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
Nugatory purgatory.
Doc # 306: the argument is circular and probably redundant. Had the Avmed ever intended to progress to a revised DAME 'sign-off' system, the process would have started with a letter saying that a new system was being considered, discussion sought and a pathway mapped. It certainly would not involve sending letters spouting some half assed, insupportable bull**** relating to CVD.
A progressive regulator would send letters saying we are initiating a new system and 'You' need to tick boxes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should you wish to be one of the super DAME approved to issue a full 12 month certificate; otherwise tick boxes 1,2,3 to have CASA continue to oversight your professional assessment.
The proposition, as stated is flawed; wrong on a couple counts, not least of all insinuating to those who hold a DAME delegation – the inference is that without advanced 'qualification' over and above those presently required, only being allowed to assess under CASA 'supervision' the DAME is, in some way, 'sub-standard, despite some of those DAME being able to sign off FAA and CAA medicals.
Then the liability insurance ploy; this is a risible nonsense. I'm sure any competent insurance risk assessor would tell you that, even if it were remotely true, at the worst a pilot medical would be what, $20 more expensive, and that a scam to cover the almost non existent matrix risk.
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...
So on balance, post #306 is, in light of USA, UK and other 'enlightened' countries experience rendered well and truly nugatory; and of value only to supporting an increasingly inefficient, bureaucratic, self aggrandising edifice, which offers DAME not education but insult, in the land of nugatory regulatory purgatory.
Sorry chum, need to do better than that to sell that particular bill of goods to the IOS.
Toot toot
A progressive regulator would send letters saying we are initiating a new system and 'You' need to tick boxes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should you wish to be one of the super DAME approved to issue a full 12 month certificate; otherwise tick boxes 1,2,3 to have CASA continue to oversight your professional assessment.
The proposition, as stated is flawed; wrong on a couple counts, not least of all insinuating to those who hold a DAME delegation – the inference is that without advanced 'qualification' over and above those presently required, only being allowed to assess under CASA 'supervision' the DAME is, in some way, 'sub-standard, despite some of those DAME being able to sign off FAA and CAA medicals.
Then the liability insurance ploy; this is a risible nonsense. I'm sure any competent insurance risk assessor would tell you that, even if it were remotely true, at the worst a pilot medical would be what, $20 more expensive, and that a scam to cover the almost non existent matrix risk.
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...
So on balance, post #306 is, in light of USA, UK and other 'enlightened' countries experience rendered well and truly nugatory; and of value only to supporting an increasingly inefficient, bureaucratic, self aggrandising edifice, which offers DAME not education but insult, in the land of nugatory regulatory purgatory.
Sorry chum, need to do better than that to sell that particular bill of goods to the IOS.
Toot toot
Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Jul 2014 at 01:52. Reason: The Dodo is a thing of the past. Or it bloody well should be..
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how it's a circular argument Kharon, despite your flowery language. Casa did notify all DAMEs that the new system was being considered, discussion with the relevant professional bodies was conducted, and all DAMEs were invited to attend training on the new system if they wished to participate. Training courses were conducted nationwide. Now, a small number of practices that do a lot of medicals are being used as a trial of the system (particularly relating to the IT systems). Once the systems are confirmed to be robust enough (Beta testing is pretty common you know), all who have done the training can apply for the designation to do the extended role.
There is no "advanced qualification", as you put it.
Isn't that a good thing? Yet it still happens.
Not often, but it does happen. Some very high profile transport accidents have been caused by medical incapacitation.
Insulting and inflammatory drivel. If you think you can do a better job, maybe you should have worked harder at school.
Well, yes they do in fact. It is not the doctor that makes the decision on the level of risk in the case of life insurance, it is the insurance company. Much like CASA do now - the DAME assesses the applicant angainst the provided standard, and CASA decide on the level of risk.
That's just plain wrong. They not only offer education, but require it.
There is no "advanced qualification", as you put it.
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible.
Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times
and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off
How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now
which offers DAME not education but insult
The good Doc’s false dichotomy.
Kharon:
Top post “K”! The current drift is way out of my league and I’m not into promoting thread drifts or classic 'false dichotomy' interference (thanks Creamy) but the “K” post I can understand…
Perhaps to drift back we can focus on a couple of posts from a 2012 Medical & Health thread on CVD, which perhaps highlights the good DOC’s true colours (so to speak) on CVD.
