The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all there M'lud; in black and white.
Honour, rectitude, integrity. Often hear those words bandied about. Probity, fairness, decency are some others which get flicked about, with little thought given to what they really mean. No, I've not lost 'it'; just had time to look at, study and think about things, like the CVD pilot issue; all triggered by the Avmed situation and creating some sort of quasi 'medically flavoured' submission to the WLR.
But how to get the right message into the Kenwood safe and have it understood is a puzzle. How do you correct legislation which is essentially correct, for starters. It appears that Australia is unique in our 'enlightened' approach to colour vision and the evidence is there to support that safety has not ever been compromised. There has been no foul or penalty caused by our scientifically proven system. Yet although we are, arguably, one of the least ICAO compliant countries, (if you count the registered differences); but suddenly, for some outré reason, we need to regress. Why ? Oh, because we may be 'out of step' with ICAO, EASA and FAA. So what, tell them to catch up, be a leader not some whining puppy following the big dogs. Our CASA medico's need to be showing the way and defending the Australian track record.
It's bad enough that half a dozen or so competent blokes have had to fight for their medicals. Avmed do have a fair few scalps on the trophy wall, but they are insatiable. A visit to the AAT list will demonstrate the litigious nature of this branch of medicine. The DAS could, with a stoke of a pen, rectify this and support the industry which contributes to his pay cheque. We get all manner of instruments dished out, exemptions and the like. We need someone to honour the system, show some integrity instead of sitting back and authorising (or allowing) the spending of an untold amount of money attempting to have men, the calibre of Dr. Arthur Pape disqualified as an independent witness. Disgusting. Until fairness, decency and some common sense is flowing from the top floor, we are going to be stuck on this bloody awful merry-go-round.
What's wrong with a simple system, like the USA one ?. Go to the vet, nose wet ?, coat shiny ?, tail wags ?, no worms ?, all good: issue certificate and pay money; job done. Bureaucrats building empires, by decrying the very people they approve to do the job, (that's the qualified, skilled, hands on medical practitioners at the coal face) are creating a world were your fitness assessment will solely depend on a form and a pro-forma, managed by a clerk. The WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – bring in the Senate crew, open the whole thing up and clear out this unholy mess, so cunningly concealed from public view. "Specialists, don't need no stinkin' specialist opinions".
And, just for Saturday fun -
Barry Hempel came to town,
a riding on a dispo;
he tipped his aircraft upside down
and finished up as 'ipso'.
Barry Hempel saw the vet,
he said his head was cured
Don't mind the hole, it's in control
I'll never end up skewered.
Chorus –
Barry Hempel is our man, he conned the boys at avmed;
bluffed the law by the hangar door
and went off flying, evermore.
To the tune of -
But how to get the right message into the Kenwood safe and have it understood is a puzzle. How do you correct legislation which is essentially correct, for starters. It appears that Australia is unique in our 'enlightened' approach to colour vision and the evidence is there to support that safety has not ever been compromised. There has been no foul or penalty caused by our scientifically proven system. Yet although we are, arguably, one of the least ICAO compliant countries, (if you count the registered differences); but suddenly, for some outré reason, we need to regress. Why ? Oh, because we may be 'out of step' with ICAO, EASA and FAA. So what, tell them to catch up, be a leader not some whining puppy following the big dogs. Our CASA medico's need to be showing the way and defending the Australian track record.
It's bad enough that half a dozen or so competent blokes have had to fight for their medicals. Avmed do have a fair few scalps on the trophy wall, but they are insatiable. A visit to the AAT list will demonstrate the litigious nature of this branch of medicine. The DAS could, with a stoke of a pen, rectify this and support the industry which contributes to his pay cheque. We get all manner of instruments dished out, exemptions and the like. We need someone to honour the system, show some integrity instead of sitting back and authorising (or allowing) the spending of an untold amount of money attempting to have men, the calibre of Dr. Arthur Pape disqualified as an independent witness. Disgusting. Until fairness, decency and some common sense is flowing from the top floor, we are going to be stuck on this bloody awful merry-go-round.
What's wrong with a simple system, like the USA one ?. Go to the vet, nose wet ?, coat shiny ?, tail wags ?, no worms ?, all good: issue certificate and pay money; job done. Bureaucrats building empires, by decrying the very people they approve to do the job, (that's the qualified, skilled, hands on medical practitioners at the coal face) are creating a world were your fitness assessment will solely depend on a form and a pro-forma, managed by a clerk. The WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – bring in the Senate crew, open the whole thing up and clear out this unholy mess, so cunningly concealed from public view. "Specialists, don't need no stinkin' specialist opinions".
And, just for Saturday fun -
Barry Hempel came to town,
a riding on a dispo;
he tipped his aircraft upside down
and finished up as 'ipso'.
Barry Hempel saw the vet,
he said his head was cured
Don't mind the hole, it's in control
I'll never end up skewered.
Chorus –
Barry Hempel is our man, he conned the boys at avmed;
bluffed the law by the hangar door
and went off flying, evermore.
To the tune of -
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Jan 2014 at 04:25. Reason: To do or not a to do ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More AAT woes for Avmed
If there aren't enough examples already of Avmed's incompetent decision making, here's another recent example from the AAT files. There's definitely a common trend starting to develop...
Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013)
Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013)
23.CASA called Dr Pooshan Navathe, its principal medical officer and the primary decision-maker. Some of Dr Navathe’s evidence detailed, quite unnecessarily, the legal framework for regulatory aviation medicine, the processes of aviation medicine decision-making within CASA, risk management and suchlike. The relevance of that evidence was never explained to me. Dr Navathe’s statement discussed, and annexed, various articles from medical research before expressing the opinion that[15],
... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.
