For those interested...
 

Copied version of the FSF article 'Colour vision GAP'...

Color Vision GAP

By Linda Werfelman

A lack of uniformity in assessing pilots with color vision deficiency (CVD) is encouraging “aeromedical tourism,” with pilots seeking out aeromedical examiners in countries most likely to accept their particular deficiencies and issue medical certificates, according to a new study.1

The study was conducted by Dougal B. Watson, principal medical officer of the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority, and a report on its findings was published in the February issue of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.

The report concluded that “the medical assessment of CVD applicants is not performed consistently across the world. Factors that favor uniformity have been inadequate to encourage countries toward consistent medical assessment outcomes.”

This inconsistency does not conform to “the highest practicable degree of uniformity in medical assessment outcomes,” the report said.

Setting Standards CVD is an inability to see some shades of color — or, in some severe cases, an inability to see colors at all — that are seen by people with normal color vision (see “Explaining Color Vision Deficiency,” p. 36). Noting that, in aviation, color has an important role in cockpit instruments and displays, on charts “and throughout the external airborne and terrestrial environment,” the report added, “The ubiquity of color-coded information … has [led] to the importance of pilots and air traffic controllers being able to rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors.”

The report traced aviation standards for color vision to World War I, when the British Royal Flying Corps tested applicants’ color vision. “Great emphasis was laid upon perfect color vision because of the importance of picking out the color or markings of hostile machines, recognizing signal lights and judging the nature of landing grounds,” the report said, quoting from a history of aviation medicine in the Royal Air Force.2

Similar Requirements

Today, color vision standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specify that pilots must have “the ability to perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessaryfor the safe performance of duties.”3

However, the report said that the wording of the ICAO standard, as well as the flexibility given to ICAO member states in determining exactly how they will evaluate pilots’ color vision and how they will interpret the results, leads to “wide scope for variation in the examination and the assessment of applicants’ [color vision].”

The report added, “Wherever there is variation between countries in the interpretation and implementation of medical standards, there is also the potential for aeromedical tourism. Aeromedical tourism occurs when an applicant, faced with an unattractive medical assessment from one regulatory authority, seeks a more accommodating medical assessment from a different regulatory authority.”

The study examined information about 78 countries — all but one of them ICAO member states — representing 92 percent of world aviation activity and found that their national medical standards contained similar color vision requirements.

For example, in Canada, India, Pakistan, Singapore and South Africa, the requirement is for professional pilots to “perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties,” while in New Zealand, pilots must “have no deficit of colour vision to an extent that is of aeromedical significance.” European Joint Aviation Requirements call for pilots to “have normal perception of colours or be colour safe,” and U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations specify that pilots must “perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties.”

Different Methods

The study found that, in all jurisdictions, the color vision assessment process begins with a primary screening, and pilots who pass are not subject to further color vision assessment (Figure 1).

Those who fail the primary screening, however, follow different paths, depending on the requirements of the civil aviation authority in the country where they are seeking medical certification. In some countries, they are denied medical certification at that point, but in others, they undergo a secondary screening before completing the medical assessment process.

The secondary screening practices end in similarly divergent paths —those applicants who pass are issued a medical certificate, and those who fail are either denied certification, granted certification with specific conditions such as no night flight, or subjected to further investigation in the continuing assessment process.

Applicants who pass during the further-investigation phase are issued medical certification with conditions.

Those who fail either receive a medical certification with more restrictive conditions or their certification is denied.

The examination of the assessment processes found that, for pilots seeking a Class 1 medical certificate, all states began with a primary color vision screening. In 66 of the 78 member states, the primary screening consists of a single test; the remainder use two tests or more.

The report said that all but one of the states include at least one type of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plate test (Figure 2) in their primary screenings; for 88 percent, an Ishihara test was the only one in use.

The most commonly used Ishihara test involves the use of a set of 24 plates designed to assess color vision. The study found that, in 65 of the 75 states using that set, a single error on the first 15 plates results in failure.

Overall, in 74 of the 78 states, applicants who fail the primary screening are permitted to move on to a secondary screening or further investigation, the report said. In the other four states, failure on a primary screening results in denial of a medical certificate. (In one of these four states, however, the denial applies only to first-time applicants.)

The secondary screenings typically involve the use of optical lanterns and other devices designed to test color vision by asking applicants to identify the colors, but they may also involve flight tests. Sixty of the 74 states allow only one level of secondary screening, but 14 provide two or more levels, so that applicants who fail on their first attempt may undergo alternative tests.

The “further investigation” phase is used in two states, and in both, applicants who pass are restricted to daytime flights while those who fail are denied medical certification, the report said.

Failure and Inconsistency

In five of the 78 states surveyed, applicants who fail all phases of tests offered still are granted medical certification with restrictions, usually in the form of prohibitions on airline flying or night operations, the report said.

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

Among the inconsistencies noted in the report were that some states did not comply with their own published assessment processes, either using a more liberal pass-fail threshold or applying different requirements for new applicants versus experienced pilots.

Some states evaluated color vision only as part of the first application for medical certification, some tested annually, and others conducted the test every few years.

In addition, the report said, “some also accepted the [color vision] assessment of another state in lieu of their own, even when that other state’s CVD assessment protocols and outcomes were different to their own requirements.”

‘Conceptually Sound’

The report said that, although the ICAO standard is “conceptually sound and relatively concise … [it] is not readily interpreted for practical use. It does not indicate which colors need to be perceived readily for safe aviation, or what degrees of measurable CVD [fail] to comply.”

The document noted that ICAO has acknowledged the difficulties of clarifying the international color vision standard and of providing more specific criteria for assessing CVD, stating in its Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine, “The question is where to draw the line.”4

While a single-step assessment would be easier to administer and less expensive, the report said, a two-step process with a second assessment for those who fail the first step would help reduce the number of false-positives. In this way, the report said, the structure of the CVD assessment system influences the outcome of assessments.

Earlier research found that it is not unusual for people with normal color vision to misread some plates in the 24-plate Ishihara test, the most common tool for assessing color vision.

Nevertheless, errors on three or more plates almost always indicate that the person being tested has CVD.

