Perfect Example Of CASA Outrageaous Behaviour?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour: good source, but totally unconfirmed.
Overheard - "The Forsyth review is irrelevant to CASA". For a Choccy frog – best guess, Who, when and where. Hints – recent, with legal overtones.....
Overheard - "The Forsyth review is irrelevant to CASA". For a Choccy frog – best guess, Who, when and where. Hints – recent, with legal overtones.....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???
Why was this thread been moved to the GA forum???
Yes GA pilots are affected by this, but its also about pilots that work airlines and the word needs to seen by those in the airline world!!
Yes GA pilots are affected by this, but its also about pilots that work airlines and the word needs to seen by those in the airline world!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed
This subject is certainly more relevant to professional pilots. Of course GA pilots may be in the same bag, but certainly not at the same cost.
Please move it back
This subject is certainly more relevant to professional pilots. Of course GA pilots may be in the same bag, but certainly not at the same cost.
Please move it back
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject is certainly more relevant to professional pilots. Of course GA pilots may be in the same bag, but certainly not at the same cost.
Mods?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err..guys I hope you are not implying there are no "Professional" pilots in GA?
I agree with you that these threads should be in the airline section, but please...
CAsA embuggerance has mainly affected GA, largely because the airlines went along with whatever CAsA wanted, didn't affect them they could just add the cost to ticket price, or if it got too ansy the airlines have the resources to employ very powerful legal representation and command considerable political pull.
GA has always been on the bones of its ass, which is why CAsA has been able to get away with murder.
I agree with you that these threads should be in the airline section, but please...
CAsA embuggerance has mainly affected GA, largely because the airlines went along with whatever CAsA wanted, didn't affect them they could just add the cost to ticket price, or if it got too ansy the airlines have the resources to employ very powerful legal representation and command considerable political pull.
GA has always been on the bones of its ass, which is why CAsA has been able to get away with murder.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
move it back
Thornbird,
I don't think the implication was against GA, rather it was about the incomprehensible reasons for moving the thread in the first place.
The outrage is predominantly being committed against commercial pilots and I suspect that this forum is not the first port of call for those pilots. Importantly, I also suspect that the legion of non-pilots that use PPRuNe as something of a barometer for aviation politics in Australia would not come here as a first or only window either.
Mods, please move it back!
I don't think the implication was against GA, rather it was about the incomprehensible reasons for moving the thread in the first place.
The outrage is predominantly being committed against commercial pilots and I suspect that this forum is not the first port of call for those pilots. Importantly, I also suspect that the legion of non-pilots that use PPRuNe as something of a barometer for aviation politics in Australia would not come here as a first or only window either.
Mods, please move it back!
Well after a rather direct complaint to ICC and a rather speedy reply, I might add, CASA has returned my ATPL privileges apologising for the "Imposition". However, I am under no illusion that they will have another crack at me further down the track pending the "New Research".
The PMO must be under a little pressure judging by the way he signed off the letter. Take a look at the way the letter was signed off
The interesting thing it in the second paragraph.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
The PMO must be under a little pressure judging by the way he signed off the letter. Take a look at the way the letter was signed off
The interesting thing it in the second paragraph.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Smith, Congrats. A small personal win. Lets hope it keeps going in the right direction.
A question for you though. The letter talked about CVD deteriorating. Unlike eyesight, I thought CVD remained constant?
A question for you though. The letter talked about CVD deteriorating. Unlike eyesight, I thought CVD remained constant?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC News Breakfast + AIPA weighs in!
Bill Smith, a very interesting letter. Leaves more questions than answers!
For those who missed it, ABC News Breakfast interviewed Dr Arthur Pape this morning.
Will colour blind pilots be grounded? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
AIPA's letter has also been released publicly through the CVDPA and delivers a stinging criticism of the way CASA have handled this entire matter.
AIPA Letter to Minister Truss
The other letters from VIPA and AFAP are also available here:
http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support
For those who missed it, ABC News Breakfast interviewed Dr Arthur Pape this morning.