24.Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:
90.Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.
91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal
Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.
25.Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report[16]:
The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.
It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed.
31. But even if that evidence was to be regarded as being evidence of a condition or of an effect of a head injury I have a distinct preference for the evidence of Dr Cameron. He alone had the benefit of a clinical examination of Mr Bolton. He concluded that Mr Bolton’s risk of posttraumatic seizures was no greater than that of the general population. The studies relied upon by the other witnesses, he said, considered the full range of head injuries not merely the very mild head injury suffered by Mr Bolton. It was Dr Cameron's opinion that a skull fracture increased the risk of posttraumatic epilepsy only if there had been penetration of the dura or if there had been bleeding in the cavities of the brain. Neither occurred in the present case. That evidence satisfies me that, had I concluded that Mr Bolton did not meet the medical standards, his present medical condition is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.
32.I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.
... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.
24.Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:
90.Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.
91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal
Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.
25.Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report[16]:
The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.
It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed.
31. But even if that evidence was to be regarded as being evidence of a condition or of an effect of a head injury I have a distinct preference for the evidence of Dr Cameron. He alone had the benefit of a clinical examination of Mr Bolton. He concluded that Mr Bolton’s risk of posttraumatic seizures was no greater than that of the general population. The studies relied upon by the other witnesses, he said, considered the full range of head injuries not merely the very mild head injury suffered by Mr Bolton. It was Dr Cameron's opinion that a skull fracture increased the risk of posttraumatic epilepsy only if there had been penetration of the dura or if there had been bleeding in the cavities of the brain. Neither occurred in the present case. That evidence satisfies me that, had I concluded that Mr Bolton did not meet the medical standards, his present medical condition is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.
32.I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.
Last edited by brissypilot; 15th Jan 2014 at 03:49.
It’s always mildly amusing when a Frankenstein injures its creators.
Having decided to micro-manage medical certification in response to a non-existent safety problem, by funnelling all decisions to one person, there’s no one left in the regulator who can provide a truly independent, expert opinion to justify the decision under review.
It will be interesting to see whether CASA can find independent experts to support future decisions of Dr Navanthe that are the subject of review by the AAT.
Having decided to micro-manage medical certification in response to a non-existent safety problem, by funnelling all decisions to one person, there’s no one left in the regulator who can provide a truly independent, expert opinion to justify the decision under review.
It will be interesting to see whether CASA can find independent experts to support future decisions of Dr Navanthe that are the subject of review by the AAT.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exit? – first star on the right and straight on till morning.
CP # 68 "It will be interesting to see whether CASA can find independent experts to support future decisions of Dr Navanthe that are the subject of review by the AAT".
I didn't have much luck trying find home grown 'official' guidance on the CVD issue, but for those non CVD, with an interest in the subject the following links are worth a few moments. The knowledge CVD blokes (and blokettes) have of their condition and how to deal with it is as impressive as some of the 'pro' flexibility medical experts. There are those who would go back to the dark ages where medieval thinking was guided by the church or the local moss woman (who probably got burned at the stake – twice, if she was any good at her work). Science and medicine have taken a few steps forward since then, how can it make sense to even contemplate a step backwards.
USA. - Canada. - NZ 1. - NZ 2.
Hell, even ICAO haven't touched the basic remedy for about 70 years.
“The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.” (ICAO Convention Annex 1 – Chapter 6.2.4.2).
Last edited by Kharon; 17th Jan 2014 at 18:55.
Shine on Bolton & AOPAA on Avmed!
Phew..
.for a sec there I thought the Empire may have forced the binning of this thread..
Ok all's good..thought some recent (and not so recent) commentary on various Avmed issues maybe of interest..
1st Shine Lawyers on Bolton AAT decision: AAT restores right to fly for pilot
2nd AOPAA TASRR (WLR) 'draft' submission (paragraph 9):
Hmm not bad....but not quite the heavy hitting, ballsy approach that we, once upon a time, came to expect from AOPAA.
'Blast from the past' examples from submissions to the...
...'Submissions responding to notice of inquiry on an exemption application under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ...'
..."The CASA says further, that the “making of the amendment regulations for Part 67 of CAR 1998 is imminent”. The proposed regulations are currently subject to industry consultation through the medium of Notice of Proposed Rule Making publications which have been distributed throughout the aviation industry. The statement contained in the application to the effect that the making of the proposed Part 67 is “imminent” appears to be based on the premise that the industry consultation is irrelevant, or that it is finalised, or that industry has not been invited to make submissions in respect of this Part. The submission also infers that the making of the regulation will be automatic upon its completion and that disallowance is not contemplated. There is no evidence contained in the CASA application which would permit a finding that any of the above matters have been addressed.
It is submitted that the CASA application contains insufficient evidence upon which any finding could be made that it comes within the requirement that it be exceptional: the CASA has not included any material which would clearly justify such an exemption..."
..."The risk factor can not be eliminated. It is submitted that the objects of the anti-discrimination legislation, and the safety objects with which the applicant is concerned can both be met by treating each case on its merits, rather than by having mandatory exclusions imposed, in respect of which the affected person has no means of challenge.
Similar considerations apply in respect of other medical conditions sought to be covered by the application, including that of colour-blindness, and in the latter case, these submissions adopt and endorse those made by Dr Arthur Pape..."