Instructions accompanying the 1985 version of the 24-plate CVD test say that the first 15 plates are used to determine whether color vision is either normal or defective, and, if 13 of the 15 plates are read correctly, color vision should be considered normal.

The report said that the states that set a higher threshold for passing (those requiring a perfect reading of all plates, or allowing only one error) were allowing more false-positive results — in which people with normal vision are identified as having CVD.

These states may hold “fundamentally different views of the purpose of… testing,” the report said.

The same conclusion applies to states with a lower threshold for errors (six or more incorrectly read plates), the report said, noting that their goal presumably is to ensure that no one with normal vision is incorrectly identified as having CVD.

“An argument that the different systems produce similar outcomes cannot be reasonably embraced,” the report said. “Two regulatory systems will not have remotely similar medical assessment outcomes when one declines an applicant who makes one error … and another allows unrestricted commercial and limited airline pilot privileges to an applicant unable to pass any CV test.”

ICAO provides no specific guidance on how member states should determine the pass-fail threshold, the report said. 

PS Disappointed that Australia doesn't get a mention...wonder why that is??:rolleyes:

25 years of incident free flying by CVD's negates their whole argument!
They could do a whole new study working out how they got it so wrong!

In one state, one with a 25 year track record. What a twisted, self serving, mealy mouthed small comment. How dismissive, how denigrating; it may go some way to explaining the despicable 'Faraway' letters; which join the 'wish I'd never wrote it' hall of fame along with the Wodger report, came to be.

I hope AIPA get wind of this and join VIPA and AFAP in calling for an immediate retraction and apology.

Friday 13 th. Darts and a funeral.
 

For some reason (don't ask), it's a BRB tradition to host any darts challenge match on a 13 th, preferably a Friday. Anyway, the latest challenge to BRB supremacy came from a team of Englishmen, visiting firemen – (you know who you are).....One of their 'lads' is reputedly colour deficient, didn't seem to affect his ability to separate the green doubles from red trebles at will though and with some precision; mutterings of bollocks and 'ring-in' were heard often, at least during the first few rubbers.

Anyway, so much for the darts match, now to the mock funeral, held in the pubs' back yard. We buried, in effigy, with gravitas and solemnity the Australian reputation for courage, leadership, integrity and a fair go. We even borrowed a mouth organ for the last post...

Eulogy : After the commonwealth funded Dennison hearing, Australia led the world with a new benchmark for CVD pilots, courageously the medical guru's adopted the findings and a new era of hope for CVD pilots and wannabe's dawned. After 25 years we have stopped holding our collective breath and can, backed with empirical evidence support the Dennison findings. We could with a little courage, take the 'exercise' to the next logical level. But, instead of presenting the argument to the ICAO, instead of gathering the data, research and evidence and taking it to the grown ups for consideration, we regress. Australia was known as 'first rate' and could have won concessions, on credibility alone. A new star could have been born. Headline – "Australia clears the way for CVD pilots citing a 25 year safety study".

There was real, international kudos in that option. Do we take it, no; alas, what 'we' do try through very murky, devious, cowardly, unpalatable methods is to strip away those hard won concessions. Australia could have breathed hope for countless CVD, around the world by persuading ICAO that these CVD pilots have proven not to be a safety liability, but an asset.

The data is there, for example, deterioration or improvement over time could have been measured, new benchmarks set from refined analysis (for or against), hell there was probably a PhD in it for someone if done properly. The data may have proved or disproved the case: who knows. A quarter century worth of research important data left laying in the mud, alongside regulatory reform – makes you wonder don't it; just a bit.

ICAO could, (with suitable rump protection devices installed) have sanctioned an easement (for those who had the balls to try it) of CVD discrimination. Now that boys and girls, would be an achievement to be proud of.

The incontinent antics of the CASA in this latest embarrassing, cowardly, despicable actions make me ashamed. It's to be hoped our troops, sportsmen and business folks don't catch the same disease, be a hell of a mess. Can you imagine a – "Wallabies chicken out of match – competition too tough", - headline. Nah, it's too unnatural, for the true blue, ridgy didge to even think about.

Gold for Australia ?– NO. The cup of Dross and Shame is the prize for Australia in the Shambollic stakes. A.K.A. The race to the bottom.....

Flags at half mast on the houseboat, 'til morning tea. Muffins this morning I'm informed, must be, the elephants are lining up at the galley window.

Heigh ho.

Medical VOR (voices of reason) v PMO BASR
 

Submission 100:

This submission is a personal submission in relation to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS)

Background:
I am a medical practitioner in General Practice in Geelong, Victoria. I hold an Australian Commercial Pilot Licence, a Multi-Engine Command Instrument Rating (MECIR) (not current), I am a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME) for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). , and in 1976 I started an examination of the ACPS that was driven by a conviction that the rationale then being given for the restrictions imposed on pilots with a CVD did not make sense. This work, after some twenty years of investigation and, led eventually to a challenge by myself in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) whereby I sought to have the restriction on night flying removed from my Private Pilot Licence (PPL). This appeal was successful.

In the months following the appeal outcome, it became clear that the Authority of that time (1987) was unwilling to pass on the success of my appeal to any other similarly affected pilots. This fact led to a second appeal, in which I was intimately involved, whereby the wider issues involved in the ACPS were to be examined by the AAT for all classes of CVD and all levels of Pilot Licencing. This appeal was conducted in the name of Hugh Jonathan Denison, but was in fact, and by mutual consent between the parties, a broad-ranging ‘Test Case’ for all CVD pilots. The appeal was won in 1989 by the appellant and the restriction on night flying was subsequently removed for all classes of CVD. It was agreed by the parties that the Denison AAT decision should be promoted internationally as the most comprehensive and thorough examination of all the evidence pertaining to the topic of the ACPS

Without labouring the point too much, with the rational support of Aviation Medical Directors Rob Liddell, Jeff Brock and Peter Wilkins, many pilots who had earlier been prohibited from flying a small aeroplane at night, now found themselves, after the Denison Decision, able to seek employment as First Officers and Captains in the major airlines of this country. I have no access to data held by CASA, but I estimate there are many hundreds of Australian and immigrant pilots who have forged unrestricted careers over the intervening 25 years since the Denison decision. Their safety record is, to the best of my knowledge, without blemish.