Will colour blind pilots be grounded? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
AIPA's letter has also been released publicly through the CVDPA and delivers a stinging criticism of the way CASA have handled this entire matter.
AIPA Letter to Minister Truss
Dear Minister Truss,
CASA Handling of Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) Debate
As you are aware, Australia has one of the most enlightened policy positions in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD). Our policy position followed on from the Pape (1987) and Denison (1989) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and has been vindicated by many years and thousands of hours of safe flight by pilots with CVD. However, CASA has now embarked on a set of tactics to unwind that position.
Normally, I would express the concerns of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) directly with the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, before raising the issue with you. However, it is clear to me from watching Senate Estimates that Mr McCormick is determined to press ahead with his strategy to unwind the Australian CVD policy position, regardless of both the empirical safety evidence and the unnecessary damage that will ensue to the livelihoods of a significant number of Australia’s professional aviators.
The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.
In effect, CASA has implied without evidence that the affected pilots and their employers are accepting an unnecessary risk if they continue to operate. Despite years of incident-free operations conducted on the basis of medical certification given by CASA, some operators might now feel compelled to restrict the livelihoods of their employees, simply because CASA may decide that those operators’ risk management or operational judgement is somehow deficient, thus placing their business at risk of some future regulatory action. AIPA is concerned that, should employees’ livelihoods be adversely affected as a consequence of this implied threat, CASA will not be a party to any Fair Work proceedings and will thus escape any judicial scrutiny, despite their lack of courage or justification to act directly against the medical certification already issued.
I appreciate that you would not normally intervene in matters directly affecting safety. However, AIPA does not believe that there is any evidence to suggest a safety issue in Australia’s current CVD policy – in fact, quite the opposite – and that the approach adopted by CASA is a procedural abuse that must be immediately rescinded, with the protagonists sanctioned appropriately.
In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the AAT to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).
As you know, AIPA is necessarily a champion of procedural fairness and judicial review. We are concerned generally about the industry wide view that CASA will not embrace the Government’s Model Litigant policy and that CASA is now using the AAT and the Federal Court processes to financially overwhelm industry applicants seeking independent redress. While AIPA is not in a position to truly assess the validity of that industry view, we do note the lack of positive evidence in the public arena to offset that perspective. The evidence in Senate Estimates of the CASA financial planning for the O’Brien CVD review in the AAT does not help allay any concerns that industry participants may have about the AAT moving further and further beyond the financial reach of many people to seek review of administrative decisions.
Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry.
Yours sincerely,
Nathan Safe
President
Australian & International Pilots Association
CASA Handling of Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) Debate
As you are aware, Australia has one of the most enlightened policy positions in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD). Our policy position followed on from the Pape (1987) and Denison (1989) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and has been vindicated by many years and thousands of hours of safe flight by pilots with CVD. However, CASA has now embarked on a set of tactics to unwind that position.
Normally, I would express the concerns of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) directly with the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, before raising the issue with you. However, it is clear to me from watching Senate Estimates that Mr McCormick is determined to press ahead with his strategy to unwind the Australian CVD policy position, regardless of both the empirical safety evidence and the unnecessary damage that will ensue to the livelihoods of a significant number of Australia’s professional aviators.
The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.
In effect, CASA has implied without evidence that the affected pilots and their employers are accepting an unnecessary risk if they continue to operate. Despite years of incident-free operations conducted on the basis of medical certification given by CASA, some operators might now feel compelled to restrict the livelihoods of their employees, simply because CASA may decide that those operators’ risk management or operational judgement is somehow deficient, thus placing their business at risk of some future regulatory action. AIPA is concerned that, should employees’ livelihoods be adversely affected as a consequence of this implied threat, CASA will not be a party to any Fair Work proceedings and will thus escape any judicial scrutiny, despite their lack of courage or justification to act directly against the medical certification already issued.
I appreciate that you would not normally intervene in matters directly affecting safety. However, AIPA does not believe that there is any evidence to suggest a safety issue in Australia’s current CVD policy – in fact, quite the opposite – and that the approach adopted by CASA is a procedural abuse that must be immediately rescinded, with the protagonists sanctioned appropriately.