...."Historically, Australia and other contracting States have dealt with non-compliance with the Convention by the proper and allowable method of filing of a Notice of Difference, in each case, with ICAO. Filing of such a Notice brings the non-compliant State into conformity with the subject matter of the Notice. Such Notices have been filed by all contracting States, including Australia.
The CASA in this application have failed to mention this important aspect of manner of compliance, and failed to include in its application advice to the Commission of the many Notices of Difference which it (and its predecessors) have filed, and of the large number of non-compliances by Australia. No evidence has been produced from which a finding could be made that either non-compliance, or compliance by means of the filing of a Notice of Difference, has ever, or will, put Australia’s regulatory authority “at great risk”, or at any risk, of non-acceptance by either ICAO or other contracting States.
Further, the United States o America’s medical standards differ significantly in important aspects from those of ICAO, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has not been accepted by the remainder of the contracting international aviation community.
Overall, these matters relate only to Australia’s international obligations, which can be well met by the required procedures of Notice of Difference: they have no bearing on Australia’s domestic affairs..."
I'll leave the comments to those more qualified to do so...
.for a sec there I thought the Empire may have forced the binning of this thread.. Ok all's good..thought some recent (and not so recent) commentary on various Avmed issues maybe of interest.. 1st Shine Lawyers on Bolton AAT decision: AAT restores right to fly for pilot
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) recently set aside the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after being attacked in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).
On the evidence before the Tribunal, per Deputy President Hack SC, it was not open to say that Mr Bolton, the 23 year old pilot, had either a “condition” or some secondary consequence as a result of what happened to him to support the cancellation of his medical certificates. Mr Bolton recovered well, but CASA’s concern was that after what happened, he had an ongoing risk of seizures, which would endanger air safety. Mr Bolton’s contention was that what happened did not affect the underlying brain so seizures were not likely to result.
The weight of the accepted evidence supported Mr Bolton’s views – that there was no present ailment, so the Tribunal held that Mr Bolton met the appropriate medical standard. This conclusion is, in itself, unremarkable. What is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.
The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:
9. A person giving evidence based on his or her special knowledge or experience in an area
a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;
b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.
Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include this declaration:
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.
While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.
Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings.
Should the evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept it.
Thankfully, Mr Bolton was found to neither suffer from a condition nor (if he had one) would such a condition be of a kind to endanger the safety of air navigation.
The Shine Lawyers Aviation Department acts for pilots and other aviation operators who are aggrieved by decisions made by CASA to suspend, cancel, vary, or add conditions to Australian issued aviation authorisations, pilot licences and medical certificates. This work extends to both AAT and Federal Court matters as well as general aviation legal advice.
- See more at: AAT restores right to fly for pilot - Shine Lawyers Aviation News
On the evidence before the Tribunal, per Deputy President Hack SC, it was not open to say that Mr Bolton, the 23 year old pilot, had either a “condition” or some secondary consequence as a result of what happened to him to support the cancellation of his medical certificates. Mr Bolton recovered well, but CASA’s concern was that after what happened, he had an ongoing risk of seizures, which would endanger air safety. Mr Bolton’s contention was that what happened did not affect the underlying brain so seizures were not likely to result.
The weight of the accepted evidence supported Mr Bolton’s views – that there was no present ailment, so the Tribunal held that Mr Bolton met the appropriate medical standard. This conclusion is, in itself, unremarkable. What is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.
The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:
9. A person giving evidence based on his or her special knowledge or experience in an area
a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;
b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.
Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include this declaration:
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.
While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.
Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings.
Should the evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept it.
Thankfully, Mr Bolton was found to neither suffer from a condition nor (if he had one) would such a condition be of a kind to endanger the safety of air navigation.
The Shine Lawyers Aviation Department acts for pilots and other aviation operators who are aggrieved by decisions made by CASA to suspend, cancel, vary, or add conditions to Australian issued aviation authorisations, pilot licences and medical certificates. This work extends to both AAT and Federal Court matters as well as general aviation legal advice.
- See more at: AAT restores right to fly for pilot - Shine Lawyers Aviation News
2nd AOPAA TASRR (WLR) 'draft' submission (paragraph 9):
9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, demanding specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and frequent rejection of those specialist reports Avmed has demanded. Demands have become ever more complex and expensive; opinions of DAMEs are often ignored, and opinions of appropriate specialists are often ignored. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor. It can be argued that CASA should rely more on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.
..but not quite the heavy hitting, ballsy approach that we, once upon a time, came to expect from AOPAA. 'Blast from the past' examples from submissions to the...
...'Submissions responding to notice of inquiry on an exemption application under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ...'
..."The CASA says further, that the “making of the amendment regulations for Part 67 of CAR 1998 is imminent”. The proposed regulations are currently subject to industry consultation through the medium of Notice of Proposed Rule Making publications which have been distributed throughout the aviation industry. The statement contained in the application to the effect that the making of the proposed Part 67 is “imminent” appears to be based on the premise that the industry consultation is irrelevant, or that it is finalised, or that industry has not been invited to make submissions in respect of this Part. The submission also infers that the making of the regulation will be automatic upon its completion and that disallowance is not contemplated. There is no evidence contained in the CASA application which would permit a finding that any of the above matters have been addressed.
It is submitted that the CASA application contains insufficient evidence upon which any finding could be made that it comes within the requirement that it be exceptional: the CASA has not included any material which would clearly justify such an exemption..."
..."The risk factor can not be eliminated. It is submitted that the objects of the anti-discrimination legislation, and the safety objects with which the applicant is concerned can both be met by treating each case on its merits, rather than by having mandatory exclusions imposed, in respect of which the affected person has no means of challenge.