First a quote from ausdoc from this passage of play..
“..The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment)…”
Okay our very own brissypilot kicks off the discussion:
Then this from the Doc, which includes the above quote:
Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP:
To which ausdoc completely ignored instead in his next he said...
“..I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test…”
But pponte was not prepared to let the good Doc off the hook quite so easily..
To which ausdoc replied…
“….Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?
You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?..”
And pponte in reply..
“…Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize for targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.
This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base…”
After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from.
Maybe also because, a couple of posts later, AP weighed into the argument..
:
So ausdoc perhaps here is your chance to debate your point of view on CVD with Arthur, I’m pretty sure he will oblige..
..just do it elsewhere OK..
ps perhaps here: Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
Further OBS on the Doc: Passing strange that prior to the Doc's recent interest in the ESB thread the last contribution he made was back in November last year in his favourite haunt the Medical & Health forum and on this thread: Should he list Attention Deficit Disorder on his first class medical?
Hmm...further research required here I reckon..
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...
Perhaps to drift back we can focus on a couple of posts from a 2012 Medical & Health thread on CVD, which perhaps highlights the good DOC’s true colours (so to speak) on CVD.
First a quote from ausdoc from this passage of play..
“..The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment)…”
Okay our very own brissypilot kicks off the discussion:
brissypilot
#106
Hi all,
Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.
The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."
Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube
It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.
The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.
#106
Hi all,
Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.
The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."
Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube
It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.
The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.
ausdoc #107
I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).
Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.
There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.
It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).
I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).
Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.
There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.
It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).
Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited.
Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.
I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.
I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.
I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?
Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.
I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.
I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.
I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?
“..I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test…”
But pponte was not prepared to let the good Doc off the hook quite so easily..
pponte #119
let's support what we're saying then..
Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.
I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.
By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.
We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.
Happy to go to court.. Are you?
let's support what we're saying then..
Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.
I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.
By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.
We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.
Happy to go to court.. Are you?
“….Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?
You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?..”
And pponte in reply..
“…Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize for targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.
This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base…”
After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from.
Maybe also because, a couple of posts later, AP weighed into the argument..
:
Why keep talking about these tests?
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers
..just do it elsewhere OK..ps perhaps here: Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
Further OBS on the Doc: Passing strange that prior to the Doc's recent interest in the ESB thread the last contribution he made was back in November last year in his favourite haunt the Medical & Health forum and on this thread: Should he list Attention Deficit Disorder on his first class medical?
Hmm...further research required here I reckon..
Last edited by Sarcs; 3rd Jul 2014 at 03:51.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here we go again. Rather than discussing the matter at hand, the standard response is to go dredging into history to attack the individual.
Not that hard really -the attendance details (and in fact a list of most of the attendees) was included in the conference satchel at registration. Pretty common practice.
So what would have liked me to do? I don't feel obliged to comment on every statement made by somebody else.
OK I admit it, I don't live for PPRuNe. Sometimes I go for weeks without looking at it. Sometimes, there is simply nothing new to read or comment on. I tend to spend my life looking afdter people and doing aircrew medicals - Perhaps I've done yours. I spend my time doing my very best to keep pilots flying, rather than engaging with petty, small minded people who seem incapable of addressing an issue without resorting to character assassination, wild identity speculation, and trawling of completely unrelated threads.
Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP
To which ausdoc completely ignored
After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My turn.
Sarcs you crafty devil; just worked back through all of that; including a couple of interesting asides from one 'AirMed.Ind' who was panting to ingratiate himself with his mate Ausdoc.
So, I'll try out my basic, uneducated Anglo Saxon instead. Bollocks.
Creamy, I'll see your dichotomy and raise you an ad hominem..
I just had an entertaining chat with my basic model, uneducated DAME mate (although there does seem to lots of real letters after his name though, perhaps it's a medico 'thing'). Anyway - however, as this is a family show I shall resist the temptation to reproduce in full his basic Anglo Saxon version of the good ship Avmed and all who sail in her. I shall simply content my flowery self with another hearty quote -"All Bollocks mate, being considered, trial and robust are the words of a forked tongue."- unquote.
Acknowledging the bleeding obvious don't signify either: i.e. that in every day life, people have accidents caused by illness, well fancy that. – It is a statistical certainty, a fact the underwriters, who bet fortunes on it know all too well; much better than anyone, including Avmed. FFS; if they are comfortable for our Docs can sign you as fit on a FAA or UK docket, then they are comfortable for the same Doc sign one for this third world place.