In the last 30 years I have addressed numerous national and international aviation medical meetings on the topic of the ACPS and the significance of the Australian experience in promoting a rational and evidence-based approach to not only colour perception regulations, but aviation medical standards in general.

However, in recent times, it has become apparent that not everyone is happy with this situation, and this is particularly so in the current medical staff of the Office of Aviation Medical in CASA. Some see the state of affairs that has existed for a quarter of a century in this country as a weakness and in breach of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). The current Principal Medical Officer (PMO), Dr Pooshan Navathe, has made his opinion quite clear in a recent statement of evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and has set about unilaterally dismantling the privileges that CVD pilots have enjoyed, as I have said, for a quarter of a century. There are instances where pilots who had been earlier assessed as competent and safe notwithstanding their CVD status, and who had amassed many tens of thousands of hours of “safe performance of duties”, have in the last few months had restriction re-imposed that they had not suffered for decades. This unilateral development flies in the face of a complete absence of any reported safety issues throughout their careers.

What appears to have triggered this frantic and senseless behaviour is that a pilot who has NOT been afforded a completely unrestricted medical certificate as a consequence of his performance on some of the residual colour vision testing regimens, has lodged an appeal with the AAT whereby he is seeking to have those remaining restrictions removed. The appeal should have been a simple matter of evaluating the practical relevance of a device called the control tower signal gun, which employs coloured lights to convey, ostensibly, directions between the tower and an aircraft with a known radio failure. The basis of the appeal was to be that the control tower signal gun is never used in Regular Public Transport operations, and that in the extremely improbable event of a total radio failure, communications should be established using modern cell phone or satellite phone technology. Many pilots even with severe forms of CVD have passed the Control Tower Signal Gun Test, and as a result have been passed as “meeting the standard”. There are captains in each of our major airlines who owe their careers to the passing of this test.

There are two matters I wish to raise in regard to this appeal and to the measures taken by Dr Navathe in the interval since the appeal was lodged. The first is that the appeal in question legitimately sought to have an independent adjudication of a matter that CASA was unable to resolve, namely the relevance of the particular test being employed to differentiate between those who might be classed as “Safe” and those who should be considered “Unsafe” in respect of their CVD status. On the basis of the reasons for the appeal, the AAT allowed basiclly three days of hearing. However, Dr Navathe is turning this particular appeal process into a ‘de-facto’ appeal against the earlier Pape and Denison AAT decisions, with the stated aim of making Australia once again a strict and literal adherent the ACPS. His aim is to align Australian practice with that of New Zealand, a jurisdiction that has punitive restrictions in place for all but the mildest of CVD aircrew. My understanding is that Dr Navathe played a significant role in bringing about the New Zealand version of the ACPS. He intends to call many overseas witness in his endeavour to reverse the Australian implementation, which in my opinion is already fully compliant with the ICAO SARPs.

The second, is that the net result of this litigious approach by CASA is that there has been a huge cost blow-out for both the CASA and for the pilot who has lodged this appeal. It is estimated that CASA is likely to spend at least $600,000 on this appeal, and that the candidate’s costs are likely to be in the order of $3-400,000. This situation is nothing short of ludicrous. There is no safety case to support this approach by CASA, and is seen by many in the industry as outright bullying of the candidate.

In summary, Australia, as a direct consequence of the AAT appeals quoted, and in compliance with undertakings made by the Authority in the second AAT (Denison), as well as with the active support and involvement of three earlier Directors of Aviation Medicine, has led the world in bringing about a far more rational approach to the issue of the ACPS. The current legal manoeuvrings of the Office of Aviation Medicine are unjustified, extremely expensive and without any safety case to support them.

I make this submission in good faith and conscience. I am willing to provide further evidence if that is deemed necessary.

Dr Arthur Pape


Dr Robert Liddell - Submission 69

vs

Kharon Quote!


"hell there was probably a PhD in it for someone if done properly"


Jeez Kharon the head doctor could even get a REAL professorship!!


Had some dealings with a Chinese gentleman, a jeweler way back when, profoundly colour blind, yet I would trust his judgment on the quality and colour of a diamond or the fire in an opal, I think the whole CAsA argument is fallacious.

Another enlightening article

Latest News | Pro Aviation

To all the CVD's that have had and are having their careers due to the relentless drive of Dr A Pape and other medical professionals that were forward thinking at the time. To all the non CVD's that know that this is Bull*#@t. I know its a new concept but help out your fellow pilots.

Get on board and put your money where your mouth is. The threat of the powers to be over running the upcoming AAT case with legal fee's is very real. If the case is found in favour of "The New Science" it will just empower them.

http://www.cvdpa.com/your-support/donate

True dat Bill, this is not simply a matter of a few being hammered out of existence. It reflects the current ethos – on a whim or subjective opinion, your career may be ended. Be afraid kids, be very afraid......The Boogie man may have departed the fix, but his minions remain and they will seek pay-back, unless there is an end to unlimited power being in the hands of an unprincipled few.

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!’
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear.

Willyleaks.
 

Dear John.

Whilst the well being and future of CVD pilots is not a priority to you, it is important you robustly grasp the concept that perhaps, just maybe, it is of some importance (germane even) to them; given their need to put bread on the table and beer in the fridge.

The Shambollic system for the embuggerance of a minority group has the potential to get out of hand; what if the press or the Caucus got onto it? I hope you prevented young Faraway from sending those letters out, because if one of those ever leaked out the jig will be up. You see, once the real world grasps, through the CVD matter how you have been running the show, all hell is going to break loose. Because as we both know, once they get the idea that you and the boys have been systematically embuggering peoples lives, all semblance of credibility flies out of the window and into the ****ter.

It would be tragic if the public ever found out about the Quadrio or James aberrations, not to mention 'the other ones', those on the dole. There are just too many to comfortably cover up. So be a good chap and at least consider the consequences of a backlash, if this ever gets out.

L&K Gobbledock.

Clothing Advisor to the Empoorer.

To: Herr Skull cc: Doc cc: TF
 

Dear John

Was just doing am SOP 1 (i.e. pprune trolling) and had the following pass across my desktop.