Similar considerations apply in respect of other medical conditions sought to be covered by the application, including that of colour-blindness, and in the latter case, these submissions adopt and endorse those made by Dr Arthur Pape..."
...."Historically, Australia and other contracting States have dealt with non-compliance with the Convention by the proper and allowable method of filing of a Notice of Difference, in each case, with ICAO. Filing of such a Notice brings the non-compliant State into conformity with the subject matter of the Notice. Such Notices have been filed by all contracting States, including Australia.
The CASA in this application have failed to mention this important aspect of manner of compliance, and failed to include in its application advice to the Commission of the many Notices of Difference which it (and its predecessors) have filed, and of the large number of non-compliances by Australia. No evidence has been produced from which a finding could be made that either non-compliance, or compliance by means of the filing of a Notice of Difference, has ever, or will, put Australia’s regulatory authority “at great risk”, or at any risk, of non-acceptance by either ICAO or other contracting States.
Further, the United States o America’s medical standards differ significantly in important aspects from those of ICAO, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has not been accepted by the remainder of the contracting international aviation community.
Overall, these matters relate only to Australia’s international obligations, which can be well met by the required procedures of Notice of Difference: they have no bearing on Australia’s domestic affairs..."
I'll leave the comments to those more qualified to do so...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deeper issues with Avmed ?
What's interesting is the amount of talk this thread has generated amongst the troops; lots of axes to grind; there are stories (unsubstantiated – of course) that even the 'big end of town' have just about had enough of the Pooshambolic method of aviation medicine and associated paperwork. I hear there is a large increase in the number of liver function test being done because someone went to a birthday party and had a few more ales than the prescribed maximum, or nodded off to sleep during 'My Kitchen Rules'; or is now consulting with diabetes or cardiac specialists. The specialist advice being ignored, the good doctors rolling about the floor laughing while collecting hefty fees.
I hear Arthur Pape and a couple of other 'clever lads' have made appeals for medical sanity; the big question is, will they be heard and can they change anything. If the tales are true, then change is long overdue.
I hear Arthur Pape and a couple of other 'clever lads' have made appeals for medical sanity; the big question is, will they be heard and can they change anything. If the tales are true, then change is long overdue.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Jan 2014 at 18:34. Reason: BUMP - posted to keep the thread off page 3.
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
Anybody at AVMED who believes they can best Arthur Pape are in for a shock. Arthur has the patience of a rabbit trap and the will of a Lioness defending her cubs. His record of past is proof of his determination. It was he who orchestrated change that CASA are trying to change back. Talk about back to the future.
One hopes AOPAA are supporting him, as it was an AOPAA initiative years back when they were relevant.
One hopes AOPAA are supporting him, as it was an AOPAA initiative years back when they were relevant.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Almost a month late and still waiting...
On another note, the AFAP are also critical of Avmed in their submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review:
13. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.
Oh Professor what have you done?
BP the AQONs have just been released..
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development AQONs
So lets see what CAsA had to say on the CVD QONs..
For the lighter side of other FF/PMO (Avmed) instigated & compounding issues...
Talking of cultures..did you hear the one about...??
Cheers...Sarcs
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development AQONs
So lets see what CAsA had to say on the CVD QONs..
Question no.: 132
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
CASA’s occurrence data files do not show a record of any accident or incident attributable to pilots’ colour
vision deficiency.
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
CASA’s occurrence data files do not show a record of any accident or incident attributable to pilots’ colour
vision deficiency.
Question no.: 133
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT Challenge
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54-55 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.
Each application for a medical certificate is required to be determined by reference to the statutory scheme and the individual circumstances of the medical certificate applicant. From that perspective, the Denison and Pape decisions are not binding on CASA in terms of the way in which it deals with the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiency.
Both of those cases were decided over 20 years ago under a different legislative framework and have been largely superseded by advances in aviation medical science and increased use of colour in aviation, especially in the cockpit.
The current aviation medical standards for colour perception are set out in item 1.39 of table 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), which requires a person to “readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant licence.”
Regulations 67.150(6) and 67.155(6) of the CASR, which apply to the class 1 and 2 medical standards respectively, require an applicant to demonstrate he or she meets the medical standard by undertaking specified testing in the prescribed order.
The first level of testing an applicant must undertake is the Ishihara Pseudo-isochromatic 24 Plate (PIP) colour vision test.
If the person fails that test then he or she must undertake a second level of testing, the Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) test.
If the person fails the second level of testing, then an applicant may be required to correctly identify all relevant coloured lights in a test, as determined by CASA that simulates an operational situation.
If a person fails this third level of testing, then no statutory provision is made for the person to be further tested.
Some international regulators have more recently funded research into the development of aviation specific tests for colour vision. One such aviation specific test, which has now been adopted by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, is the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test which is based upon aviation specific colours and operational requirements.
CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation. CASA will seek and consider the views of aeromedical specialists before any final decisions are taken on this matter. Although no rule changes are envisaged at this time, any rule changes would be consulted with industry in accordance with CASA’s normal regulatory development process.
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT Challenge
Proof Hansard Page/s: 54-55 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.
Each application for a medical certificate is required to be determined by reference to the statutory scheme and the individual circumstances of the medical certificate applicant. From that perspective, the Denison and Pape decisions are not binding on CASA in terms of the way in which it deals with the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiency.