No, it's unfortunate, but the devotees of Shambollic Hole-mystic medicine are beyond all credibility or redemption. The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco; let alone some of the other famous 'red-face' cases. Avmed, claiming to be anything other than a retrogressive, inefficient mess is disingenuous. Seeking only to become a 'name', either by following or being led by the nugget who took the Kiwi's back to the dark ages is more the mark.
The notion of CVD discrimination is simply as disgusting as the underhand methods used in the vainglorious attempt to achieve it.
Flowery – forsooth.. I think I'm flattered; should I flutter my eyelashes now?
So, I'll try out my basic, uneducated Anglo Saxon instead. Bollocks.
Creamy, I'll see your dichotomy and raise you an ad hominem..
Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus
A special version of this fallacy is known as falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, essentially “false in something, false in everything”. This is a combination of a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack, because it attempts to disregard everything the person is saying by the claim that they’re either presenting the truth or presenting falsehoods. It ignores the possibility that the individual is wrong about one thing but right about others. The fact that someone has been proven wrong about claims they made is a potential reason to suspect other claims they make, but not a logical reason to disregard them entirely.
A special version of this fallacy is known as falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, essentially “false in something, false in everything”. This is a combination of a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack, because it attempts to disregard everything the person is saying by the claim that they’re either presenting the truth or presenting falsehoods. It ignores the possibility that the individual is wrong about one thing but right about others. The fact that someone has been proven wrong about claims they made is a potential reason to suspect other claims they make, but not a logical reason to disregard them entirely.
Acknowledging the bleeding obvious don't signify either: i.e. that in every day life, people have accidents caused by illness, well fancy that. – It is a statistical certainty, a fact the underwriters, who bet fortunes on it know all too well; much better than anyone, including Avmed. FFS; if they are comfortable for our Docs can sign you as fit on a FAA or UK docket, then they are comfortable for the same Doc sign one for this third world place.
No, it's unfortunate, but the devotees of Shambollic Hole-mystic medicine are beyond all credibility or redemption. The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco; let alone some of the other famous 'red-face' cases. Avmed, claiming to be anything other than a retrogressive, inefficient mess is disingenuous. Seeking only to become a 'name', either by following or being led by the nugget who took the Kiwi's back to the dark ages is more the mark.
The notion of CVD discrimination is simply as disgusting as the underhand methods used in the vainglorious attempt to achieve it.
Flowery – forsooth.. I think I'm flattered; should I flutter my eyelashes now?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uneducated DAME mate (although there does seem to lots of real letters after his name though, perhaps it's a medico 'thing')
Ask him how many aviation medicals he does in a year. Also ask him if he meets all of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements to maintain his DAME designation. Ask him if he has attended the DAME2 training, and if he intends to register to do the medicals. If he has, ask him if he understands that it will be him, not CASA, who will be standing in front of the coroner when the statistical certainty of a medical condition causing an accident just happens to occur in somebody that he's certified. Whether he was right or wrong in his assessment, it is a traumatic experience.
Last edited by ausdoc; 3rd Jul 2014 at 05:33.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco
In the end, a paying passenger, who had no knowledge of the risks they were accepting ended up dead.
Last edited by ausdoc; 3rd Jul 2014 at 05:44.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out, damn'd spot.
Creampuff (for an example) is more often an adversary than an ally, as are some others here at one time or another. Bloggs and Leadsled for example, I can't find a skerick of agreement, different views, but there is not a drop of troll blood in either. Honest, worthy opponents all in a good cause, present two options to ponder and discuss. There have been some 'entertaining' bouts, robust discussions, even areas where it was agreed to disagree. Mutual even if grudging respect had been earned; and, as part of any healthy society, considering the independent nature of pilots, this is a fine thing.
After a while, playing on this board one can discern and even predict an outcome; some are worth waiting for; some are not, but even to retire hors de combat carries some credit. There are some clever, lively, articulate folk haunting these portals, all capable of expressing a point of view; unfortunately, this attracts trolls.