In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the AAT to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).
As you know, AIPA is necessarily a champion of procedural fairness and judicial review. We are concerned generally about the industry wide view that CASA will not embrace the Government’s Model Litigant policy and that CASA is now using the AAT and the Federal Court processes to financially overwhelm industry applicants seeking independent redress. While AIPA is not in a position to truly assess the validity of that industry view, we do note the lack of positive evidence in the public arena to offset that perspective. The evidence in Senate Estimates of the CASA financial planning for the O’Brien CVD review in the AAT does not help allay any concerns that industry participants may have about the AAT moving further and further beyond the financial reach of many people to seek review of administrative decisions.
Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry.
Yours sincerely,
Nathan Safe
President
Australian & International Pilots Association
The other letters from VIPA and AFAP are also available here:
http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support
A question for you though. The letter talked about CVD deteriorating. Unlike eyesight, I thought CVD remained constant?
There are, however, other eye conditions, although very rare, which have deterioration of colour vision as a symptom.
So, doesn't that mean that all pilots need to be screened for colour vision deterioration, or is it just those that are initially CVD that suffer these other eye conditions?
FWIW, I am red-green (not sure whether prot. or deut.) but I know that when I wear my slightly-green-tinted prescription sunnies, I can pick ripe bananas in Woolies, whereas without, I am guessing - I don't know whether this is deleterious to air safety... Does this mean though that sunnies should be banned from the flight deck?
Anyway, for those that are, those that might be or those that don't know, here's a fun test to see if you have any CVD symptoms. Not definitive by any stretch, but it might give some a better understanding of what it means to be CVD
(source: - http://www.city.ac.uk/health/researc...ur-vision-test)
You have to watch the coloured splodge and note when it disappears and reappears. For me it disappears between 0:21-0:22 and again at 1:07-1:09. That's enough for me to fail Ishihara as well as Farnsworth, although I'd like to have another crack at that.
I do actually wonder how much CVD is self-taught in youth. Having grown up "knowing" I couldn't tell the difference between red and green lights, I didn't really even try.
FWIW, I am red-green (not sure whether prot. or deut.) but I know that when I wear my slightly-green-tinted prescription sunnies, I can pick ripe bananas in Woolies, whereas without, I am guessing - I don't know whether this is deleterious to air safety... Does this mean though that sunnies should be banned from the flight deck?
Anyway, for those that are, those that might be or those that don't know, here's a fun test to see if you have any CVD symptoms. Not definitive by any stretch, but it might give some a better understanding of what it means to be CVD
You have to watch the coloured splodge and note when it disappears and reappears. For me it disappears between 0:21-0:22 and again at 1:07-1:09. That's enough for me to fail Ishihara as well as Farnsworth, although I'd like to have another crack at that.
I do actually wonder how much CVD is self-taught in youth. Having grown up "knowing" I couldn't tell the difference between red and green lights, I didn't really even try.
Andy RR must be banned from the skies! Or we could be sensible adults....
I'm doing as much as I can (making submissions and writing letters) to express support for CVD pilots and abject disappointment at the regulator's actions.
Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.
I'm doing as much as I can (making submissions and writing letters) to express support for CVD pilots and abject disappointment at the regulator's actions.
Everyone must step up and express support for CVD pilots. Don't watch from the sidelines people, or you'll be next: An isolated minority, grounded and bankrupt at the whim of an 'expert' with a populist theory to prove, despite the evidence.
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
Andy_rr,
Ever been accused of missing the point?
I highly recommend reading this thread from post #1 before posting.
OOW
Ever been accused of missing the point?
I highly recommend reading this thread from post #1 before posting.
OOW
As I grew up, most (non-CVD) people told me I couldn't be this or couldn't do that because I was "colour-blind" - most of which I have subsequently done at some point in my life. The point here is that those that are "not CVD" don't know what it means to be so and probably wouldn't even know if they were - Dr Navathe included (is he CVD at all - does anyone know?)
Sorry if I get in your way though!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Navathe included (is he CVD at all - does anyone know?)