I apologise is this is too much going over old ground. But as I see it:

1. The regulator is writing to employers of properly licensed (and previously deemed to be safe) pilots asking them to reconsider the appropriateness of these pilots employment.

2. The companies require a good relationship with the regulator. Many of these companies will rely on exceptions from CASA regulations for financial viability. There is a large power imbalance between the regulator and the employers. This is the very definition of bullying.

3. There will almost certainly be some cases where it is clear who the pilot is (ie small employers), thus identifying the pilot. In this case, CASA is effectively releasing confidential medical information about an individual without consent or authority.

4. CASA is the safety regulator. They alone have the power to issue licences based on competence level and fitness for duty. It is in no way the role of the AOC holder to "second guess" CASA. What CASA is saying is that there are pilots who they have duly licensed as being safe and who are properly qualified for a role that they now wish the employer to terminate. They are asking the employer to take on the role of licence issuer from CASA. This is completely inappropriate.

5. If an AOC holder succumbs to the pressure (Bullying) from CASA and terminates the pilot, they will certainly be leaving them selves open for legal action against them by the pilot for unfair dismissal. And potential a punitive penalty that takes into account the pilots (now) diminished earning capacity. Especially if the pilot has been given satisfactory work performance reviews by the employer and has satisfactorily passed flight reviews with CASA appointed ATO's. So, the employer has the threat of retaliation by CASA on one hand and legal action by the pilot on the other.

6. If there is any threat of anything negative at all happening to the employer by CASA (which I think it would be easy to argue is the case) then I would expect that CASA are in breach of the third line forcing provisions of the Trade Practices Act.

This is a very clumsy, bumbling, bullying, amateur, punitive, incompetent, reaction by CASA to being embarrassed by the Senate over its own double standards and selective interpretation of its own rules that show favouritism toward some pilots and some AOC holders.

I hope the Senate shows it has balls and smacks CASA hard. I encourage any pilot who so much as feels disadvantaged to take legal advice.

Folks,
I want to make clear just one point.

The need for a particular standard of colour perception in aviation (by NAAs) is assumed and asserted, it is not demonstrated, let alone proven.

In the mid-1990s, Dr. Pape represented IAOPA, the International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the peak body of all the national AOPAs, at an ICAO medical conference in Warsaw, because a major part of the agenda was colour perception (there is no such thing as "colour blind") and Dr. Pape is not just Australia's leading expert, but internationally recognised.

In those days, "glass" cockpits were cathode ray tubes (CRT) and a fairly common fault was the loss of the colour generator, so that the screen reverted to gray scales.

In anticipation of all the standard arguments about the "critical need" to see "true colours", Dr. Pape (courtesy of Qantas Airways Ltd) had true copies of the FAA/CASA certified MELs for the B767, which showed that loss of colour, with any of the screens operating in gray scale mode, produced exactly zero operating limitations.

Put another way, loss of the colour, and the need to read the numbers and interpret the scales without colour had precisely zero "safety" connotations.

Put more correctly, the loss of colour on the screen(s) did not increase risk of pilot error due misinterpretation of the information presented in normal or non-normal operation.

So much for the need for every pilot to see exactly the same colours.

Tootle pip!!

If the Watson DB is who I think he is (PMO NZ CAA), Dr Navathe shared offices with him just prior to Dr Navathe moved to Canberra.

My letter re: CVD, ASRR and "The letter"
 

Here is my letter to the MPs regarding the current issues, with a little help from my friends:-) Feel free to get ideas for your letters if you wish!

-----------------------------

As a Chief Pilot, I take seriously my responsibility for the safety of my passengers and crew. I also support the need for an appropriate, evidence-based regulatory environment for the Australian aviation industry to support economic development and a safe and prosperous society.

It is for this reason I write to you, asking that you would support the Minister for Transport, Hon Warren Truss MP, and Senator David Fawcett in their efforts to ensure fair and safe outcomes for pilots and the aviation industry.

