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 24th Feb 2014, 19:23
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
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.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 03:21
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,241
Well done Senator Fawcett.
Clearly well informed on the issue.
YPJT is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 06:09
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Finally – Hansard.

I hasten to add the delay in getting Hansard was all my own fault.

Mr Fereday: That is my understanding, but I am not the expert in colour vision testing.
If he don't have colour blind clue, why is the Muppet sitting there wasting everyone's time; we had the dog, just needed the pony. The grandiosely titled Principal Medical Officer (PMO) was noticeable by his absence; probably in the back room preparing an AAT brief grounding some poor sod for ingrown toenails, or excessive nose fuzz; or, maybe he and his old mate Wodger are conjuring up the next plan to save us all. The last one wuz a doozy.

Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any specific cases and assuming, as you say, there have been cases where we have withdrawn privileges, I am not aware of that myself.
Later:- we have this.

Mr McCormick: As I said, what has happened between November when I was here and that letter, this is the first that I know of it. We were, of course, expecting to be in the AAT to respond to a Mr O'Brien in February 2012, however, those proceedings are currently not listed for hearing as the previous hearing to commence on 31 March was vacated at the applicant's request.
Then this.

Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any changes around our approach to this. As I said, that letter is news to me. I am not across everything that leaves the building, particularly medical matters where I normally do not involve myself. We will take it on notice and I will get you an answer about what has transpired.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Sadly, that completes CASA.
Amen and Hallelujah (till the next round).
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 08:22
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
There was a bloke at Avmed who if you disagreed with him at all, used to write your file up as you being psychologically disturbed
ahhh . . yes . .. . surely Herr Docteur TS . . . . he who has
hastened the onset of high blood pressure and anxiety attacks in swathes of those grounded and those whose assessments are put on protracted hold . . . let us rue the day that a new broom and a new regime exercising summary powers of rejection came in to replace Rob Liddell. Approachability and accessibility should be right up there with medical nous in the criteria for appointment to Avmed.

Nothing short of a massive enema administered to the bowels of all those bureaucratic bounders will change things one iota.
Fantome is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 18:03
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Jekyll and Hyde.

Wiki - Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is the original title of a novella written by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson that was first published in 1886.

The circumstances under which Doc Liddell departed the CASA fix have not, as yet been examined in any great depth. The saga of the Avmed decline seems to stem from that time, to the point where every medical could potentially wind up with an AAT hearing, it seems it's not just the CVD group having to struggle. One of the best ideas floated has been the notion that an 'independent peer review panel', made up of past and present Avmed qualified types could be made available to provide some expert sanity for those afflicted by the present system. Seems to be a unnecessary last resort in a sane world, but speaks volumes for DAME opinion of the current regime.

I did manage some light reading of other transport disciplines which require medical certifications; Road - Rail - Sea.

Road:- Part B – 10.2.6. - Rail. 22.2.3. Colour vision. - Sea Part B Medical standards : Section 3 Eyes/vision.

AMSA even have a sensible pro forma certificate.

You can draw your own conclusions, but for mine, I like the way the AMSA 'operate'. There's not a lot difference in situation between theirs than the aviation scenario; and aviation has the benefit of different altitude separation, not so at sea. The calm, practical methodology of the AMSA has not been infected by the 'myth' of air safety; their requirements and approach to the task reflect the lack of safety hysteria, notable in all other forms of transport – bar aviation. There is also a considerable difference in the number of times the AMSA wind up in court or Tribunal. Perhaps sanity may be found within the ranks of the home grown AMSA safety experts; save us a few airfares, AAT hearings and Senate inquiries.
Kharon is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 04:14
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
The latest out of Hansard from Mi Mi Mi Mi it is priceless




Been transcribing the events of yesterday, now up to about 21 pages and still going, and Bill Heffernan gets this week’s super-prize box of Timtams!


Chair: How did it go from a “critical nature of the incidents” to a “don’t worry about it”?


Mr Dolan: It’s a matter that we did rehearse with the references committee Senator, and in short our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation where the weather deteriorates from what was planned, we over-assessed it as critical in the early stage and by applying methodologies, concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.


Chair: Can I commend you that you look really well and less stressed than you used to for some reason?


Mr Dolan: (Undecipherable): “Got rid of the beard.”


Chair: “But that particular incident I just spoke of; no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. I mean, you can’t go from a critical incident to a minor or whatever it was, without something happening on the journey. Anyway we won’t go back there, but to any sensible person, that sounds like either a bloody cover-up or a balls-up.

