|
You just don't get it do you. I haven't made any CVD claims, so there's nothing to back up.
let me assure you that there isn't any 'ganging up' Doc. |
Then you must be the same person. |
I see. So you and your mate Creampuff can make all sorts of incorrect comments on who you think I am and where you think I work, and that's OK?
|
Errrrmmmm
I haven't made any comments on who I think you are ausdoc, and I don't care who you are. And I don't know who 004wercras is, and I don't care who s/he is. You are running a classic 'false dichotomy' interference, ausdoc. We can "debate" the medical issue or we can research the claimed qualifications and expertise of the people whose opinions have caused the controversy. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to do both, because the latter is relevant to the merits of the arguments made during the former. That's why the AAT said this: “We do not consider this aspect of (the PMO’s) evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that (it) may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made ... We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in the (PMO’s) statement of 8 October 2013 … and his oral evidence.” |
Time, Gentlemen. PLEASE !!
Sunday morning, fat, dumb and happy; established at suitable flight level for a day off and what do I find Monday - toys hurled out the pram, the dog covered in the gods only know what, pizza boxes scattered everywhere and there's something really nasty stuck to the television screen. Now I can see who started it, done it before, with a record number of threads locked after last comments posted. So, before Tidy Bin Billy turns up and puts a padlock on the toy box, lets clean up a bit.
There is always a couple of pages of 'mess' in any long running thread, hair pulling, bitch slapping and sniper attacks. Used to get 'trolls-for-hire' on here of all flavours, distracting and muddying the waters; but, we've seen them off before and kept the discussion alive. Good landings begin with a good approach, a few bumps on final just don't signify. I just ignore them, being as they are usually of short duration. At an early point, as when any major conflict seems to be drawing to a close, it may be necessary to declare a form of “ceasefire” to ensure that the processes of reform are not further clouded by hyperactive over-regulation on the part of individuals or groups. We have in fact already heard reports of harassment that seem to suggest the reopening of old and not fully healed wounds, and some recent “initiatives” in the medical and airworthiness areas also appear to be indicative of a scorched earth philosophy. Surely any new regulatory interpretations or enforcement activity should receive close scrutiny for non-compliance with published procedures, due diligence, procedural fairness and the rule of law. Phelan Toot toot. (Makes sign to ward off the dreaded "Click"). |
Folks,
I apologies in advance for a slight thread drift. Creamie, Don't knock (formerly) Hizonna Marcus Einfled's old alma mater, it's one of the longest running post boxes at Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles. Pacific Western University (one and the same) provided PhD's for all Werner Von Brauns "other ranks" when the east coast intelligentsia wouldn't deal with anybody not "suitable qualified". It was Ben Rich, from the Lockheed Skunk Works who got the idea, and organised a job lot of PhDs, probably got a bulk discount. Suddenly, Corporal Schmidt became Herr Doctor Schmidt, problem of perception of competence solved. Tootle pip!! |
Productive helping.
