The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[papakurapilot]

Updates?

Hi Guys,

Any update on the final day? Nerve wreckingly quiet?

Thanks

[aerospace11]

cvd case update?

hello was just wondering if anyone has any update on the cvd case? and/or if a result has been reached?

[xjt]

AAT Hearings Report

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

It has been a very busy week!

Thank you to all who were able to attend the AAT in person and support our cause. You would have no doubt found the process both interesting and frustrating, with CASA continue to perpetuate a myth based on unproven assumptions that CVD pilots pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation.

The hearings lasted for 3 days in total before a tribunal consisting of Justice Robert Benjamin and Dr William Isles.

Fortunately, the lawyers managed to reduce the amount of witnesses who were required to give oral evidence. On our side, the tribunal heard practical evidence from regarding how CVD pilots operate. We were also very fortunate to be supported by Associate Professor Geoff Stuart who provided terrific evidence on the numerous scientific flaws associated with the design of the CAD test. He also gave evidence regarding the flaws in CASA’s risk management process that they are adopting with CVD pilots. A. Prof. Stuart has over 30 years’ experience in vision science including studies of colour vision. He is also a human factors specialist and conducts work for a University Accident Research Centre.

On CASA’s side, the Principal Medical Officer Dr Navathe was cross examined and A. Prof. Geoff Stuart also gave concurrent evidence with CASA’s experts, Prof John Parkes and the inventor of the CAD test, Prof John Barbour. We did manage to achieve a number of oral admissions from CASA’s experts, including the fact that the CAD did not simulate an operational situation.

Despite this, there is still a long way to go and victory is by no means certain. CASA’s massive legal firepower was extremely obvious this week, with them being represented by a very experienced external barrister Ian Harvey QC. They are throwing everything they’ve got at this case and it continues to be a “Might” versus “Right” battle.

We are also facing the fact that what we are trying to achieve has never been done anywhere else in the world. Despite recent events this year, Australia continues to remain the most liberal country in the world with respect to aviation colour vision standards. For this reason alone, the tribunal will naturally be very cautious in making a decision which is so drastically different to the standards that are adopted elsewhere. We are fighting an uphill battle, but we are continuing to give this everything we’ve got. We have the emperical evidence to support our case and it's now up to the tribunal to see the light.

We next have until the 14th November to prepare follow up written submissions. This will require us to carefully study the transcripts and dissect the evidence that was given. A final public hearing day is then scheduled for the 24th November. At that point, the tribunal will then retire to consider all the evidence including the numerous experts who gave written statements, but were not required to give oral evidence in person. It could potentially take weeks or months before the ultimate decision is handed down.

We will continue to keep everyone updated throughout this process.

Thanks again for your ongoing enthusiasm and support.

[Fueldrum]

Canada

Please note that our standards are not the most liberal in the world. Canada has a very similar air safety task to ours, and their standards are roughly the same as ours.

Of course, that could change if CASA gets their way. I am deeply ashamed to be a member of the same profession as them.

[Up-into-the-air]

Who is Ian Harvey??

CASA’s massive legal firepower was extremely obvious this week, with them being represented by a very experienced external barrister Ian Harvey QC. They are throwing everything they’ve got at this case and it continues to be a “Might” versus “Right” battle.

Ian Harvey is no external barrister, but the person who has instructed and trained casa legal since at least 1999, the furtherest I have traced him so far.

The following quote indicates the distance that casa will go to stop proper investigations and progress that would not be in their interest.

CASA kept ACCC out of the Mobil case

An approach by several operators to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) met with a negative response as the ACCC could only act when [the] lead agency CASA requested such assistance. CASA inaction thus obstructed vital legal assistance under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

I wonder who gave that advice to casa legal??

[tipsy2]

Harvey was also appointed "counsel assisting" in the Lockhart River coronial which seemed to me to be a bit odd given his closeness to CASA at various times.