T28D is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 06:35
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
From the latest issue

DAME Newsletter - February 2014

AvMed Medical Officers

2014 bring with in many challenges for AvMed a significant one being that we say goodbye to two of our Medical Officers. Sadly (for us) both Dr David Fitzgerald and Dr Peter Clem are moving on to the next chapter in their careers. David has got a position as the Occupational Physician at Emirates Airways, and Peter has gone (back) to Defence in Brisbane. While it is a real loss for CASA, it is good for their careers, and we wish them all the best.
I wonder if Dr No might be next after the embarrassment he’s been causing in the Senate Estimates?


McCormick: “…we are not actively trying to stop anybody doing anything, but we do have to exercise some degree of caution.”

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. 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."
The Australian – CASA denies rule changes on colour vision (13 December 2013)

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.
Senate Estimates – 24 February 2014


Mr McCormick: “I am not aware of any specific cases and assuming, as you say, there have been cases where we have withdrawn privileges, I am not aware of that myself…

"I think we are looking now at carefully moving forward, or in some cases if this test has been adopted by the UK CAA and is obviously under consideration by the FAA, we would look at moving, as it says, to where the appropriate and sophisticated medical research methodologies have led. It is the mere fact of updating things. As for actually the removing the issues, I will take that on notice. I do not know who we have removed privileges from."
And then the gottcha moment …


Senator FAWCETT: I can give you the letter afterwards. I have it sitting right here in front of me from your organisation dated 24 January doing exactly that. I will put it to you that with due respect this is not moving forward, despite the evidence that you gave here at estimates in November that CASA had no agenda or no plans to wind back the gains of the Denison case. This is, in fact, a very deliberate effort to adopt a standard which might medically ascertain that somebody does have a colour vision deficiency, but clearly as evidenced by multiple pilots that have flown for over two decades, it is not an accurate or effective measure of their ability to safely operate an aircraft. This is going backwards and not, in fact, forwards.

brissypilot is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 17:41
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
I worked with two colour vision deficient electrical engineers.
I also taught in my controls systems engineering course about designing to overcome colour vision deficits. (i have history on this)

one day the managing director hauled me into his office for a please explain, this colour vision nonsense that you teach blah blah blah.
colour vision deficit was not permitted among electrical engineers he opined.
close your eyes and think a moment. name the two most inherently talented engineers we have on staff, I asked.
after some thinking he gave me two names.
I agreed and then told him that both were colour vision deficit.
there was a bit of an explosion after that but it got him nowhere.

colour vision deficit people are needlessly discriminated against.
none in my direct personal experience have ever had an intellectual deficit.

on my airfield I have noticed a number of better than average pilots.
of those better than average pilots 5 of them are red - green colour blind.

surely it is high time for the rusted on senility in ICAO, the FAA and CASA to really address the only problem ever identified for CVD pilots.
CHANGE THE PAPI LIGHT COLOURS.
white and amber colours would remove the problems (if indeed they exist) completely.

if you don't fix this CASA you definitely are totally incompetent.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 18:32
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Yeah, but...

This seems not to be so much about 'competency' but 'black letter law' and outrageous ego. The rules could be so very easily changed, no need to change the lamp lens. <5700 Kg SP/IFR competency demonstrated as per usual. >57 PIC/FO not with another CVD pilot, competency as per usual. A doddle with the right mind set.

Unknown - "Since the Denison ruling, CVD pilots have consistently demonstrated the ability necessary for the safe performance of duties through regular, rigorous flight and simulator assessments." (ICAO in bold).
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 03:33
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
One of my close friends is a red/green colour deficient highly respected General Surgeon with a busy practice.


Good thing CASA don't regulate Doctors !!!!!!
T28D is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2014, 08:54
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel Avmed decision set aside in the AAT again??

Fort Fumble Avmed PMO cops another pizzling in the AAT...

McSherry and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 119 (6 March 2014)

"..50. We note that in expressing that opinion, Associate Professor Navathe differed from both Associate Professor Ward and Dr McRae, each of whom regarded the risk of an incompletely incapacitating bleed causing problems for Mr McSherry whilst he was flying to be extremely small. Further, we do not consider this aspect of Associate Professor Navathe’s evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that this aspect of his evidence may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made, to impose conditions on Mr McSherry’s class 1 medical certificate. We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in Associate Professor Navathe’s statement of 8 October 2013 on the one hand, and his oral evidence on the other....

"...56. The respondent’s decision of 6 August 2013 is set aside and in substitution for that decision it is decided that Mr McSherry is entitled to the issue of class 1 and class 2 medical certificates, without conditions..."

How much can a Koala bear??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th May 2014, 00:06
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
Pressure mounting?

A number of CVD pilots received an interesting email during the week, along with re-issued medical certificates. This followed some probing questioning by some of the CVDPA folk.

You would have noticed that your recent medical certificate had a condition 13 which read "Limited to flights conducted inside Australian territory" instead of the earlier "Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1".