I am 35 years of age and hold an Air Transport Pilots License (ATPL). I am our Company’s CASA approved Chief Pilot, and have over 15 years flying safe commercial operations in all weather conditions and at night. I also have a mild colour vision deficiency, which, although continuously being aware of it, has never become evident or a factor during operations I have conducted.

It therefore caused great concern to me, and many of my professional colleagues and their families, when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed their policies and procedures last week – without any industry consultation or notification - affecting the treatment of Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots.

It should be noted
• CVD pilots have been operating safely in all levels of aviation in Australia for the past 25 years
• there has never been an accident attributed to Colour Vision Deficiency worldwide

However, CASA announced policy changes last week that will prevent many CVD pilots from having a career in Australia. This not only will affect a considerable number of current Airline pilots, but will also negatively affect many pilots serving regional and remote communities, including those providing valuable passenger and freight charter services, as well as life-saving aeromedical operations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. There is a particular wealth of experience in the General Aviation sector with CVD pilots who have not pursued the typical airline path due to their imposed restrictions. If these pilots were to lose their privileges it will only hinder the safety and experience level of GA in Australia.

CASA have announced they are changing from operational testing to laboratory-derived Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) testing for pilots. The rationale for CASA’s change has not been explained, nor any supporting evidence provided. However, this new policy will deny new CVD pilots who cannot pass CAD testing, as CASA will not grant them a Class 1 Medical, unnecessarily precluding them from employment as a pilot in any form, regardless of the nature of the operation.

If this change in standard is extended to current pilots, many will lose their entire career, despite an impeccable safety record.

Australia has led the rest of the world in giving CVD pilots a fair go since the landmark “Denison” case in the AAT in 1989, allowing CVD pilots to conduct commercial operations and earn a living in aviation. The tireless work of colour vision expert, Dr Arthur Pape, has paved the way for Australian pilots to have fulfilling and safe careers in the industry.

Over the last 25 years and tens of thousands of hours, CVD pilots have proven themselves to be equally safe in operating aircraft to colour normal pilots. Many competent and safe pilots fail the CAD test, but have proven by experience that they can accomplish the safe performance of duties and safely operate an aircraft. In fact, it is debatable if the new CAD test that CASA has suddenly introduced is sufficiently of an “operational nature” for the final level of testing as required by current law. Only 35% of CVD's pass the CAD test, eliminating many proven safe pilots.

The recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), released by Minister of Transport, Warren Truss, found that CASA was failing the industry, the taxpayer and flying public, and choking the future growth of an industry that is vital to Australian society. It is also believed to have displayed unfair bullying tactics to the industry and that the industry had lost confidence in the regulator.

Consistent with these findings relating to the conduct of CASA, just last week CASA sent a letter to all Air Operators in Australia asking them to “consider whether it is safe to allow these (CVD) pilots to continue to exercise the privileges of their license”. Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim. This letter is extremely disappointing and distressing as it could jeopardize the employment of many long-serving and dedicated pilots and is completely unjustified.

Senator David Fawcett has been an outstanding and faithful ambassador for the rights of CVD pilots in Australia to continue to fly safely. I urge you to support him in bringing a fair outcome for the CVD pilots who have dedicated their lives to safe flying operations in Australia.

I also encourage you to support the Minister for Transport, Hon Warren Truss MP, to ensure the appropriate changes are implemented within the regulator to ensure the continuing safety and prosperity of the aviation industry in Australia.

There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Dr Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.

1. It is assumed that is something has a different colour it is for a safety reason. I think it is likely that some items are a different colour for convenience, tradition or aesthetics.

2. It is assumed that all things that are colour coded must be visible to the pilot, eg navigation lights. The pilot cannot see his own and in the current age, if you are close enough to distinguish red from green on another aircraft you're probably in a lot of trouble. We use radar and TCAS and even radio and strobe lights in the modern era, not little red & green lights. It would seem to me that red & green navigation lights are a non functional remnant from the past that regulators have not had the courage to discontinue.

3. It is assumed that colour is the only differentiator. knob / lever size, shape and texture is not discussed, neither is relative location.