They say appearances can be deceptive and I may have misinterpreted the appearances!

Tipsy

[Up-into-the-air]

Harvey + Lockhart River

Sorry T, missed saying that!!

Certainly a way forward for casa to hide documents etc. I notice that Shane is still on the case and the following was published:

OAIC [Office of Australian Information Commissioner] wrote to CASA on 27 February 2013 seeking further details of its search for the documents, which the aviation regulator had said it was unable to find. CASA provided a response on 14 March 2013 which OAIC says did not satisfactorily explain why it was unable to locate the documents. OAIC then conducted further enquiries with CASA in late March. CASA’s response to this was still insufficient to show that the documents Mr Urquhart sought did not exist or could not be found.

[Frank Arouet]

Harvey is a hired gun.

[thorn bird]

Your romanticizing him Frank,


He's a bottom feeding scumbag lawyer.

[Brainy]

Red / green light at the end of the tunnel??

From the AvMed newsletter today, it seems Pooshan is now Pooshan't be staying on. Fallen on his sword? Told to take his Ishihara plates and p$&@ off?

Changing of the Guard

I have decided that it is time that AvMed is led by a different leader. As we get a new Director, it seems appropriate that we renew this area of CASA as well. Accordingly I will be moving on from CASA in the new year. More details about the arrangements of CASA AvMed are being finalised and I will provide more details in the next newsletter.



Regards,

Pooshan

[brissypilot]

Brilliant news!

[gerry111]

Very encouraging news indeed.
But let's not pop the champagne corks just yet..

[Bill Smith]

Hopefully someone with a modern commonsense approach.
Unfortunately, I feel we are being regulated out of existence.

[outofwhack]

That's wonderful news. He won't be missed one bit. I would wager he has been asked to leave. Oow

[Sarcs]

Dead men (wabbits) walking.

There will be many..many hundreds of pilots, airline operators etc. breathing a huge sigh of relief that the Pooh Shambolic - aviation medico zealot on a mission - has finally fallen on his sword...

Ever since the Hazelton AAT decision against - closely followed by several other AAT losses - the (soon to be former) PMO has been a dead man walking with his credibility as an expert witness shot in the eyes of the AAT..

The final nail however was the O'Brien AAT CVD case when the PMO was forced to admit (from tribunal transcript) that he had been "procedurally unfair":

15 I have another letter dated 23 June 2014, have you seen that letter before?---I have.
You specifically recall that?---I beg your pardon?
20 You have specific recollection of that?---Yes. Yes, I do, but I’m aware of the provenance of those letters. I created those letters to be written and sent to some people.
25 And you’ve mentioned that the decision is on the basis that procedural fairness required CASA to provide you an opportunity to comment on the imposition of the new conditions, which are those conditions in the first letter from CASA?---Where are you reading that, sir?
30 In the first paragraph?---Right, yes. Yes.
And those comments, the reference to those comments, are the two letters from (blank) to yourself, is that correct?---M’mm.
35 And you decided upon considering - well, what’s in the content of the letter you changed your view on Mr (blank) conditions and you allowed him to have an ATPL?---I did not change my view about the safety or not of it. I was - the decision, as it says there, was changed on the basis that procedural fairness had not been afforded. That it was not a safety related decision; it
40 was a procedural decision.
What factors did you take into consideration?---The fact that he had not been accorded procedural fairness. For a legal decision to be made my understanding is that it has to be procedurally fair, and the advice we had was
45 that it was not procedurally fair - - -

Another quote perhaps highlights how the current executive crew at Fort Fumble honestly believe that are quite literally above the law...:

During your examination you indicated that CASA had not yet adopted the CAD test, the formal CAD test. Are you aware that when Mr O’Brien was applying for the ATPL privileges you wrote to him and gave him no other choice but to take the CAD test, and unless he did, you would not be able to progress his application?
---Yes. I wrote that letter, yes. I’m aware of that. If you wish I can explain what I had. The important issue with that is that there is no limit on the test which can be asked for for any person with any kind of disability. There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test. The fact that it may or may not be - when I was talking about policy, I was talking about policy to demonstrate that you meet the standard. Once you do not meet the standard anyone in CASA for any test that they wish which will help to make the determination as to whether or not is, you know, at the extent where it does not affect the aviation safety.