Recent research undertaken by CASA in the context of an extensive matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal revealed that foreign aviation authorities in a number of countries take a much stricter approach to the medical certification of pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) than is currently the case in Australia. Given the significant difference in the treatment of pilots with CVD in other countries, CASA formed the view that medical certificates issued to persons with CVD should be limited to the conduct of operations in Australian territory. The condition 13 on the medical certificates was accordingly modified. This was on the basis that it was not considered appropriate for CASA to authorise persons to fly in the airspace of a foreign country in circumstances where the aviation authorities in that country would not countenance medical certification of the pilot concerned.

On the basis that CASA did not consult with affected pilots prior to making the change to the condition text, it has been decided that a replacement certificate reinstating the previous condition should be issued to you, and that is attached. At this point in time, CASA has no intention of changing the condition text in the immediate future.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you, and if you have any questions please contact 1300 4 AVMED.

Aviation Medicine
Most interpreted the original condition to mean that although the Australian standards differed from ICAO, they could still operate internationally on the basis of their Australian licence and medical, in a VH- registered aircraft. The surreptitious change to the wording earlier this year then dramatically altered the type of operations that some pilots were able to perform.

Could it be that the pressure is slowly mounting on CVD issues?
brissypilot is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 03:06
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
PMO Questioned in Senate Estimates

Copied from Senate Enquiry thread...

It was good to finally see the PMO get grilled in Senate Estimates last night on the CVD issue.

Well done to Senator Fawcett for pursuing this matter so passionately!

brissypilot is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 20:18
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Maybe a last hurrah by "the angry man".
Well, let's hope so.... But the other two who regrettably don't seem to be going anywhere, seem to be hell bent on reassessing everyone in view of this new UK CAA test. I found listening to those three very chilling indeed.

I'm supposedly CVD and have a Class 1 with the usual 'does not meet the visual requirements' endorsement on it, which I've had since 1988 and renewed every year since with no problems. I'm not due for another visit to an ophthalmologist yet. I've renewed it as usual a few weeks ago with no problems as far as the DAME was concerned. He signed me off on the old certificate for the 2 months as usual. However, as he fed all of the information into the computer it spat out an automated letter that said I had not met the visual requirements and needed to visit a CASA ophthalmologist before CASA will renew. I've not had one of those before so I rang Avmed where I eventually was connected to a very helpful and polite lady who seemed to know what she was talking about. She said not to worry about the letter, it's just an automated thing and they know what is going on and will issue the certificate without needing the opthamologists report..... So I took her word, paid my dues on the CASA website but I am still waiting... Is this the end of my flying career? Or just Avmed doing their administrative best?
SteveZodiac is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 22:03
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Stevie, mate,
maybe your a tad naïve expecting anyone in CAsA to tell you the truth!
Mate, if their prepared, and do, perjure themselves in a court why would anyone trust anything they say?
Committing perjury, swearing false statements, manufacturing evidence is somewhat frowned on for us Plebs.
They on the other hand are entirely immune to sanction and are positively encouraged.
As one of their leaders once told a minister,
"Proof, minister if we had to provide proof we'd have to employ another hundred staff!!"

Last edited by thorn bird; 27th May 2014 at 22:30.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 06:02
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
A triumph of prejudice, dressed up as ‘safety’

Senator FAWCETT: Dr Navathe, there are two confounds with that approach. One very simple example is that in my past at military college they used to have language aptitude tests, theoretically derived tests. Our counterparts from countries in Asia were not normally sitting those. A Chinese origin Singaporean student sat the test, failed dismally, was told he had no aptitude for tonal languages. The similar confound for you is that pilots who had been safely flying for tens of thousands of hours have failed the CAD test and yet have demonstrated their ability to safely operate aircraft in not just one test but multiple check and training tests with multiple instructors.

So if the contention that Mr McCormick made is that CASA approached this on an individual capacity basis, as opposed to one rule, then you cannot discount the fact that a theoretical test will not necessarily determine an individual's ability to use other cues to operate an aircraft safely. You mentioned that they looked at internal and external lights. It is a proven fact that in aircraft that are modified for night vision imaging systems, where all the emitted light is filtered with something like a BG7 filter, the colour hierarchies are completely disrupted and yet air crew in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, normal colour pilots, quite safely operate those aircraft in terms of interpreting that internal information. Likewise with external information—the human body adapts. There are things like hypersteriopsis. For years we have said that that would make it impossible to fly, yet the body adapts to that. So what you are seeing, in the case of this pilot—I understand you attempted in 2009 to not renew his medical, but subsequently you gave it back to him to continue flying as a captain in an ATPL situation—is that he has not passed the CAD test but demonstrates that he as an individual is able to competently fly an aircraft by day, by night, in IFR conditions. From the point of view of procedural fairness and natural justice, is it a good use of taxpayers' money to take these issues through to well over $100,000 in an AAT hearing when there are proven methods of establishing the competence of an individual to operate an aircraft?