4. It is assumed that the CVD pilot cannot tell the difference between colours. As I understand it, many CVD pilots can recognise shade, brightness or contrast differences between different colours. Therefore the CVD pilot will still have some "non colour" visual cues.

Unlike his predecessors, Dr Navathe does not seem to have the respect of his peers and he seems to be an academic who does not believe something exists until he can read a paper on it. Can you imagine this nonsense or the spectacle of Dr Navanthe lecturing the Senate in the era of Dr Robert Liddell?

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation

Discuss.
 

That is a notion troubling me; the lack of overt support evidence being provided. Perhaps, (call me paranoid) in the AAAT a claim of "my hands are tied" can be peddled. The UK and FAA certainly have got the 'supporting science' and if they make CAD the only acceptable norm, then all that remains is the ICAO defence and the 'no event' track record. That opens the door to the opposition. Anyone who can or has access the CAD research should have a chat with Doc. Pape: forewarned being forearmed and all that stuff.
Ain't that a shame, when it just may be of some high priority and interest to a hundred odd pilots that depend on a license, to earn a living.

The quote follows directly after the part below: - -

Frustrated now :- I'll try later to get the 'vision' splendid, where the body language and temper were on display; Hansard just doesn't quite catch the petulance of the later morsel.

Right then – back to my knitting.

Fixed! :ok:

If the DAS tells the Senate he is a Professor, he must be one! Adjunct Associate Professor at that!

According to the ANU:

Oh did he say 'evidence-based'. He meant 'prejudice-based'. Tut spelling


Adjunct Professor as used in Australia is an honorary title bestowed upon a person to formally recognise that person's non-employment 'special relationship' with the university. Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

Nope - nowhere near the requirements of a true 'professor'. That requires a PHD with 3 years follow up specialization in the PHD subject. Perhaps he should declare that when he enters the room.

This is might be the "new research":

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

and pretty much the same research by the same authors in an FAA report:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/res...dia/200911.pdf

Unlike the Qinetiq study, these two reports actually includes the results of controlled tests. However, the main goal of these papers is to show that the CAD test is a better test than ishihara etc for diagnosing ability to read a simulated PAPI. What's missing is evidence that the CAD test (or any other colour vision test) has a correlation to *flight safety*.

- S

Just listening to that man...sorry person..
What a cowardly assh..le he is!!

On a whim, without a prayer.
 

I believe there is a case here for the full involvement of all the unions and operators. As I hear it, there are some 'silly' decisions, translating into additional 'testing', requiring thousands of personal dollars being invested in un required 'specialist' testing and advice, this affecting all tribes. If rumour is true, even with un-required testing, it is often a lottery as to whether or not 'official' medical approval is granted. This must create some havoc for scheduling, long term.

On the research side – (AAT cases and ATSB reports only) there is a noted increase (trend if you will) in aircrew (all flavours) becoming reluctant to admit there is anything medically wrong – at all. Add that to a natural reluctance to visit the 'vet' and you have some very real potential for self inflicted holes being made in that famous (non Beakerised) cheese.

Then, there is the invasive questionnaire, you know the one: fill in your name (multiple times), fill in your ARN (multiple times) address (multiple times), DOB (multiple times) etc. etc. etc. Then the signed confession. For example – dozing off in the afternoon. FFS we work shifts; early call out; back of the clock; late starts and late finishes. Fatigue is an acknowledged risk factor and as humans it's not always an easy matter to knock off, get to a hotel and drift off to sleep, especially after a 'rough' trip. So does the occasional nanny nap surprise anyone – of course not. To admit it puts you in a potential 'high risk' medical group; to deny it – the potential for prosecution exists. Same-same the odd beer or three; I am sure you have heard the cautionary tales. While I'm at it, why FFS, does anyone need to know who my bloody dentist is (don't give me that crispy critter identification BS).