Now your Trolls come in various guises, with different agendas. It's pretty easy to spot them though, you see even a poster who is disagreeing 'fits'; the argument may be diametrically opposed, but the protagonist 'fits'. Trolls do not. Perhaps it's in the sly syntax, maybe it's the devious 'attitude', the deliberate word traps to bait the unwary, the scathing attack, the retiring to more neutral ground to wait a chance: the pattern, the stance if you will. But inevitably, they get sprung, a little patience, a dab of Troll bait and Wallop; you have a troll head for the mantelpiece. Minnie Bannister hates them, but I like to see 'em there and they make great ashtrays.
Toot toot. Next service? – Oh, tomorrow, sometime after second coffee.
After a while, playing on this board one can discern and even predict an outcome; some are worth waiting for; some are not, but even to retire hors de combat carries some credit. There are some clever, lively, articulate folk haunting these portals, all capable of expressing a point of view; unfortunately, this attracts trolls.
Now your Trolls come in various guises, with different agendas. It's pretty easy to spot them though, you see even a poster who is disagreeing 'fits'; the argument may be diametrically opposed, but the protagonist 'fits'. Trolls do not. Perhaps it's in the sly syntax, maybe it's the devious 'attitude', the deliberate word traps to bait the unwary, the scathing attack, the retiring to more neutral ground to wait a chance: the pattern, the stance if you will. But inevitably, they get sprung, a little patience, a dab of Troll bait and Wallop; you have a troll head for the mantelpiece. Minnie Bannister hates them, but I like to see 'em there and they make great ashtrays.
Lady Macbeth:
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
have had so much blood in him?
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
have had so much blood in him?
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
ausdoc;
The passenger didn't pay, his girlfriend did. Neither had an inkling that he was a "protected species".
But CAsA did!
Were his visual conception skills brought up in the Coroners inquest? It appears he lacked the medical score on many counts.
The passenger didn't pay, his girlfriend did. Neither had an inkling that he was a "protected species".
But CAsA did!
Were his visual conception skills brought up in the Coroners inquest? It appears he lacked the medical score on many counts.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure what you're on about here Kharon. I didn't bring up the issue of DAMEs being able to issue certificates. I didn't bring up the Hempel issue. I didn't go dredging through old threads to try to make a point or to "catch" somebody out. I've used no "sly syntax or deliberate word traps".
I'm no fan of the way CASA does some of its business, but if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence - not anecdote, not tantrums, not character assassination. What should have happened at the very beginning, when pilots with CVD were first permitted to fly, was a proper prospective study regarding the way that these individuals operated aircraft in all conditions. Unfortunately, it was not done. It was done from the start when the first trials of antidepressant medication in pilots were conducted. The data was collected and analysed, and the particular conditions under which this was appropriate were determined. It's public data, look it up.
Show me the real data and I will fight CASA to the end. But it's got to be data that addresses all of the uses of colour in aviation. Not just that the pilot can tell the difference between red and green, but that they can interpret displays every bit as quickly as colour normals. Not just that they've flown x thousand hours without crashing. A well designed study that addresses the conditions that are likely to be questioned in any appeal. In many cases, coulour is redundant, but redundancy in aviation is good. One does not argue for removal of redundant hydraulic, electrical or ignition systems. In other cases, colour is used to "cue" attention to other data. Are CVD pilots as quick at picking up this data, and if not, does it matter operationally? These are the questions that need to be answered, and the data is just not there.
I'm no fan of the way CASA does some of its business, but if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence - not anecdote, not tantrums, not character assassination. What should have happened at the very beginning, when pilots with CVD were first permitted to fly, was a proper prospective study regarding the way that these individuals operated aircraft in all conditions. Unfortunately, it was not done. It was done from the start when the first trials of antidepressant medication in pilots were conducted. The data was collected and analysed, and the particular conditions under which this was appropriate were determined. It's public data, look it up.
Show me the real data and I will fight CASA to the end. But it's got to be data that addresses all of the uses of colour in aviation. Not just that the pilot can tell the difference between red and green, but that they can interpret displays every bit as quickly as colour normals. Not just that they've flown x thousand hours without crashing. A well designed study that addresses the conditions that are likely to be questioned in any appeal. In many cases, coulour is redundant, but redundancy in aviation is good. One does not argue for removal of redundant hydraulic, electrical or ignition systems. In other cases, colour is used to "cue" attention to other data. Are CVD pilots as quick at picking up this data, and if not, does it matter operationally? These are the questions that need to be answered, and the data is just not there.
Last edited by ausdoc; 3rd Jul 2014 at 07:11.
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
I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself.
