilot or tug assistance That is a very high level of skill.

Decided with my encouragement to get a Private Pilot license. Failed medical due to color blindness.

So he can operate an Australian Naval ship anywhere in the world but was proscribed from flying.

Didn't persist and gave up the idea as too hard.
gaunty is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2014, 14:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
sailing solo at high speed

Hey Gaunty,

Sympathetic as I are (the more pilots the better!), I imagine your friend did not have a lot of hours driving his warship solo at speeds in excess of 70 odd knots. Waddyer reckon the chances were that the whole bridge crew were also colour blind?
scrubba is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 10:32
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
This isnt directed at anyone but a person with little or no marine experience should not assume that reliable colour vision is not a safety concern in marine navigation - there are a few professions where reliable colour recognition is very important e.g. paint matcher, vehicle sprayer

In the marine environment good colour vision might well be very important - there may be no other available cues or redundancy in the coding. Its a whole different area. I have no idea about the marine environment.

Sure - aviation adopted the port, starboard and rear nav lights from the marine environment but the colour part does not serve any useful purpose on an aircraft.

OOW
outofwhack is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 05:01
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Longest running Aviation Safety soap opera??

It was suggested to me that Dr Pape and the CVDA maybe interested in where the TASRR thread is currently at: Is Avmed the ultimate 3rd world bureaucratic onion??
{ Comment: In reference to the Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia article, I can now see why Fort Fumble may indeed be still holding a grudge, certainly paints the picture of what you're up against..}

Kharon:
Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous.
Ah yes the Avmed imbroglio....and the 3rd world bureaucratic approach of the subcontinent PMO, who is seemingly taking back the advancements of modern medicine to at least the 19th century.

For the WLB to get a feel for this bizarre monstrosity of bureaucratic obfuscation and embuggerance, one only need visit the FF AAT records in recent years: CAsA AAT decisions

If they're game the WLB should also take a sampling of the more than 2000 page DAME Handbook ....{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}

And while stepping through the Avmed minefield the WLB should enquire about this little outstanding project on Part 67:
Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical -
Consultation history
Title Details Date Consultation updates in 2011 Project FS 11/39 - Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical Project approved. 22 Sep 2011
While on the subject of FF stalled projects the WLB need to take a serious look at this list... Active projects
{Comment: It would appear that one of the main reasons for a lot of the stalled projects is because they are awaiting for a new reg to be written, approved or enacted}

Either way you cut it the WLB have definitely got a serious bureaucratic onion to peel back..

Hmm...given the size of the onion (and the time constraints) perhaps the WLB should seriously consider taking up the generous offer of assistance from the Chair of the Senate RRAT committee...

Addendum to Kharon's post :
I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making?
It is kind of ancient history now and filed well back in the Shelfware Chronicles but is this what you were referring to "K"
From the ATsB Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011:

19 November 1996
Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996
You are right though it did cause a massive stink at the time, perhaps best summarised in the following article: Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia
{Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape features heavily in that article}

......"It was a well-orchestrated public resignation, with Dick Smith faxing the media a copy of Dr Liddell's letter to the director of air safety, Mr Leroy Keith. Dr Liddell's claims of low morale, the disempowerment of line management, the undermining of air safety surveillance and cuts in the budget to fund unbudgeted office refurbishments, are sufficient to make it a front-page story...."

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 23:00
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 10
More ancient history...

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...
Definitely not much has changed! Some more ancient history below from just after the Denison AAT victory in 1989 in correspondence from the late Laurence Gruzman QC. AOPA played an instrumental role in the campaign all those years ago as highlighted in Arthur Pape's articles he wrote for their magazine at the time.

Dear Mr Wilkinson,

Following our discussion yesterday I am prepared to express, for publication in AOPA magazine and to pilots generally, my views as to the methods which should be adopted by pilots who wish to take advantage of the recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case of Denison v Civil Aviation Authority.

Denison was an extension to Commercial Pilots of Dr Arthur Pape's case, Pape v CAA, which was applicable to private pilots and I am familiar with that case and its aftermath. That case broke new ground and after that decision there was no logical basis upon which the CAA could prevent private pilots from flying at night because they were duetans, or at worst, deutans with similar disabilities to those of Dr. Pape. That disability is commonly but wrongly referred to as "colour blindness", a term which has many intricate meanings. It is sufficient to state that Dr Pape's disability is the most common form of "colour blindness" and therefore the decision in his case was applicable to most so-called "colour-blind" pilots”.

The decision in Pape dispelled forever the notion that normal colour perception by a pilot is essential for safe flight at night. A Civil Aviation Authority whose sole reason for preventing flight at night by deutans was a perception of lack of safety would have immediately removed the restriction for pilots whose disability was embraced within the reasoning in Pape's case. In fact, the CAA did not regard itself as subject to the law as laid down by the AAT and has continued for over a year to apply the outmoded criteria by which it has restricted night flight.

In view of the decision in Denison it is wrong and illegal for CAA to discriminate against pilots who suffer from the colour perception defect identified in that case and pilots suffering from such a colour defect are entitled forthwith to exercise the privileges of their private and commercial licences at night. In so doing they will be fortified by the results of a massive investigation (at public expense on both sides) and the consideration of the evidence by a highly experienced aviation tribunal in what was regarded by both parties as a test case of general application. The judgment of the tribunal was arrived at after a most exhaustive review of evidence which included masses of expert evidence and expensive experiments carried out by CAA and are contained in 60 pages of learned and practical evaluation of all the evidence and the conclusions derived therefrom. The Tribunal in Denison upheld PAPE and extended it to Commercial Pilots.

The question is what can pilots do to enjoy the results of the decision if, as in the past, the Authority ignores the findings of the AAT and puts individual pilots to the great expense and inconvenience of appealing in each case to the AAT to remove the restriction. Seven cases are still pending before the AAT by pilots seeking to obtain the benefit of PAPE's case to which, in most cases, they were automatically entitled. This is a frivolous and vexatious abuse of power by the CAA.

In my view, in these circumstances, an illegal restriction of this kind may, after due notice and consideration of any matter put forward by the CAA in an individual case, be disregarded. The Authority (Assistant Manager, Flight Standards in the Region) should be informed in writing by each pilot that unless the illegal restriction is removed within say 7 days, the pilot will exercise the privileges of his licence without regard to the restriction.

This procedure will enable the Authority to reply to the pilot putting any reasons why it alleges that the decision does not apply to the particular pilot and to threaten any action they may contemplate. However, the Authority will doubtless bear in mind that any action taken against the pilot's licence is appealable to the AAT, which, upon the basis of the decision in Denison, will find that the night operation was quite safe and that any breach was purely technical and caused by the Authority's failure to implement the findings of the AAT. Similar reasoning would doubtless be applied by a Court if the Authority charges a pilot with a breach of the regulations by flying contrary to the restriction. This advice presupposes that a pilot is otherwise qualified to fly at night and complies with recency requirements. Obtaining the necessary qualification will in some cases impose problems.

In summary, the CAA is, bound by the law in the same way as any individual member of the community. If it places itself above the law it can expect little assistance from the Courts if it seeks sanctions from individuals who disregard CAA’s illegal restrictions on their activities. The Courts do have the power of making their views felt as by ordering the CAA to pay certain costs.

I congratulate Dr Pape on the successful conclusions of the long, lonely and expensive battle which he has almost single-handedly waged against CAA on behalf of colour defective pilots. The Judgement In Denison is an historic document and a great tribute to his skill, knowledge, perseverance and courage, aided, I should say, by his wife.

Yours sincerely,

Laurence Gruzman, QC .
May, 1989 - A.O.P.A.
johnobr 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.