Hi guys,
A petition to get the Minister Warren Truss to intervene has just gone up, please sign this and it can be confidential so no one has to worry about CASA retribution!! https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitio...eds-of-careers |
Petition to Minister Truss
The CVDPA folk have launched a petition calling for Minister Truss to intervene in the current dispute:
Petition to the Hon Warren Truss MP (Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development): To Intervene in the battle between colour defective pilots and CASA which threatens to destroy hundreds of careers In June 2014, the Aviation Medicine Branch (AvMed) of CASA made radical changes to its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). Policies that had been in place for over twenty years and which had flowed from two landmark rulings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were suddenly and without notice abandoned, the new policies involving draconian restrictions the likes of which had not been seen in Australia for over half a century. In line with these new policies a number of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots, upon renewing their medical certificates, found they faced restrictions that made participation in professional aviation a practical impossibility. In addition, the new policies effectively closed off all pathways to a professional piloting career for new applicants with CVD. The changes in the policies governing the implementation the ACPS were justified by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) in the following statement he made in a letter to all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs): “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.” The letter to DAMEs was repeated in similar letters to CVD pilots and to all Australian AOC holders (the pilots’ employers), both containing the same claim as to “recent medical research”. This claim is not supported by any published evidence of unsafe performance by pilots with a CVD condition. Indeed, all the available evidence from both Australia and the USA is that the performance of CVD pilots is as safe as that of other pilots who do not have such a CVD condition. At the very least, there is no evidence of unsafe performance by any CVD pilots as a consequence of their CVD condition. The reversal of policies that were based on the findings of the two AAT decisions is a serious matter, and even more so when seen in the light of a twenty five year period of incident and accident-free performance at all levels, private and professional, by CVD pilots since those landmark decisions were handed down. These hearings are widely recognised, even today, as the most comprehensive and impartial examination of all aspects of the ACPS, that has ever been conducted in any place and at any time. Not only do the changes in these policies amount to a denial of the AAT findings of 25 years ago, they are even more bizarre and baffling when it is realised that a new appeal by a CVD pilot had already been lodged before the AAT and was due for a hearing in July 2014. Preparation and documentation by both parties of the evidence for that hearing were well advanced when CASA dropped this bombshell. The trio of CASA’s letters to DAMEs, CVD pilots and AOC holders have been widely condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying. As well, the taking away and then the re-instatement of “privileges”, within a span of mere days, of a number of CVD professional pilots has led to widespread industry outrage. Were it not so serious, it is quite farcical, and further exacerbates the broad lack of trust in CASA within the industry. We petition Minister Truss to: 1. Direct CASA to immediately retract the letters sent to DAMEs, AOC holders and CVD pilots and appropriately sanction those responsible for these letters. 2. Direct CASA to immediately reverse the recent changes in policy that threaten the careers of hundreds of pilots and severely restrict new CVD pilots from being able to enter the aviation industry. 3. In the event that CASA is allowed to continue pursuing this matter through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that public funding be made available so that once again, a fair, thorough and unbiased re-test of the established tenet can be presented. 4. To fund a study into the practical relevance of the aviation colour perception standard and its scientific basis so that Australia can continue to lead the rest of the world on this issue, as we have done for the past 25 years. |
Please get on there and sign the petition. You don't have to display your details either if you fear retribution.
This is more than just about CVD. There are many conditions that could receive the same treatment. |
Get involved
They do have a very big Ace up their sleeve: The cognitive bias of ignorant punters (or, in pprunespeak, ‘the mystique of aviation’).
Imagine, if you will, an ordinary line of punters shuffling on board an ordinary RPT jet service from A to B. On the flight deck the pilots are going through the usual checklists and sipping orange juice. After the aircraft takes off and reaches cruise altitude, the ‘seatbelt’ sign is switched off. An ordinary-looking passenger unclips his seatbelt and moves from passenger to passenger, whispering: “Pssssst. I’m from CASA and I think pilots with colour vision deficiencies could be a risk to air safety. How does that make you feel?” If the punters were well-informed, they’d say: “Are you the idiot that let both pilots drink orange juice from the same source? Make yourself useful and find a competent doctor to closely monitor the pilots for symptoms of food poisoning. Then do us all a favour and sit down and STFU.” Alas, the punters are not well-informed. Their response is: “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN A 30,000 FOOT DEATH PLUNGE! PLEASE CASA PLEASE: SAVE US FROM COLOUR BLIND PILOTS.” Enter our regulatory ‘saviours’. That’s the exquisite irony of “evidence-based risk management” as a justification for increased regulatory meddling in matters medical. If the aviation medical certification system was indeed based on hard evidence and objective risk, there’d be less regulatory meddling in matters medical and more focus on the matters that the hard evidence demonstrates are the substantive risks to aviation safety. Unfortunately, our regulatory ‘saviours’ know that although mum, dad and the kids couldn’t care less if the petrol tanker behind them on the highway is being driven by someone who hasn’t seen his toes or a doctor in a decade, they’ll be scared sh*tless if the aviation regulator’s opinion is that the pilot of their jet to Melbourne has a colour vision defect that ‘could’ be a risk to air safety. Get involved people, or a bureaucrat on an unjustified medical crusade will be meddling unnecessarily in your life next. |
Unfortunately this is absolutely true;
Unfortunately, our regulatory ‘saviours’ know that although mum, dad and the kids couldn’t care less if the petrol tanker behind them on the highway is being driven by someone who hasn’t seen his toes or a doctor in a decade, they’ll be scared sh*tless if the aviation regulator’s opinion is that the pilot of their jet to Melbourne has a colour vision defect that ‘could’ be a risk to air safety. Due to a chronic medical condition my ability to exercise the privileges of my licence have been withdrawn as a result of the cancellation of my class 1 and 2 medical, however the Road Traffic Authority have allowed me to retain my Heavy Combination Drivers licence a clear set of regulatory double standards. |
USA Pilot's Bill of Rights!