Both of those cases were decided over 20 years ago under a different legislative framework and have been largely superseded by advances in aviation medical science and increased use of colour in aviation, especially in the cockpit.
The current aviation medical standards for colour perception are set out in item 1.39 of table 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), which requires a person to “readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant licence.”
Regulations 67.150(6) and 67.155(6) of the CASR, which apply to the class 1 and 2 medical standards respectively, require an applicant to demonstrate he or she meets the medical standard by undertaking specified testing in the prescribed order.
The first level of testing an applicant must undertake is the Ishihara Pseudo-isochromatic 24 Plate (PIP) colour vision test.
If the person fails that test then he or she must undertake a second level of testing, the Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) test.
If the person fails the second level of testing, then an applicant may be required to correctly identify all relevant coloured lights in a test, as determined by CASA that simulates an operational situation.
If a person fails this third level of testing, then no statutory provision is made for the person to be further tested.
Some international regulators have more recently funded research into the development of aviation specific tests for colour vision. One such aviation specific test, which has now been adopted by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, is the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test which is based upon aviation specific colours and operational requirements.
CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation. CASA will seek and consider the views of aeromedical specialists before any final decisions are taken on this matter. Although no rule changes are envisaged at this time, any rule changes would be consulted with industry in accordance with CASA’s normal regulatory development process.
Question no.: 140
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page: Written
Senator Fawcett asked:
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?
Answer:
1.Current AAT case (as at 4 December 2013)
CASA dollar inputs $10,200 (employee costs)
Number of CASA personnel involved 3
Total CASA man hours 146 hours
Third party man hours 115 hours
Third party costs $33,510 (expert report fees)
2. CASA does not allocate a specific Budget to individual litigation matters.
3. CASA has not been able to locate sufficient material which would allow such a comparison to be made.
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page: Written
Senator Fawcett asked:
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?
Answer:
1.Current AAT case (as at 4 December 2013)
CASA dollar inputs $10,200 (employee costs)
Number of CASA personnel involved 3
Total CASA man hours 146 hours
Third party man hours 115 hours
Third party costs $33,510 (expert report fees)
2. CASA does not allocate a specific Budget to individual litigation matters.
3. CASA has not been able to locate sufficient material which would allow such a comparison to be made.
Question no.: 141
Program: ATSB
Division/Agency: (ATSB) Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
A review of the ATSB’s data base revealed one occurrence in 1996 that makes reference to colour blindness.
The incident (ATSB reference 199603027) happened on 20 September 1996 and involved a privately operated Piper Navajo that landed with the landing gear retracted at Roma, Queensland. The investigation found that the pilot probably forgot to lower the landing gear when he became distracted after landing checks were delayed and as a result of trying to sight another aircraft.
The occurrence record noted that the pilot had a colour vision deficiency where he could not discriminate between red and green. It is not clear whether the colour vision deficiency played any role in the pilot not observing the landing gear position, noting the landing gear indication lights are red (up) and green (down), but the pilot should still have been able to observe only one light illuminated for the up position as opposed to three lights for the down position. Pilot distraction is a common cause of occurrences involving wheels up landings, irrespective of any colour vision impairment.
Program: ATSB
Division/Agency: (ATSB) Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Topic: Safety – Colour Vision Deficiency
Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (18/11/2013)
Senator Fawcett asked:
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.
Answer:
A review of the ATSB’s data base revealed one occurrence in 1996 that makes reference to colour blindness.
The incident (ATSB reference 199603027) happened on 20 September 1996 and involved a privately operated Piper Navajo that landed with the landing gear retracted at Roma, Queensland. The investigation found that the pilot probably forgot to lower the landing gear when he became distracted after landing checks were delayed and as a result of trying to sight another aircraft.
The occurrence record noted that the pilot had a colour vision deficiency where he could not discriminate between red and green. It is not clear whether the colour vision deficiency played any role in the pilot not observing the landing gear position, noting the landing gear indication lights are red (up) and green (down), but the pilot should still have been able to observe only one light illuminated for the up position as opposed to three lights for the down position. Pilot distraction is a common cause of occurrences involving wheels up landings, irrespective of any colour vision impairment.
Talking of cultures..did you hear the one about...??
Cheers...Sarcs
Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Feb 2014 at 06:34.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Sarcs,
Then why are CVD pilots battling CASA at the AAT once again, for the 3rd time??
There are reports that a number of experienced Emirates pilots have recently been made redundant as a result of the CAD being introduced an annual colour vision test in the UAE. I'm sure our infamous PMO would love to see the same occur in Oz.
Maybe I'm blind, but it doesn't look very aviation specific to me. Seems more like another laboratory based test... I'm still trying to figure out how it simulates an operational situation!
Judging by the reported recommendations in the PMO's AAT witness statement that for pilots who fail the CAD be issued with VFR, daytime only medicals, with no carriage or passengers, it's hard to see how CASA are denying plans to wind back the colour vision policy.
With 12 witnesses, one would think that these costs will very quickly escalate.
CASA’s occurrence data files do not show a record of any accident or incident attributable to pilots’ colour vision deficiency.
CASA is not seeking to wind back the colour vision policy or to conduct a de facto appeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions in the matters of Pape and Secretary Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 and Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84.
CASA is presently considering the use of the CAD test for the third level of testing as a more targeted and appropriate method of testing to simulate an operational situation.
Maybe I'm blind, but it doesn't look very aviation specific to me. Seems more like another laboratory based test... I'm still trying to figure out how it simulates an operational situation!