This is at the heart of what utterly astounds me about the recent regulatory controversy about pilot CVD:
Demonstrably very intelligent people who presume to make judgments about people’s fitness to fly are apparently incapable of perceiving – dare I say: are blind to? – the potential invalidity of the proposition on which their conclusion and consequent regulatory intervention depends.
“There is complex, subtle use of colours in modern cockpits. It is no longer a red/green/white environment.”
So what?
In the normally certified aircraft I fly most often, there is a system that has a red light which illuminates when the system is in a particular state. There is another system which has a blue light which flashes when other systems are in particular states. There is yet another system which has an orange light that illuminates when that system is in a particular state.
Neither the colour nor the difference between the colours of those lights has any actual or intuitive implication for the relative importance of the system state indicated. I know what it means when each light is on, and I know what it means when each light is off. And that’s all I need to know from a safety perspective.
If I changed all those light colours to Mission Brown or Barry White, it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference.
When a big CAUTION light flashes, one does not need to pause to consider whether it’s Duck Egg Blue or Mojave Mist.
The proposition implicit in the quote is that there is a safety risk if pilots cannot distinguish between the subtly different colours in complex cockpits. That proposition has never been proved. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Objective people can see that.
The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).
“There is complex, subtle use of colours in modern cockpits. It is no longer a red/green/white environment.”
So what?
In the normally certified aircraft I fly most often, there is a system that has a red light which illuminates when the system is in a particular state. There is another system which has a blue light which flashes when other systems are in particular states. There is yet another system which has an orange light that illuminates when that system is in a particular state.
Neither the colour nor the difference between the colours of those lights has any actual or intuitive implication for the relative importance of the system state indicated. I know what it means when each light is on, and I know what it means when each light is off. And that’s all I need to know from a safety perspective.
If I changed all those light colours to Mission Brown or Barry White, it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference.
When a big CAUTION light flashes, one does not need to pause to consider whether it’s Duck Egg Blue or Mojave Mist.
The proposition implicit in the quote is that there is a safety risk if pilots cannot distinguish between the subtly different colours in complex cockpits. That proposition has never been proved. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Objective people can see that.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I agree with you in a cockpit that has lights that are either on or off. My understanding is that the problem is when a light changes colour depending on the state of a system, or when the colours of digits change on an EFIS display. The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance.
An analogy is traffic lights. The position of the light in the stack provides a redundant cue to those with CVD, and in most cases this is enough. There is good research though, that shows CVD drivers (and not all CVD is the same) are slower to detect the red and amber lights than non CVD. There is no difference in green detection, and it probably doesn't matter. So what, you may ask? Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights).
An analogy is traffic lights. The position of the light in the stack provides a redundant cue to those with CVD, and in most cases this is enough. There is good research though, that shows CVD drivers (and not all CVD is the same) are slower to detect the red and amber lights than non CVD. There is no difference in green detection, and it probably doesn't matter. So what, you may ask? Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself.
But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying.
Happy to continue this discussion on the more appropriate thread.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is plenty of evidence to more than suggest that it is risky for folks with serious Depression to fly
I'd be happy to fly with either of the groups that you mention, and I regularly do. I just think that proper data gathering on CVD pilots from the start was a missed opportunity. I also think that money spent on lawyers would be better spent on science. There are a couple of universities in this country with extensive experience in testing visual perception, and I'm sure that they could design representative study tasks (using real cockpit instrumentation, lighting, etc rather than simulation) to give the data to put this matter to bed once and for all.
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
Ausdoc wrote:
Well the PMO thinks it is reasonable to post everybody a letter damning CVD pilots who already operate perfectly safely so why not send letters about pilots with head traumas?
But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet year after year professional CVD pilots are required to undertake the same scrutiny of their standards and ability, during the same checks that "normal" pilots do, and nothing..not a hint, not the tiniest scrap of concern from any of their checkers.
If there was the slightest shred of concern it would have surfaced by now.
For goodness sake after a quarter of a century in this country, and a whole lot longer in other enlightened places, not a single definitive example of CVD having the slightest affect on a pilots ability to safely commit aviation.
Sorry Doc. that's a whole lot of positive research, show us the research to the contrary.
Regarding DAME's and CAsA's rather demeaning attitude towards them.
I question why CAsA deems it necessary to squander, how many zillions, of tax payers money? on some Flim Flam "Training" exercise.
Are Australian doctors competent or not?