CASA crackdown threatens to ground colour blind pilots


Hundreds of colour blind pilots have been put on notice they could be grounded as air safety authorities consider tightening medical requirements for the vision impaired.


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to 500 aviation licence holders, including 124 commercial pilots working for Virgin, regional airlines and freight companies, warning them it is reviewing new research into ''colour vision deficiency''.


In a separate letter, CASA has asked 900 companies that employ Australian pilots to consider their position on vision impairment.


''I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator's Certificate who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA's further determination of the matter,'' wrote CASA's Industry Permissions manager Peter Fereday on June 5.


Colour blind pilots have been able to co-pilot some passenger planes in Australia for the past 25 years since two landmark cases in the 1980s at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.


Dr Arthur Pape, a pilot who brought one case said there was ''not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that pilots have made so much as a scratch on an aeroplane as a result of colour vision impairment'' in that time. ''Those pilots have been impeccable,'' he said.


Pilots must still complete a ''signal gun control tower test'' to distinguish between red and green lights in the case of radio failure even though the modern protocol is to call in on a mobile phone in that event.
CASA has written to pilots who failed colour perception requirements as part of their class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.


A group representing Virgin pilots, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association, is fighting CASA on the issue and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has already responded to the regulator's letter.


''The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith,'' it wrote.


CASA said the latest medical research was a paper written by Dougal B Watson, principal medical officer at New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority which compared regulatory regimes across the world.


Liberal senator David Fawcett, a former flying instructor and test pilot, has questioned whether the research CASA is relying on is even relevant, saying the regulator was ''undermining the careers'' of hundreds of pilots.
He has written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, responsible for CASA, urging a full evidence-based study based on 25 years of accident-free flying.

The trouble is it seems to be in some sort of code as I can only read the fourth paragraph and the last paragraph.


Could you possibly get your Bored lacky to decipher as I think it means we maybe in trouble.


L&Ks

PG

:E

Correct me if I'm wrong....
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but, this new evidence that CASA (Pooshan) is bringing to the table is conducted by his former boss at the NZCAA. How is this not a conflict of interest, especially when he was recommended to the CASA job by him?

Now that we 'colour blind' are 'vision impaired', do we get to park in the disabled parking??::rolleyes:

Not only have we been 'allowed to co-pilot some aeroplanes', we have also been able to fly sometimes life saving critical missions, single-pilot in all weather and night in high performance aircraft, amongst many other things, safely for the last 25 years!!

Fort Fumble spin merchant PG, earns his keep!
 

FF comes out fighting...:yuk::yuk::yuk:

Colour blind pilots will not be grounded in Australia following study: CASA

Posted 26 minutes ago

Australia's flight regulator has rejected suggestions that it is planning to ground pilots with colour vision deficiency, commonly referred to as colour blindness.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) wrote to about 500 aviation licence holders and 900 employers of pilots on June 5 advising that the authority would be reviewing new research into colour vision deficiency.

In the letter CASA's industry permissions manager Peter Fereday encouraged operators to "consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges" under current regulations, and whether safety adjustments were needed "pending CASA's further determination of the matter".

Today, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the changes would be years in the making.

"There's certainly nothing for any Australian pilot who has colour vision issues to be concerned about," Mr Gibson said.

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."

Colour vision deficiency pilots have been able to fly in Australia for more than two decades.

Mr Gibson said any changes to regulation in Australia would be subject to extensive consultation.

"If there is any change to the way that colour vision issues are approached in Australia, there'll be full consultation with pilots and the aviation industry, they'll get a chance to put their views forward, and that will take place over many months, possibly even into years," he said.

But Dr Arthur Pape, an aviation medical examiner, who is also a pilot with colour vision deficiency, said he was concerned by the review's ramifications for pilots.

"We've had reassurances from CASA before and these recent letters they've sent out... do not indicate that we have nothing to worry about," Dr Pape said.

"They are very aggressive and they are not based in evidence.

"[I'm not concerned] necessarily that pilots could be grounded, but certainly their careers could be negatively impacted and their jobs become untenable."

About 400 colour blind pilots in Australia

The new research, conducted by New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority principal medical officer Dougal B. Watson, looked at how 78 countries assess colour vision deficient pilots.

The study found that while the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) required that pilots have "the ability to perceive readily those colours... necessary for the safe performance of duties", there was great variation across the aviation world as to how standards were applied.

Mr Watson found the inconsistency could encourage "'aero medical tourism" where prospective pilots sought to sit their medical assessments in countries most likely to allow them to fly.

In Australia, Dr Pape won a landmark cases at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia in 1987 and 1989, when he challenged Department of Aviation restrictions on him flying at night.

"Those tribunal hearings constituted the most comprehensive impartial review of the aviation colour perception standard ever conducted anywhere in the world," he said.

"Since 1989 we've had a significant number, perhaps hundreds of commercial pilots who have had careers with senior airlines and regional airlines, and their performance has been no less safe than pilots with normal colour vision."

According to CASA, out of 36,000 Australian pilots, about 400 have colour vision deficiency and of those, 140 flew commercial operations.

"In general the approach we take in Australia is to try to let as many people be pilots as possible, taking into account medical conditions and any effect they may have on safety," Mr Gibson said.

"We certainly put safety first, but we don't try to restrict people unless it's absolutely necessary and that's the approach we're taking to colour vision issues."

According to the authority's website, Australia was more flexible than other countries to colour deficiency disorder.Applicants who do not pass the Ishihara test could still be offered a certificate "restricted to day Visual Flight Rules only".


Hands up who believes the PG spin-meister??:rolleyes:

Spin Master
 

Call him the spin master or the Janitor cleaning up after the god awful mess the PMO has made of this whole situation!:ugh:

Tosh and Bollocks.
 

Sure it is: which is why CASA are bringing, at public expense a 12 man (all good and true – we wonder) jury from overseas, to assist them in the tribunal hearing against one, lone pilot, fighting to progress his career despite a CV deficiency; which according to CASA PMO, prevents this – "it's a safety issue" they bleat in unison. Mind you, this adversarial, combative stance is taken without a shred of credible, scientific evidence, new or old, to the contrary being 'published'. Perhaps someone could explain that magazine articles and seminar discussion papers with tricky photographs, just don't cut the mustard, in the publish or perish world of academia.

