---

June 20 2014

RE: UNILATERAL DETRIMENTAL ACTION BY CASA AGAINST SELECTED PILOT GROUP.

My name is XXXX. I am a professional pilot of 40 plus years standing and 17,000 accident free flying hours; bar one successfully mitigated helicopter engine failure in 1979. Flying has always been my passion and my life. I currently work in an overseas environment although I always maintain my Australian licences.

In 1970 when I took my first aviation medical it was quite a shock to be classified as colour vision abnormal as there had been no previous indication of any detrimental effect on my life thus far. However, this medical assessment had a significant impact on me in many ways for the rest of my life.

Despite a sense of discrimination and imposition thereafter on behalf of the aviation regulator, I, like many other similarly assessed pilots, persisted in the pursuit of a (somewhat limited) rewarding career.

Within that pursuit I have obtained Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) qualifications in both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft capacities, as well as Instrument Ratings (IR) for both categories of aircraft. I have also flown both fixed wing and helicopters at night under Night Visual Metrological Conditions (NVMC) rules, (a capability brought about by the successful case of Denison vs CASA in the 1980’s). There has never been an adverse circumstance from this undertaking; i.e. night flying.

I also hold an Australian Airline Transport Pilot Licence Helicopter (ATPLH) which is the licence required for regular public transport but it is endorsed such that I cannot exercise the privileges of that licence. This is a strange imposition because although I am considered safe and capable of flying a helicopter by myself under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) at night I am further considered unsafe to fly at night in a multi crew environment most likely conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), a style of flight requiring little or no visual reference to the outside world. So it seems I am safer by myself at night than with another equally competent pilot??

Recently I received what appears to be a generic letter from CASA which seems to infer that Australian operators have been advised that anybody classified as colour vision abnormal under their employ has literally overnight become clearly unsafe and their future operational capacity as a safe pilot should be reassessed. How is this suddenly possible? How can a government body spread such apparently slanderous innuendo?

In my mind this communication appears tantamount to a legally unfair and possibly slanderous besmirchment of many safe pilots and would possibly be the ruination of many successfully proven long standing careers. This is an area beyond my capacity but it does seem that legal or at least administrative or political scrutiny toward CASA is warranted on this matter.

To that end I would like to bring to your attention the activities of the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) under the determined stewardship of Doctor Arthur Pape, (although I personally detest the term ‘defective’.) Dr Pape has at his disposal a significant amount of records in respect of the issues discussed in this letter.

As CASA is about to unilaterally destroy the careers, livelihoods and lives of many people, ostensibly on an unfounded whim, and without apparent recourse on behalf of the targeted professionals; I implore you to liaise with Dr Pape and the CVDPA in pursuit of this matter. The CVDPA may be reviewed at their website Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA). Dr Pape may be contacted directly at [email protected]

In appreciation of your positive response,

Captain XXXX

ATPLH, CPLA, B. Aviation; Certified Aviation Safety Auditor.

---

---

Mr McCormick : I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.

Mr Rule : There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.

Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?

Mr Rule : I am not across the precise number that would be—

Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?

Mr Rule : I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.

Senator FAWCETT: That would be good, but you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?

Mr Rule : Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.

Mr Rule : We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.

Senator FAWCETT: But would it be a reasonable expectation that it would be at least another $43,500 on top of what you have already spent, if not significantly more?

Mr Rule : It would not be out of the realms of possibility to accumulate another $40,000 in costs, no.

Senator FAWCETT: A very understated remark, Mr Rule, but thank you. Could I ask Mr McCormick or Mr Rule: in terms of whether or not you move ahead with this, my understanding is that you have an obligation, like any other Commonwealth department, to be a model litigant. As I look at this, there are about eight criteria to being a model litigant, and I see CASA is not performing particularly well on about five of them. Can I ask what the response has been to Mr O'Brien's request to reach a settlement before the hearing?

Mr Rule : A mediation was conducted in the early part of last year, which was ultimately unsuccessful. I was not aware of any other proposal to—

Senator FAWCETT: A letter from his lawyers written in, I think, February this year?

Mr Rule : I was not aware of the specific details of that proposal.

Senator FAWCETT: So you are planning to spend probably more than $100,000 and you are not aware of an opportunity to reach a settlement before the AAT hearing.

Mr Rule : I think that at different points along the way Mr O'Brien has suggested that he would be prepared to resolve the matter, but always on the basis that he have access to the privileges of his airline transport pilot licence. That, of course, has been the major sticking point from CASA's perspective, and the reason why those negotiations have not been successful.

Mr McCormick : I think we only have the legal costs as a total legal cost, but if you wish to give us on notice the specific areas in which you think we are not being a model litigant, then we will look at exactly what we have said in the past. As Mr Rule has said, my understanding is that up until now, there has not been any indication that Mr O'Brien wishes to retreat from the position of holding an ATP—

---

---

More recent guidelines stress the use of low contrast gray backgrounds and limited use of color.

---

---

The Australian & International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss over CASA’s handling of the Debate over colour vision deficiency CVD affected pilots.

---

---

Scrubba # 111 –"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. (my bold)."

---