I'm told by DAME friends that the so called training exercises are very like the professional development courses ATO's are required to attend.
More being lectured AT rather than lectured to, hardly education.
I reiterate there is ample research, in the history of FAA medical examiners that doctors are perfectly capable of assessing whether a pilot is fit or not.
The furphy of liability is exactly that.
In the most litigious society in the world is there or has there ever been a problem?
Given the size of the US industry, the massive numbers of pilots the FAA must medically administer, is there any issue with their DAME's issuing medical certificates?
I go to the same DAME every year to renew my medical's. Same process. Difference is my FAA medical is issued on the spot.
My CAsA medical is given a three month extension, until some clerk in Avmed adds up the points and decides if I can earn my living or not...and for that "service" I have to pay a fee of $75.
As someone once said "What a nice little earner"
Someone else might call it corruption.
If there was the slightest shred of concern it would have surfaced by now.
For goodness sake after a quarter of a century in this country, and a whole lot longer in other enlightened places, not a single definitive example of CVD having the slightest affect on a pilots ability to safely commit aviation.
Sorry Doc. that's a whole lot of positive research, show us the research to the contrary.
Regarding DAME's and CAsA's rather demeaning attitude towards them.
I question why CAsA deems it necessary to squander, how many zillions, of tax payers money? on some Flim Flam "Training" exercise.
Are Australian doctors competent or not?
I'm told by DAME friends that the so called training exercises are very like the professional development courses ATO's are required to attend.
More being lectured AT rather than lectured to, hardly education.
I reiterate there is ample research, in the history of FAA medical examiners that doctors are perfectly capable of assessing whether a pilot is fit or not.
The furphy of liability is exactly that.
In the most litigious society in the world is there or has there ever been a problem?
Given the size of the US industry, the massive numbers of pilots the FAA must medically administer, is there any issue with their DAME's issuing medical certificates?
I go to the same DAME every year to renew my medical's. Same process. Difference is my FAA medical is issued on the spot.
My CAsA medical is given a three month extension, until some clerk in Avmed adds up the points and decides if I can earn my living or not...and for that "service" I have to pay a fee of $75.
As someone once said "What a nice little earner"
Someone else might call it corruption.
Last edited by thorn bird; 3rd Jul 2014 at 09:43.
Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights).
Seriously: Is this the quality of the logic justifying the recent change?
Where is the data to which you refer, and where is the evidence proving causation rather than correlation? When was the last time a policeman asked the driver involved in a rear-ender, do you have CVD? How could this data be collected?
The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance.
If that change of colour has any safety-critical implications, it's badly designed system. The history of aviation is littered with systems that seemed brilliant in theory but caught out many perfectly competent pilots in practice.
FF road to perdition v CVDPA petition
Thank you Flying Fiend & FOI crew 
While trolling through Fort Fumble's FOI Disclosure log I came across a new entry, which must be said was published in world record time, that possibly may shine new light on the PMO's new evidence on CVD. Here is a couple of excerpts..
No nothing there??
However the next excerpt does have an interesting comment by the PMO on a CAMI (FAA) new research on CVD testing:
So ausdoc, since you are in the know, any chance that we could get a copy/summary of this CAMI (FAA) research paper?? It could be the key to this new research that the PMO is banging on about??
OK back to the petition which still needs far more support, so come on people get on-board…
SIGN HERE
A couple more recent comments:
While trolling through Fort Fumble's FOI Disclosure log I came across a new entry, which must be said was published in world record time, that possibly may shine new light on the PMO's new evidence on CVD. Here is a couple of excerpts..
No nothing there??
However the next excerpt does have an interesting comment by the PMO on a CAMI (FAA) new research on CVD testing:
So ausdoc, since you are in the know, any chance that we could get a copy/summary of this CAMI (FAA) research paper?? It could be the key to this new research that the PMO is banging on about??
OK back to the petition which still needs far more support, so come on people get on-board…
SIGN HERE
A couple more recent comments:
- John McDermott AUSTRALIA
Another example of CASA making radical changes, which effect careers and livelihoods of many, without safety based reasoning and in fact ignoring the 20 years of actual safety data supporting the CVD personnel. It is as much the principle of change without reason and without consent which causes me the greatest concern. IF there was a history of incidents, then it would be an understandble argument BUT that simply is not the case.
- Wayne Moore AUSTRALIA
Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm. As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.
MTF…