This farce is to be prosecuted despite not only this pilots faultless safety record, but that of many other CVD pilots, accumulated over thousands of flight hours, in all weather conditions, day and night over the past 25 years. All without a single accident proven to be to CVD related...The hearing, by the by, will cost an estimated AUD $1,000,000 ish, all up.

So, everyone reading here was "consulted" before the decision to clandestinely institute the 'new' Shambollic system through the AAT hearing against O'Brien?. Really – Fawcett is onto the game, so beware the night vision expert.

Were the Faraway letters considered as 'the consultation'?; that's not what some legal advice says....The letters to Operators (employers) and pilots were an abhorrence which typified the CASA method of 'managing' industry objections. You don't have to believe me – just read the submissions to the Truss review, the story is there in black, white and plain English. (PC for the CVD perhaps).
The fact is, the very litigious, aggressive medical department is out of touch with reality; bloated with arrogance, running on whim and selective, subjective opinion. Once again, the story is there in the submissions to the Minister Truss ordered Forsyth review. Think on, would that review have been called if this was all hat and no cattle. The review is embarrassing – not least of all to the minister, who, to his credit is standing behind the essential 37 recommendations, of which a large proportion are sheeted home to the CASA.

Good to see the CASA smoke and mirrors machine still operates; it should, the amount of money it costs the public purse. But if this load of old tosh and bollocks is the best it can generate – time for an overhaul methinks.

Selah.

(Senate at 1600 – maybe 1700 (+/-) for the WLR. GW&WP.

Let's not forget what the implications are for future pilots with CVD. While current CVD pilots may indeed be shielded by some sort of "grand father" clause, this will not be the case for young kids starting their aviation careers henceforth. I suggest that if there is a safety case to be made now (which I refute totally) then the logical line should be that all CVD pilots should be stood down, past, present and future. One rule, no exceptions. The New Zealand CAA did away with practical assessments some years ago and instigated the most draconian implementation of the ACPS, but had a "grandfather" clause. The name Dougall Watson keeps cropping up in the NZ story). So in NZ, there are professional airline pilots who would fail the CAD if they had to sit it today, but who nevertheless are spared the embarrassment (mainly to the CAA NZ) of being stood down. One of my main aims is to restore accessibility to aviation careers for the young future applicants whose prospects Pooshan has already flushed down the toilet.

Sarcs How do you know it's the fourth paragraph, then?

CoftC Totally agree.

Nearly 23 years in aviation and I am CVD - Protanope (red, green deficient). 13 years of instructing, most as Muti Engine Grade 1 including AMSA approved pilot in a Tier 1 Search & Rescue unit. 2.5 years as an FO on jet transport category aircraft - night freight. 7 years single pilot aeromedical flying with 3 years on EFIS. CAR 217 CASA approved Supervisory Pilot.

Maybe I should prep my wheelchair! Apparently I am an "inherent risk to the safety of aviation" according to the CASA PMO.

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges.
Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

[/url]http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/...ps19d4439a.jpg[/URL]

"According to CASA, out of 36,000 Australian pilots, about 400 have colour vision deficiency and of those, 140 flew commercial operations."

If 8% of males are CVD, not so sure about the accuracy of the above statement?

From #190, "Applicants who do not pass the Ishihara test could still be offered a certificate "restricted to day Visual Flight Rules only"."
Is that a new restriction ??

I am confused, because from CASA in their " Medical Certification frequently asked questions" there is the following ;
"Can I get a medical if I am colour blind?
Not if you are going to be an ATC or fly ATPL. OK if going commercial or PPL."

So how the heck can you fly IFR with a 'day 'Visual Flight Rules only' restriction from #190 ?

Every one of these lying bastards needs to be fired right now.

My post reposted from elsewhere .

If ever there was concrete evidence for increasing the levels of uncertainty, ,Peter Gibson provides it:

CASA is deliberately and in a calculated manner spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the minds of colour blind pilots. their employers and potential pilots. This is just plain wrong and nasty **** on so many levels I don't know where to start. It can have absolutely no positive effect on safety levels, in fact if it leads to stress among pilots it willl have the reverse effect.

I have nothing but contempt for the arseholes who constructed this scheme.

To put that another way; even if there is new convincing, indisputable evidence that color blindness is a safety hazard in some aviation related circumstance, then you don't promulgate this fact this way. You present the information as fact, determine the preferred response to it and make a rule.

Furthermore, unless this shyte is stopped in its tracks right now, there will be other assaults on a variety of health conditions, the most obvious next one up is Sleep Apnoea. CASA will require anyone with a BMI over a certain level (ie: Fat) to spend $3000 - $4000 on a sleep test and specialist advice. Readers are invited to list further health issues that could attract attention, There is no end to this mess if it starts.

Since ar$e/elbow confusion appears to be a mandatory requirement for employment at CAsA, perhaps we can start there?:*

I have nothing but contempt for the arseholes who constructed this scheme.


There is only one constructee , Pooshan !!!!!!!!!!!

Dr Pape on SBS
 

Colour-blind pilot challenges licence restrictions




By Greg Dyett

Source World News Radio
19 Jun 2014 - 1:12 PM UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
A pilot with colour vision deficiency is challenging restrictions on his licence which he says are discriminatory.

First Officer John O'Brien is preparing to challenge the restrictions in a hearing in Brisbane next month.

He's been unable to pass what's known as the control tower signal gun test.

The test is based around the scenario of when red and green lights are used by the control tower when radio contact is lost.

It's considered outdated by some in the aviation sector because pilots can use their mobile phone to communicate with the control tower if radio contact fails.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to pilots, airlines and freight companies warning them that it's considering tightening the medical requirements for pilots with colour vision deficiency.

Dr Arthur Pape from the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association told Greg Dyett, CASA's crackdown could be related to the pending court hearing.
(Click on the audio tab above to hear the full interview)

Rightfully miffed.
 

It's good to see and very right that the 'unions' have taken a position on this; well done. It's fairly easy for them to 'get it', they understand the core issues. Pleased to find the 'media' are taking an interest, I managed to listen to the Pape radio interviews from yesterday and pretty much knowing what Arthur was talking about, I 'listened' to the interviewer; it's clear they don't 'get it'. From a lay perspective the issue must seem as arse about and complex to them, as it is clear cut to 'us'.