So poor old Shambolic was only following executive SOP to the letter...
Now for the other wabbits...

"...Now, may I kindly, and selfishly, ask that those who supported Poohshan's abhorrent decision to inflict untold and unethical damage on our pilot industry - the other two members of the DAS trio, Ferret-a-day, LSD and others also be given their marching orders. The farcical CVD issue was a huge decision and unleashed on industry after many internal high ranking executives jointly agreed to the decision. The pineappling of Poohshan should be just the starting point in this issue. More blood should yet be spilled..."

Well said Soty...

TICK..TOCK goes the Playschool clock..

MTF...

Ps Loved this bit from the transcript..

HIS HONOUR: Dare I ask, if CASA believes that Mr O'Brien is a competent pilot as you described, why are we here?

[Up-into-the-air]

Pooshan - Is he real ?

The following quote from pooshambolic should be remembered for ever:

There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It is clear from the transcripts of John's case that the (former) PMO still does not understand the "standards" for colour vision in Australian regulation (or ICAO)
As Creamie has laid out, time and again, the standards is that a pilot must be able to operate safely.
The "standard" is NOT that one of a number of tests to determine a candidate's level of colour vision be passed.
Tootle pip!!

[PAIN_NET]

Sorry folks - Transcript no longer available, copyright issues due to AAT permission not being granted.

Regretfully withdrawn.

P106. a.k.a. Red Dog..

[Creampuff]

The important issue with that is that there is no limit on the test which can be asked for for any person with any kind of disability. There is an unlimited scope for CASA to ask for a test. The fact that it may or may not be - when I was talking about policy, I was talking about policy to demonstrate that you meet the standard. Once you do not meet the standard anyone in CASA for any test that they wish which will help to make the determination as to whether or not is, you know, at the extent where it does not affect the aviation safety.

Ah, the exquisitely circular reasoning typical of those on a crusade.

Until a candidate has undergone a test that simulates an operational situation, in terms of CAR 67.150(6)(c), you don’t know whether the candidate meets the standard set by law in Australia. And if a candidate passes a test that simulates an operational situation, in terms of CAR 67.150(6)(c), the candidate has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard set by law in Australia. Full-stop. Irrespective of the opinion of any zealot on a medical crusade.

By law, you can’t impose “any” test. There is, in law, a “limit”.

The law says the test must simulate an operational situation. That means what it says.

What it doesn’t say, and what it doesn’t mean, is the CAD test – which doesn’t simulate operational sh*t - or some other glorified colour perception test that bears no semblance to any realistic operational situation encountered in the real world.

The test – as least for pilot candidates – must simulate a safety-critical task involving the identification of the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured, with all of the same cues that would be available in the real world (subject of course to ‘normal’ emergencies), without characteristics that bear no semblance to anything encountered in the real world. The pass standard must be that achieved by the pilot population without colour vision deficiency, in the same test. Otherwise, the test is just another glorified game to find out what is already known.

My ongoing worry is that, notwithstanding Dr N’s departure, there remain people in CASA who understand all of this, perfectly, but who may have encouraged or assisted, either positively or by acquiescence, the CVD crusade so far.

[outofwhack]

Creamy,

I would contend that the parties most encouraging Dr Ns
medical crusade are actually overseas.
I'll bet my bottom dollar it's the UK CAA (and ICAO) driving
Poosham. The UK CAA have always
denied colour defectives flight at night and therefore a career.

They have never allowed a practical test and are probably
the most restrictive country with regard
to cvd pilots.


OOW