Not 'politically' savvy enough to know, for sure, if capital 'U' union involvement and even company ('C') is a good idea or not: but, it's worth a thought. VIPA (bless 'em) have weighed in. So how about it boys. I hear the AFAP has made contribution to the CVD battle and applaud that; but I just wonder if 'all' the big hitters (engineers and all) made a show of solidarity how much it would help to redress a system which is now overtly seeking to lay aside 25 years of safe flight and engineering operations; on a whim, without a prayer.

Discuss -

Oh, BTW, I found the bit of the colour vision splendid I wanted – HERE – the first 90 seconds give it to you.

CAA EASA direction
 

Performance Based Regulation.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201...R%20online.pdf

Under this framework of managing risk looks like the CVD issue could be managed. Australian evidence certainly supports there not being an issue.

Fantastic .... With performance based regulation the UK Cvd pilots should have unrestricted medicals from tomorrow by virtue of the Australian data.:p
... And pigs get honorary PPLs.

I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.

Example of a letter for colleague support??
 

I thought I might provide a suggestion/example of a letter that could be passed onto work colleagues who might be willing to support CVD pilots in this matter by lobbying the Senators and local MPs also?
I would encourage if you use to modify and ad lib as desired.


What do you think? Feedback welcome...


----------------------------

The Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
[email protected]


Senator David Fawcett
[email protected]


Senator Nick Xenophon
[email protected]


Senator Bill Heffernan
Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected]


Senator Glenn Sterle
Deputy Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected]


Your Local MP
Members and Senators - Parliament of Australia




______________________________


Re: CASA vs CVD Pilots

Dear__________ ,

As a professional colleague of Colour Vision Defective, yet capable pilots, I wish to show my support for CVD pilots and their ability to continue to safely operate aircraft within Australia and beyond.
I have personally flown with CVD pilots, and can attest that, from my experience, they have shown in practice to be equally safe and proficient in operating aircraft as colour normal pilots. They also undergo the same training & checking requirements as colour normal pilots, and have proven themselves in many operational situations which I have witnessed.

It is for this reason I write to you, asking that you would support the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, and Senator David Fawcett in their efforts to ensure fair and safe outcomes for pilots and the aviation industry as a whole.


It caused great concern to me, and many of my professional colleagues and their families, when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed their policies and procedures last week – without any industry consultation or notification - affecting the treatment of Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots.

It should be noted:
• CVD pilots have been operating safely in all levels of aviation in Australia for the past 25 years
• there has never been an accident attributed to Colour Vision Deficiency worldwide

However, CASA announced policy changes last week that will prevent many CVD pilots from having a career in Australia. This not only will affect a considerable number of current Airline pilots, but will also negatively affect many pilots serving regional and remote communities, including those providing valuable passenger and freight charter services, as well as life-saving aeromedical operations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

CASA have announced they are changing from operational testing to laboratory-derived Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) testing for pilots. The rationale for CASA’s change has not been explained, nor any supporting evidence provided. However, this new policy will deny new CVD pilots who cannot pass CAD testing, as CASA will not grant them a Class 1 Medical, unnecessarily precluding them from employment as a pilot in any form, regardless of the nature of the operation.

If this change in standard is extended to current pilots, many will lose their entire career, despite an impeccable safety record.

Australia has led the rest of the world in giving CVD pilots a fair go since the landmark “Denison” case in the AAT in 1989, allowing CVD pilots to conduct commercial operations and earn a living in aviation. The tireless work of colour vision expert, Dr Arthur Pape, has paved the way for Australian pilots to have fulfilling and safe careers in the industry. Dr Pape is also supporting the rights of CVD pilots in another upcoming AAT hearing in July of this year.

Over the last 25 years and tens of thousands of hours, CVD pilots have proven themselves to be equally safe in operating aircraft to colour normal pilots. Many competent and safe pilots fail the CAD test, but have proven by experience that they can accomplish the safe performance of duties and safely operate an aircraft. In fact, it is debatable if the new CAD test that CASA has suddenly introduced is sufficiently of an “operational nature” for the final level of testing as required by current law. Only 35% of CVD's pass the CAD test, eliminating many proven safe pilots.

The recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), released by Minister of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon. Warren Truss, found that major changes to were required to CASA in order to meet the future prosperity and sustainability of the aviation industry, and suggested that the industry had lost confidence in the regulator.

Consistent with these findings relating to the conduct of CASA, just last week CASA sent a letter to all Air Operators in Australia asking them to “consider whether it is safe to allow these (CVD) pilots to continue to exercise the privileges of their license”. Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim. This letter is extremely disappointing and distressing as it could jeopardize the employment of many long-serving and dedicated pilots and is completely unjustified.

Senator David Fawcett has been an outstanding and faithful ambassador for the rights of CVD pilots in Australia to continue to fly safely. I urge you to support him in bringing a fair outcome for the CVD pilots who have dedicated their lives to safe flying operations in Australia.

I also encourage you to support the Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, to ensure the appropriate changes are implemented within the regulator to ensure the continuing safety and prosperity of the aviation industry in Australia.
Yours faithfully,

It’s not a change in the standard.

It’s a change in CASA’s position on the safety efficacy of the standard.

The fundamental points that have to be made, over and over again, are that:

- The CV standard itself is based on ignorance and prejudice – it’s just a hangover from 19th century maritime navigation rules and infrastructure that have no practical application to 21st century aviation operations.

- The only evidence with probative value supports the conclusion that there is no difference in the competence or safety of pilots with colour vision defects compared with pilots without colour vision defects. There is no evidence with probative value to support any other conclusion.

- CASA should regulate on the basis of evidence rather than ignorance and prejudice.

outofwack,
Wonder no more, just a look at some of the other AAT cases in the last few years, CASA Avmed is quite capable of wold leading nonsense, without any outside pressure.
Tootle pip!!

Spot On AFAP.
 

Well done the Federation – they have sent a very nicely worded, if pointed –letter- to the powers that be.

Great to see support from industry groups, that's VIPA and AFAP standing behind, holding the jackets of those who will, with any luck deflate some ego's and pin some ears back.

One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Debate: Dear Watson (BASR) v 25 years plus NVG SOPs
 

Yes three cheers for the AFAP..:D:D

AFAP letter quote: "...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.

AOC holders and the pilots themselves are not privy to the "recent medical research" to which CASA refers in its letter nor are they medically qualified to make the assessment requested. If CASA wish to change the regulations regarding colour vision then CASA should follow the correct and established processes. CASA’s letter of 5 June 2014 is in our view an abuse of process.

We request that CASA formally retract the letter of 5 June 2014.
Please also be aware that we will be supporting any of our members who are unfairly discriminated against as a result of CASA’s letter..."

Wonder if they'll be sending further correspondence to the DAS after this letter sent to CVD pilots...:(:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/..._010529_PM.jpg

Oh well I guess they're at least consistent...:ugh:

Kharon::D:D

It is my understanding that NVG helo ops require two pilots, one with the NVGs on (PF) and the other monitoring (i.e. PNF). Much like in a multi-crew (IFR and at night) environment, except you effectively have one CVD pilot who is coupled with a non-CVD pilot.


Hmm...who was instrumental in Oz for getting NVGs approved for civil aviation use...:confused:...oh yes that's right Senator David Fawcett...:ok:


Bet you DF has many tomes of factual & statistical information of safe military NVG helo ops that could be quite useful in the upcoming AAT hearing...

...vs the PMO and his former colleague from the CAA NZ, where their main weapon of choice will be Dear Watson's research paper, here is a short appraisal of what that paper discovers: For a summary of what is included in Watto's research paper refer to a recent FSF article Colour Vision GAP (pg 33 here).

IMO probably the most relevant paragraphs from that article, in regards to this sheer bloody minded attitude from the PMO/Fort Fumble, is this: The battle lines are well and truly being drawn up...definitely MTF on this one..:ok:

It’s not often a paper fails by the second sentence:Horsesh*t.

But at least we have an insight into the intellectual rigour applied by the zealots on this frolic. Watson has committed cardinal sin #1: Begging the question. (In other words, he assumes that which is to be proved. In fact, and worse, he assumes that which has been disproved. :=)