For example, Joe Public would not know that if a CVD 'Co-pilot' is flying the sector, the decisions and management of the flight (to all intents and purposes) are made by the CVD pilot; just the same as being Captain. The issue is that CASA say the CVD cannot be 'captain', despite passing all the required 'flight tests' etc. Simply because of a deficiency, identified in a test to establish that there is, indeed a different perception of how colours i.e. red and green are 'seen'. This doesn't mean they can't see them, they just see them differently.

For Joe, the issue is simple one, is this safe? I wonder how many grateful passengers, safely delivered to destination would have known, guessed or cared that the pilot who just nursed a sick beast, through a stormy sky to a soft landing on schedule at dark o'clock, had a little trouble differentiating some shades of colours from others. Joe can relax – the CVD tribe all over the world have been operating very safely, for many years; in Australia for a quarter century.

So despite an impeccable 'safety' track record, and demonstrating that they [CVD] can safely perform their duties, any time, anywhere, in all conditions, thousands of times they can 'act' as captain, but cannot 'be' a captain. Now for some strange reason, CASA intend to challenge a 25 year old tenet, which has served industry well. The fury is generated not by the notion, although unpalatable; but by the default methodology they have elected to use to regress rather than move forward. This despite a clear ICAO guideline, scientific data, a commonwealth funded joint 'hearing' and a 25 year safety record.

.

My bold.

Posted elsewhere due mergeded posts.
 

It would appear that CasA are shirking any hint at adherence to the recommendations, namely recommendation 30 below, which is self explanatory and contradictory given the letter previously posted, Extract below.
The action taken by CasA provides that the applicant must pay to prove his stated previously satisfactory condition and clearly moves the burden of proof from the regulator to the pilot and fails to give the DAME the recommended freedoms to exercise his/her ability to renew aviation medical certificates. If the DAME recommends the pilot be further assessed it is his responsibility, not CasA’s.


No doubt these will become "renew by CASA only" medicals and the AVMED Branch continue unabated and unshackled as before.


Is this the first Nigerian in the woodpile?
　


" QUOTE" 30. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination. "QUOTE’


"QUOTE" At the resent time, CASA is aware that CAD testing in Australia is only offered by Dr Elizabeth Livingstone, Designated Aviation Opthalmologist at the Livingstone Eye Clinic in Sydney (61-2) 9362-5820. Please note appointments are necessaryand there will be a fee charged. Any expense incurred will be your responsibility. "QUOTE"

More spin and lies from CASA
 

Vision row: CASA clears the air (The Australian)

And two days ago...

Colour blind pilots will not be grounded in Australia following study: CASA

How does Mr Gibson explain Bill Smith's letter? :=

Or how about the extra restrictions they imposed on O'Brien's medical earlier this year before he had even got to the AAT? :=

Or how about the new restrictions on their own website? :=

Medical certification frequently asked questions

Mr Gibson, the above statement makes it clear that CASA has already reviewed the CVD policies and there was no consultation with the industry. While the "regulations" themselves may not have changed, the testing processes and the colour vision waivers that have existed since 1989 definitely have.

If the three levels of CVD testing are failed, new Class 1 applicants will be denied certification. Class 2 applicants will be restricted to Day VFR only. This has not been the case for over 25 years!

If Bill Smith's letter is anything to go by, it is only a matter of time before existing medical holders receive the same treatment.

CASA's statements to the media are nothing but pure spin and lies and someone needs to be held accountable.... Where's the "Adjunct Associate Professor" been this week? :=

It would seem that the only "pending review" that CASA is waiting on is the outcome of the O'Brien AAT case. If that is the case, then it should be funded as a test case accordingly, just like Denison in 1989.

Brissy, the circumlocutions used by CASA lead me to ask the one final question which goes to the heart of the problems of CASA - trust, uncertainty and all the rest.

Could I be forgiven for believing that any communication, written or spoken, from CASA cannot be relied upon?

To put that another way, could I be forgiven for wondering if every CASA communication is a lie?

This is why I said that anyone who values their reputation who works for CASA is going to have to consider whether their reputation can survive employment by CASA.

The entire colour blindness matter needs to be immediately vacated by CASA. Not to do so brings the entire organisation into disrepute, if it wasn't in disrepute already.

Statistical relevance.
 

Kahren, Arthur and Sunfish, ya blood's worth bottling!

So, we have (at least) 400 cvd pilots in Australia. Let's just assume that each of these pilots has flown an average of 5,000 hrs in commercial operations ( I have flown 14,000+ on a professional ticket). This means that there has been at least 400x5,000 hrs flown, in Australia alone, by cvd pilots. That there has been NOT One incident or accident attributed to cvd over this statistically significant period means that ther is NO 'safety case'.

This is 2 frickin' MILLION flying hours in Oz alone! Consider also the number of cvd pilots in the rest of the world and you get an idea of the incredible statistical weight of evidence that says that these pustules of filth in CASA are totally wrong.

We have the example of the John McC in Senate estimates bleating on about "safety cases" and some singular obscure accident ina B727 which did not attribute the cause to cvd anyway. Then, they cite some "medical research" as backing their case. Really? In fact, the research actually deals with the diversity of cvd treatment across a variety of administrations and does NOT even make a judgement regarding safety issues and cvd.

Clearly, these clowns are full of sh!t. An argument such as theirs would be totally torn to shreds in a year 11 Engish class. Do they SERIOUSLY think that Senator Fawcett and rest rest of the thinking community would not see right through this. The truth is that the fraternity of DAMEs have no confidence in the current regime. The beauty of this is that these d!ckheads have pretty much signed their career death warrants. :p

The thought crossed my mind...how many accidents in the past 25 years can be attributed to Non colour deficient pilots?....compared to accidents that can be attributed to colour deficient pilots?...


answer Lots and lots...and Non !!


Therefore using CAsA and the skulls oft stated policy of safety management
should it not be the case that you MUST be colour deficient before you can gain a pilots licence????

Actually, the research does make a judgment, in the form of the premise asserted at the start of the paper:The premise is false.

This point is critically important: The premise is false.