Mr McCormick: We do not know what the sum of money involved is but we will go with what you are saying at the moment. The overriding principle here, whether it is colour vision deficiency, hearing deficiency or any sort of impairment on the pilot, is safety. We are talking about going towards an ATPL, when there is no standard of which we are aware for issuing an ATPL anywhere in the world, for what would be the benefit of a number of pilots—I think we are talking about a few hundred pilots in total. I agree they should be able to do the best they can in their career but our responsibility is to maintain the safety of the Australian travelling public. When we get to the point where we are pushing the boundaries, where we are pushing the science, looking for other ways to get around what could possibility be indicated from the clinical side is a dangerous thing to do, we are starting to impact on my ability to discharge my duties under section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act, and that is to provide safety as outlined in that act.

If we wish to go there, then we have to go there in a measured manner. We will not go there on one basic flight test. I am sorry, but we will research this as much as necessary and, with all due respect, I will not be issuing an ATPL to a person who has failed the test as outlined in 67. We intend to do nothing with those who already have their licence and have their privileges. We are writing to them, as I mentioned to you the other day, to say that if they have had some change in their vision or if they think something has changed that will affect them, then perhaps they should discuss it with their own doctor or with their own DAME. I agree we should move forward, but we are already way out in front of half of the world, if not three-quarters or all the world, and as we move forward we will do it at a measured pace. When O'Brien goes through the AAT, we will see what the AAT has to say, what their preferred decision is, and that will give us the basis from which we can move forward, whether it be a practical test or whether it be a clinical test or whatever combination is required. To do it now unilaterally would be dangerous.
[Bolding added to substantive text.]

“Dangerous”.

I am reminded of this, from Carl Sagan (with evident geographical amendments):
I have a foreboding of an Australian in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when Australia is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of Australia is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.
When something is curtailed in the name of ‘safety’ and labelled ‘dangerous’, despite decades and tens of thousands of flying hours of evidence demonstrating the opposite, it appears someone is having difficulty distinguishing between what feels goods and what’s true.

The ‘precautionary principle’ has been described as the celebration of ignorance. But here, the regulator can’t even hide beyond the fear of the unknown. The results of the CVD experiment are already ‘in’. There is less risk of CVD causing an accident than appendicitis causing an accident. Yet pilots are allowed to fly around with a ticking time bomb inside them in the form of an appendix.

This goes beyond a celebration of ignorance. It is the triumph of the last remnants of prejudice against people ‘who shouldn’t be allowed to fly’ because we ‘feel’ it would be ‘safer’ if they didn’t.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 07:46
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Stevie, mate,
maybe your a tad naïve expecting anyone in CAsA to tell you the truth!
Mate, if their prepared, and do, perjure themselves in a court why would anyone trust anything they say?
Thorny, that nice lady didn't lie. In fact I can say I've had nothing but courtesy and efficiency from Avmed of late... ( apart from dispatching a letter to me in error that put the fear of God up me of course!) My certificate all duly signed off by our favourite aviation medic arrived today. Must be like a knife in the stomach every time he sends one of those out with his name on it

But really isn't this what this is all about? We can't be seen to be out on a limb even further.... What would our international colleagues think? We might not get a place on those sooooo important international junkets if we're seen as renegades you know.

I agree we should move forward, but we are already way out in front of half of the world, if not three-quarters or all the world,
SteveZodiac is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 08:38
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
so true

Thorny...so true ...and all overseen and condoned by the angry man'

Now there's a das with cojones !!! NOT

August draws nigh. Thus endeth the trough. And a very bad lesson for aviation safety. IMHO of course.
Been there, copped all that.
So what would I know...as a CAsA client/victim
aroa is offline  
Old 29th May 2014, 07:56
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"This goes beyond a celebration of ignorance. It is the triumph of the last remnants of prejudice against people ‘who shouldn’t be allowed to fly’ because we ‘feel’ it would be ‘safer’ if they didn’t".


Creamie, here bloody here!!!!!!!!!!!!
thorn bird is offline  
Old 29th May 2014, 15:16
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Creamie - you had me at "A triumph of prejudice, dressed up as ‘safety’"


Another thing though .....

CAsA's $100k 'budget' is going to be more like $300k at least and will be our own tax payer money used against us!

I have little doubt CAsA is getting international pressure from certain foreign Avmed departments who have been expertly maintaining this prejudice for many decades. These countries have no equivalent of the Australian AAT.
outofwhack is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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