Judging by the reported recommendations in the PMO's AAT witness statement that for pilots who fail the CAD be issued with VFR, daytime only medicals, with no carriage or passengers, it's hard to see how CASA are denying plans to wind back the colour vision policy.
2. CASA does not allocate a specific Budget to individual litigation matters.
Kharon
There is a story floating about the place that Avmed is providing up to (+/-12) 'experts' in support, many from overseas, no doubt at great expense. We can only hope they are all not 'briefed' in the same manner as the Bolton experts (post # 67). Credibility rating ? Shambollic, Shambollocks or Shamebollic (you choose).
There is a story floating about the place that Avmed is providing up to (+/-12) 'experts' in support, many from overseas, no doubt at great expense. We can only hope they are all not 'briefed' in the same manner as the Bolton experts (post # 67). Credibility rating ? Shambollic, Shambollocks or Shamebollic (you choose).
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ClearedToReenter,
Do you believe everything you read?
Dont you think that the UK CAA introducing a new colour vision test charged at GBP120 a throw might just be keen to encourage all those thousands of CVD pommes to travel the country again to have a go [and fill their coffers]. What better carrot than saying 'Hey guys we might let you have a career if you can pass this new test [that in no way represents the task of a pilot]'.
If all in the UK had saved their money that they spent trying to pass lab based colour tests that are mostly unrelated to the task of piloting and hired some lawyers instead they would be where Australia is now - with 24 years of accident free day/night flying by every type of colour blind pilot from private to airline levels.
I foolishly did the CAD for real at Gatwick and it is a visual nightmare - nothing like what you see on youtube.
We dont need more lab tests. The proof that we are safe is in the complete lack of accidents in Australia where CVD pilots have reached all levels over the last 24 years.
Do you really think the UK is in the lead by introducing a new test?
Its really sad to see 1 in 10 youngsters knocked back from this career when it has been proven in court and in practice that they are perfectly able to perform the job with safety identical to a colour normal person. How long is this unjust worldwide discrimination going to last? 90 years and counting....
OOW
p.s. just because we now live in Australia and are allowed to fly does not make us able to name all colours correctly. We cant. You need to admit it. We are so lucky a brave man called Dr. Arthur Pape forced the rules to change because he proved in court that aviation safety, after the invention of radio, never did DEPEND on colour recognition or naming.
He achieved this at personal expense. Luckily Australia has an easily accessible independant review body for all government admin decisions (Administrative Appeals Tribunal - now by another name I am sure].
The CAA are keeping the CVD pilot population busy and poor by keeping them jumping hoops.
Do you believe everything you read?
Dont you think that the UK CAA introducing a new colour vision test charged at GBP120 a throw might just be keen to encourage all those thousands of CVD pommes to travel the country again to have a go [and fill their coffers]. What better carrot than saying 'Hey guys we might let you have a career if you can pass this new test [that in no way represents the task of a pilot]'.
If all in the UK had saved their money that they spent trying to pass lab based colour tests that are mostly unrelated to the task of piloting and hired some lawyers instead they would be where Australia is now - with 24 years of accident free day/night flying by every type of colour blind pilot from private to airline levels.
I foolishly did the CAD for real at Gatwick and it is a visual nightmare - nothing like what you see on youtube.
We dont need more lab tests. The proof that we are safe is in the complete lack of accidents in Australia where CVD pilots have reached all levels over the last 24 years.
Do you really think the UK is in the lead by introducing a new test?
Its really sad to see 1 in 10 youngsters knocked back from this career when it has been proven in court and in practice that they are perfectly able to perform the job with safety identical to a colour normal person. How long is this unjust worldwide discrimination going to last? 90 years and counting....
OOW
p.s. just because we now live in Australia and are allowed to fly does not make us able to name all colours correctly. We cant. You need to admit it. We are so lucky a brave man called Dr. Arthur Pape forced the rules to change because he proved in court that aviation safety, after the invention of radio, never did DEPEND on colour recognition or naming.
He achieved this at personal expense. Luckily Australia has an easily accessible independant review body for all government admin decisions (Administrative Appeals Tribunal - now by another name I am sure].
The CAA are keeping the CVD pilot population busy and poor by keeping them jumping hoops.
Last edited by outofwhack; 5th Feb 2014 at 10:25.
This PMO is seriously on the nose!
Have just read a very informative WLR submission (shhh??..that will soon be publicly available..
) that actually quotes in full Dr Pape's original post at the start of this thread... Although the submission only briefly touches on the subject of CVD & other Avmed issues, I thought that the following quote (with the author's permission) was significant (my bold):
Obviously I cannot confirm the veracity of the author's source. However it does make for a very interesting & disturbing rumour in regards to other DIPs concerns with the FF Avmed section...
Also for the CVD crew keep in mind that the next round of Senate Estimates is coming up...2013-2014 Additional Estimates schedule of meetings...and now might be a good time to fire off some additional suggested questions to the good Senators.
..
) that actually quotes in full Dr Pape's original post at the start of this thread... Although the submission only briefly touches on the subject of CVD & other Avmed issues, I thought that the following quote (with the author's permission) was significant (my bold):
Other medical matters
Our industry contacts assure us that the colour vision issue, although typical of other matters of aviation medicine concern, is far from being the only one that is elevating aggravation among pilots, DAMEs and specialists, and that these matters will be amply brought to the panel’s attention by individuals and groups who are affected. One general practitioner brought our attention to the fact that he can no longer access parts of the DAMEs’ handbook on the CASA website, and is concerned that it may be in the process of being rewritten by persons whose regulatory and medical experience may be less than optimal.