The attack must be on that premise (and the intellectual dishonesty apparent in the failure to test the validity of the basic premise). If you focus your energy on the efficacy of the different tests to confirm the existence and severity of colour deficiencies, you are falling into the trap of implicitly affirming the validity of the basic premise.

It's no different from a paper that says:

Hot off the press: ABC's 7.30 Report Queensland tonight:
Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

ABC 7.30 Report on CVD Pilots
 

Well done to the ABC Qld 7.30 Report :ok:

A great story featuring interviews with Senator Fawcett, John O'Brien, Dr Rob Liddell & VIPA Executive Director Simon O'Hara. :D

See www.cvdpa.com for a full summary of all the recent developments!

"And no one was available from CAsA to comment on camera."

Possibly too busy on a Friday afternoon sending out nastygrams? :yuk:

Bravo Aunty, well done troops.
 

Top marks ABC Queensland; and nicely done boys.

The Creampuff nutshell. As usual, Creamy on song and bang on target.
n) a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

v) base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
The 35 day Denison hearing covered the CVD issue comprehensively; there is little to further discuss except the 25 year safety record. Even that is not really cause for another expensive, time consuming 're-hash'. There are much more serious medical issues for the minister to be concerned with, the evidence is contained within the submissions to and conclusions drawn within the Forsyth report. CASA Avmed is a basket case, the butt of DAME jokes and about as much use as a chocolate fire guard; this we could live with. But a short study of the Hempel fatal accident clearly defines the rampant incompetence, a willingness to shade facts as, where and when required. This is not the purpose of medical ADMINISTRATION. Neither is it 'their' job to question and re examine every medical certificate extended; either the DAME are to be trusted or they are not.

Someone may know how many countries do not have the additional filtering and subjective judgement of fitness to fly system which is inflicted on Australia. In the USA for example – the medical examiner simply checks the candidate and signs off the certificate – done and dusted. I expect there is a layer of administration to 'rule' on disputes, but by and large, the examiner is trusted to know whether a pilot is fit or not.

The Forsyth review identifies problems in each and every CASA department, not least of all with Avmed. The entire CASA system from board to clerical is dysfunctional, moribund and at least morally corrupt. This edifice as it stands costs an enormous amount to sustain and has not provided one single, tangible 'safety' outcome. Apart from wasting millions, destroying business, allowing travesties like Hempel, persecuting the likes of Reddish and Quadrio, shutting down operations like Barrier and Polar; they also have the brass to 'flip the bird' at the Senate, ignore Forsyth and will, without doubt, treat the Truss efforts with thinly veiled contempt.

Save the public purse from the O'Brien (CVD) matter, that can be dealt with without another 35 day 'hearing'; Minister, if you are serious about reform, open an inquiry and learn the sad truth of why your aviation industry is the object of scorn, ridicule and sympathy, in equal amounts, from it's peers.

To shove a wet noodle up a tigers arse one needs determination, fortitude, a bloody big stick and balls; big ones. Turn the Senate team loose minister, let them run a real inquiry. Grand-mama always said "it's better to take the lid off than have the pot boil over".

Saturday mixed metaphors, sure – but why not.

Selah.

CAsA true colours exposed
 

Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions

Hundreds of pilots with colour vision deficiency fear they could be grounded by CASA as a Queensland pilot mounts a legal challenge to restrictions on his licence.
Maria Hatzakis
Source: 7.30 Queensland | Duration: 7min 34sec
Topics: eyes, air-transport, brisbane-4000
Transcript


MATT WORDSWORTH: Our love of flying seems to know no bounds with passenger numbers expected to reach record levels again at Brisbane airport this year. But commercial pilots who are colour blind fear they could be grounded due to their condition. The civil aviation safety authority has written to them and their employers warning that it's considering new research into the safety of flying with a colour vision deficiency. While CASA says existing pilots have no immediate cause for concern Unions say the authority's already tightened flying restrictions for new pilots. The furore comes as a Queensland commercial pilot prepares for a legal challenge next month to have restrictions on his licence removed. Maria Hatzakis reports.


(FOOTAGE OF PILOTS GETTING READY TO TAKE OFF)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Some 36,000 pilots are licensed to fly in Australia about 400 of those are colour blind. There's been debate for decades over whether, a pilot who can't tell the difference between some colours can still fly safely.


DAVID FAWCETT, LIBERAL SENATOR: There are two schools of thought. There are some people who because of the theory that says the ability to distinguish red and green is important have always maintained that you must not allow somebody with a colour vision deficiency to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN, PILOT: Even when it comes to driving a car for example, there's colours everywhere and it's the same with aviation as well but there's not one instance in aviation where it's critical to actually be able to name colours that you see.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN PLANE ON RUNWAY)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Pilots with a colour deficiency have been able to co-pilot commercial planes and fly recreationally in Australia for the past 25 years but they're banned from captaining a multi-crew commercial plane. Queensland pilot John O'Brien believes that's unfair. He's launched a legal challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to force the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to remove restrictions on his licence.


JOHN O'BRIEN: At the moment because of my current colour vision restrictions, it prevents me from becoming a captain so, even though I've now flown as a first officer for over 2000 hours in, for the past four years and along with the advice and recommendations of all the colleagues that I fly with, my medical restrictions still prevent me from doing that.


MARIA HATZAKIS: But as next month's hearing approached CASA tightened regulations for new pilots making it harder for those with colour vision deficiency to fly.


(FOOTAGE OF LETTER FROM CASA)


MARIA HATZAKIS: It also wrote to existing colour blind pilots and their employers, warning them it's considering new research and may need to take action.


SIMON O'HARA, VIRGIN INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSN.: We have been approached by members, who have received these letters, they're very disturbed by these developments, and this has come out of the blue for them so they've contacted this office in quite an agitated state.


JOHN O'BRIEN: People are I think certainly upset they're scared, about what their future is now in aviation. I know quite a few guys who are in exactly the same situation as myself they've been flying for many thousands of hours over many many years and now they got this prospect of having their careers ended, all on the opinions of a few individuals within CASA.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA says it will be presenting expert medical advice at the Tribunal hearing next month which supports its position and while it hasn't grounded any pilots it's trying to keep them and their employers informed. Unions are worried.