We are reliably informed that some 450 pilots of one single carrier alone are affected by these policies and practices, which appear to embrace the development of new standards in the complete absence of empirical validation or external consultation.
As with some other matters we are convinced that the Panel will be amply provided with well informed information on these issues.
Our industry contacts assure us that the colour vision issue, although typical of other matters of aviation medicine concern, is far from being the only one that is elevating aggravation among pilots, DAMEs and specialists, and that these matters will be amply brought to the panel’s attention by individuals and groups who are affected. One general practitioner brought our attention to the fact that he can no longer access parts of the DAMEs’ handbook on the CASA website, and is concerned that it may be in the process of being rewritten by persons whose regulatory and medical experience may be less than optimal.
We are reliably informed that some 450 pilots of one single carrier alone are affected by these policies and practices, which appear to embrace the development of new standards in the complete absence of empirical validation or external consultation.
As with some other matters we are convinced that the Panel will be amply provided with well informed information on these issues.
Also for the CVD crew keep in mind that the next round of Senate Estimates is coming up...2013-2014 Additional Estimates schedule of meetings...and now might be a good time to fire off some additional suggested questions to the good Senators.
..
ALA ASRR submission on CAsA in AAT & Bolton
The Australian Lawyers Alliance have made their submission to the ASRR publicly available... Submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance
Of significance to the CVD/Avmed matter is the following excerpt from the Submission:
Cheers Sarcs..
Submission of the Australian Lawyers AllianceOf significance to the CVD/Avmed matter is the following excerpt from the Submission:
3. MODEL LITIGANT CONSIDERATIONS – EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE AAT
A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.
The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).
In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.
The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:
a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;
b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.
Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include a declaration:
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.
While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.
Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings. Should the medical evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept its evidence.
The ALA does not wish to pontificate in relation to the performance of our
professional colleagues’ functions within CASA in the context of AAT matters, but does wish to identify to the Panel that confidence in the air safety regulator will be enhanced if oversights as noted in Bolton, are remembered when preparing cases for the AAT by both applicant’s solicitors and CASA.
A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.
The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).
In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action.
The Tribunal was critical of both parties for failing to provide expert medical opinions which satisfied the AAT’s Guidelines for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence (Guidelines). The Guidelines ensure that independent experts are made aware that their role is to assist the Tribunal rather than advocate for the party which asked for their expert comment. Under the Guidelines:
a. has an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the AAT on matters relevant to the person’s area of knowledge or experience;
b. is not an advocate for a party to a proceeding.
Furthermore, written reports prepared for proceedings before the Tribunal must include a declaration:
I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal.
While CASA’s medical expert, Dr Pooshan Navathe (also CASA’s Principal Medical Officer) did provide a statement which satisfied the Guidelines, the Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not have regard to his opinions as he was also the decision maker with respect to the cancellation of Mr Bolton’s medical certificates. Therefore, he was not truly independent. The Tribunal considered it highly irregular that Dr Navathe briefed CASA’s other expert (a consultant neurologist) by telephone, and never clearly showed what information was conveyed.
Deputy President Hack’s admonishments aside, the case demonstrates the need for both represented litigants and regulatory agencies to ensure all relevant evidential and procedural matters are properly dealt with in AAT proceedings. Should the medical evidence have been different then the choice of expert witness for CASA would not just have been more embarrassing, but potentially resulted in an unsafe pilot being returned to the sky, as the Tribunal was not prepared to accept its evidence.
The ALA does not wish to pontificate in relation to the performance of our
professional colleagues’ functions within CASA in the context of AAT matters, but does wish to identify to the Panel that confidence in the air safety regulator will be enhanced if oversights as noted in Bolton, are remembered when preparing cases for the AAT by both applicant’s solicitors and CASA.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More critisisms of Avmed from AAAA
Another day, another criticism of Avmed...
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) has also weighed into the debacle in their submission to the WLR:
AAAA Sub Av Safety Review Jan 2014
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) has also weighed into the debacle in their submission to the WLR:
AAAA Sub Av Safety Review Jan 2014
One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose.
The ability of the branch to hide behind the façade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Sunday head scratcher.
This CVD issue ain't going away, is it? Seems to me that the more I read the less clear the Avmed pugnacious stance becomes; is it double buggered? Except, and here I'll need help (Creampuff/ Leadie), on a point of law – is an AAT decision considered a precedent? Because if it's not, then must each case of CVD be heard individually? Don't know, but can anyone help?
If this is allowed, the costs will be staggering to the country; if CASA have to round up their overseas experts for each case. Seems to be a two edged sword, because if the industry appellants can't rely on the 1986/ 1989 decision as being a precedent, then how can Avmed rely on a win in one case in the AAT as being 'the' precedent for future actions against CVD pilots??. As I say, it's a puzzle. What, 25 years no accident history, thousands of flight hours logged over 24/7 operations in all kinds of weather, often with non CVD pilot support makes a logical nonsense of shambolic arguments, but the 'black letter' of law may yet make asses of those who think logically. Dunno, gives me a headache.
I did hear some of the old ponypooh – Shambolic has taken to the 1700 Friday email system to announce the restrictions on CVD pilot medicals, here again no confirmation, but hells bells, if true, he is drawing a long bow and very likely to seriously irritate the AAT president on who's good will he may later rely on in court.
Aye well, game on. Gotta love the rumour mill.