SIMON O'HARA: And they refer to medical evidence, we haven't seen that, they haven't engaged with us to talk us through or provide us with articles relating to what they rely upon in so far as that medical evidence.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN COCKPIT)


SIMON O'HARA: These pilots have to undergo rigorous check and line training, they've flown thousands of hours, there's no evidence that they are any different to any other pilot and we view this very seriously.


MARIA HATZAKIS: The Australian Federation of Air pilots believes it's unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies to consider their pilots' fitness to fly. Qantas and Virgin are considering the letters while REX Airlines says it's very concerned.


GRAPHIC:
and is "not capable" and "in no way qualified to make any assessment" of the research.


ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.


ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.


MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.


ROB LIDDELL: I would have thought it's a beautiful opportunity to conduct research. Keep these people employed follow them through very closely so we might be able to tell the rest of the world ultimately that there appears to be no reason why a colour defective pilot can't fly safely.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA maintains any further changes would be a long way off. But that hasn't settled the nerves of those who've been seeking even more freedom to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN: When I first applied at the AAT it was really an attempt to be able to progress my career. So they're actually turning it into a fight of not just the ability to progress my career but now just the ability to even maintain my career as it stands.


MATT WORDSWORTH: And no-one from CASA was available to comment on camera.:ugh:

Not like Peter to be lost for words??:E

Hi Folks. I'm posting the following on behalf of a pilot who wants to remain anonymous, for fear of retribution by CASA. It is a letter the pilot has sent to three senators. I know it has all been said before, but it warrants repeating.
Cheers,
A.P.







June 20 2014










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 www.cvdpa.com. 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.

CAsA true colours exposed
 

Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions

Hundreds of pilots with colour vision deficiency fear they could be grounded by CASA as a Queensland pilot mounts a legal challenge to restrictions on his licence.
Maria Hatzakis
Source: 7.30 Queensland | Duration: 7min 34sec
Topics: eyes, air-transport, brisbane-4000
Transcript


MATT WORDSWORTH: Our love of flying seems to know no bounds with passenger numbers expected to reach record levels again at Brisbane airport this year. But commercial pilots who are colour blind fear they could be grounded due to their condition. The civil aviation safety authority has written to them and their employers warning that it's considering new research into the safety of flying with a colour vision deficiency. While CASA says existing pilots have no immediate cause for concern Unions say the authority's already tightened flying restrictions for new pilots. The furore comes as a Queensland commercial pilot prepares for a legal challenge next month to have restrictions on his licence removed. Maria Hatzakis reports.


(FOOTAGE OF PILOTS GETTING READY TO TAKE OFF)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Some 36,000 pilots are licensed to fly in Australia about 400 of those are colour blind. There's been debate for decades over whether, a pilot who can't tell the difference between some colours can still fly safely.


DAVID FAWCETT, LIBERAL SENATOR: There are two schools of thought. There are some people who because of the theory that says the ability to distinguish red and green is important have always maintained that you must not allow somebody with a colour vision deficiency to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN, PILOT: Even when it comes to driving a car for example, there's colours everywhere and it's the same with aviation as well but there's not one instance in aviation where it's critical to actually be able to name colours that you see.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN PLANE ON RUNWAY)


MARIA HATZAKIS: Pilots with a colour deficiency have been able to co-pilot commercial planes and fly recreationally in Australia for the past 25 years but they're banned from captaining a multi-crew commercial plane. Queensland pilot John O'Brien believes that's unfair. He's launched a legal challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to force the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to remove restrictions on his licence.


JOHN O'BRIEN: At the moment because of my current colour vision restrictions, it prevents me from becoming a captain so, even though I've now flown as a first officer for over 2000 hours in, for the past four years and along with the advice and recommendations of all the colleagues that I fly with, my medical restrictions still prevent me from doing that.


MARIA HATZAKIS: But as next month's hearing approached CASA tightened regulations for new pilots making it harder for those with colour vision deficiency to fly.


(FOOTAGE OF LETTER FROM CASA)


MARIA HATZAKIS: It also wrote to existing colour blind pilots and their employers, warning them it's considering new research and may need to take action.


SIMON O'HARA, VIRGIN INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSN.: We have been approached by members, who have received these letters, they're very disturbed by these developments, and this has come out of the blue for them so they've contacted this office in quite an agitated state.


JOHN O'BRIEN: People are I think certainly upset they're scared, about what their future is now in aviation. I know quite a few guys who are in exactly the same situation as myself they've been flying for many thousands of hours over many many years and now they got this prospect of having their careers ended, all on the opinions of a few individuals within CASA.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA says it will be presenting expert medical advice at the Tribunal hearing next month which supports its position and while it hasn't grounded any pilots it's trying to keep them and their employers informed. Unions are worried.


SIMON O'HARA: And they refer to medical evidence, we haven't seen that, they haven't engaged with us to talk us through or provide us with articles relating to what they rely upon in so far as that medical evidence.


(MORE FOOTAGE OF PILOTS IN COCKPIT)


SIMON O'HARA: These pilots have to undergo rigorous check and line training, they've flown thousands of hours, there's no evidence that they are any different to any other pilot and we view this very seriously.


MARIA HATZAKIS: The Australian Federation of Air pilots believes it's unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies to consider their pilots' fitness to fly. Qantas and Virgin are considering the letters while REX Airlines says it's very concerned.


GRAPHIC:
and is "not capable" and "in no way qualified to make any assessment" of the research.


ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.


ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.


MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.


MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.


DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.


ROB LIDDELL: I would have thought it's a beautiful opportunity to conduct research. Keep these people employed follow them through very closely so we might be able to tell the rest of the world ultimately that there appears to be no reason why a colour defective pilot can't fly safely.


MARIA HATZAKIS: CASA maintains any further changes would be a long way off. But that hasn't settled the nerves of those who've been seeking even more freedom to fly.


JOHN O'BRIEN: When I first applied at the AAT it was really an attempt to be able to progress my career. So they're actually turning it into a fight of not just the ability to progress my career but now just the ability to even maintain my career as it stands.


MATT WORDSWORTH: And no-one from CASA was available to comment on camera.:ugh:

Not like Peter to be lost for words??:E