If this is allowed, the costs will be staggering to the country; if CASA have to round up their overseas experts for each case. Seems to be a two edged sword, because if the industry appellants can't rely on the 1986/ 1989 decision as being a precedent, then how can Avmed rely on a win in one case in the AAT as being 'the' precedent for future actions against CVD pilots??. As I say, it's a puzzle. What, 25 years no accident history, thousands of flight hours logged over 24/7 operations in all kinds of weather, often with non CVD pilot support makes a logical nonsense of shambolic arguments, but the 'black letter' of law may yet make asses of those who think logically. Dunno, gives me a headache.
I did hear some of the old ponypooh – Shambolic has taken to the 1700 Friday email system to announce the restrictions on CVD pilot medicals, here again no confirmation, but hells bells, if true, he is drawing a long bow and very likely to seriously irritate the AAT president on who's good will he may later rely on in court.
Aye well, game on. Gotta love the rumour mill.
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Feb 2014 at 18:44. Reason: actuins speaking louder? fixed.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch of sanity
Doc Liddell has tossed a logical medical grenade into the WLR, published by Phelan on - Pro Aviation - web site. Seems it's not just CVD pilots being discriminated against.
Fantome – I agree with OOW, your last post OTT; remember tidy bin rules.
Fantome – I agree with OOW, your last post OTT; remember tidy bin rules.
I once had the pleasure of speaking to Dr Liddell at a CASA / CAA safety seminar and discussed my then restriction of day VFR, Private ops only on my medical. He explained to me in detail how it had all changed and that I could pursue CPL, IR, NVFR etc. The only argument he could give me at the time for restricting ATPL was busting just above MDA and being able to quickly ascertain on a PAPI that you are on slope. You would hope that the arguments put forward by a medical and aviation professional such as Dr Liddell will carry some weight with the AAT.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red sock v Green sock.
Interesting passage of play for CVD boys and girls, no Hansard as yet so we'll have to wing it but: of note was.
0036 DAS defers a question playing possum "unsure of exact definitions" etc. act, nearly a well done routine, the art is to convince the Senator that he is not fully across the issue and must defer to a minion. The Fereday minion looks all cool, calm and collected while sitting at the back, but suddenly – show time – 0050 – the 'oh crap' moment. The Muppet, attempting not to wet it's self, eventually sorts out it's name plate then forgets to say who and what he is. The next few moments are embarrassing, Fawcett merrily leading the lamb to slaughter.
0427 – Poor Fereday. He's in so much trouble, the DAS suddenly ('finds notes') wades in with a rescue attempt; now it seems he is not so baffled by this CVD stuff and tries to bluff it out; alas, game set and match Fawcett.
McComic mentions differentiating between Red, Green and PAPI in the same breath; unless I've lost some marbles both PAPI and VASIS are Red/White, so why all the fuss about green? Can any one with CVD explain what they actually 'see' with a below glide slope indication; just ignore the other redundant options, such another pilot, EGPWS and all that safety stuff. Green is taxiway lights and bay numbers and not really supercritical.
Meanwhile the Muppet pulls his timber in and sits very still hoping to avoid further questions, definitely not quite so cocky during the rest of the flogging. Watch the guy sitting behind McComic, stress level slightly elevated?
It would be interesting to see how many CVD pilots had motor vehicle accidents, going through red or stopping on green. The AMSA seem to be a sensible crowd, and at sea, red/green are important it would be interesting to find their approach to the CVD issue; may be worth investigating.
1200 (Q) "Has a personality changed ?" – nail hit on head; they should have dug what's his name out his lair to answer those questions; now I'd pay for ticket to watch that show.
I still prefer Hansard, but I could develop quite a liking for this new fangled technology stuff. It's great fun and very enlightening. I now know who I would and would not invite to a poker game on the house boat; money for old rope I reckon.
0036 DAS defers a question playing possum "unsure of exact definitions" etc. act, nearly a well done routine, the art is to convince the Senator that he is not fully across the issue and must defer to a minion. The Fereday minion looks all cool, calm and collected while sitting at the back, but suddenly – show time – 0050 – the 'oh crap' moment. The Muppet, attempting not to wet it's self, eventually sorts out it's name plate then forgets to say who and what he is. The next few moments are embarrassing, Fawcett merrily leading the lamb to slaughter.
0427 – Poor Fereday. He's in so much trouble, the DAS suddenly ('finds notes') wades in with a rescue attempt; now it seems he is not so baffled by this CVD stuff and tries to bluff it out; alas, game set and match Fawcett.
McComic mentions differentiating between Red, Green and PAPI in the same breath; unless I've lost some marbles both PAPI and VASIS are Red/White, so why all the fuss about green? Can any one with CVD explain what they actually 'see' with a below glide slope indication; just ignore the other redundant options, such another pilot, EGPWS and all that safety stuff. Green is taxiway lights and bay numbers and not really supercritical.
Meanwhile the Muppet pulls his timber in and sits very still hoping to avoid further questions, definitely not quite so cocky during the rest of the flogging. Watch the guy sitting behind McComic, stress level slightly elevated?
It would be interesting to see how many CVD pilots had motor vehicle accidents, going through red or stopping on green. The AMSA seem to be a sensible crowd, and at sea, red/green are important it would be interesting to find their approach to the CVD issue; may be worth investigating.
1200 (Q) "Has a personality changed ?" – nail hit on head; they should have dug what's his name out his lair to answer those questions; now I'd pay for ticket to watch that show.
I still prefer Hansard, but I could develop quite a liking for this new fangled technology stuff. It's great fun and very enlightening. I now know who I would and would not invite to a poker game on the house boat; money for old rope I reckon.