We need political support as well as petitions. A "Champion of General Aviation" in the Parliament is needed..
Senator Inhofe Outlines New Pilot’s Bill of Rights Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has released a draft of a new Pilot’s Bill of Rights. “The goal of Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 is to continue addressing unfair practices and regulations toward the aviation industry,” Inhofe said. Among the issues that the bill seeks to change are expanding the LSA third-class medical exemption to cover pilots flying small general aviation aircraft; requiring Customs and Border Protection officers to follow general law-enforcement standards when exercising CBP powers in stops of general aviation pilots and searches of their aircraft; making it illegal for the FAA to enforce Notam violations if the FAA doesn’t finish its Notam improvement program by year-end; providing civil liability protection for aviation medical examiners, designated pilot examiners and designated airworthiness representatives; facilitating means of allowing safety-enhancing equipment to be installed on aircraft without lengthy certification processes; and updating language in the current Pilot’s Bill of Rights to include new rights such as requiring the FAA to notify individuals when they are subject to investigation, limiting the scope of document requests to pertinent issues being investigated and reinstating the expungement policy that would prevent the FAA from keeping enforcement action records after five years. |
Creamy: “Get involved people…
….or a bureaucrat on an unjustified medical crusade will be meddling unnecessarily in your life next…” :ugh:
Take heed of the Creamy statement and get on-board the CVD petition, the numbers are past 500 but they need many more…:ok: And if you thought this was solely a little old Oz issue, think again as CVD pilots worldwide are taking notice of the CAsA PMO’s draconian attempt to take us back to the Dark Ages…:=:= Recent petition Comments:
I know MANY color vision deficient pilots in the USA with 1000's of hours in jets of all types, many decades of experience, and 0 issues. I even meet the standard, but the price has been high, and I am supporting this to defend the future of our careers, human rights, and fairness in general. "Normal's" don't have to pay the extra money, time, sweat, and stress to jump through these hoops, so neither should someone who can't tell lime green from chartreuse. Pilots are not interior designers and do not need perfect color vision at all. If nothing else, they should design color out of the system entirely, as it is already redundant in its current design. With the technology of today, they could probably do this for every single technical career field out there. The PMO Russian Roulette who'll be next??:ugh: TICK..TOCK..TIME Miniscule!:{ |
The search for Nirvana. Part II.
Many of the more pragmatic, sanguine submissions to the ASRR make polite, if pointed reference to the many issues surrounding the Avmed department. Personally I found the Maitland submission to be of great value, being balanced, succinct and very much grounded in experience. If for no other reason it is well worth a quiet read, the medical section (f) 4 sets out the issues and in part (between the lines) offers a solution.
Extract - EW. John Maitland. Part (f) Aviation medicine. By far the most common complaint I receive regarding the processes and administration by CASA officials is in relation to Aviation Medicine. Problems arise when a pilot fails to meet the requirements of the relevant table set out in CASR 67.150 (for class 1) or CASR 67.155 (for class 2). CASR CASR 67.180 provides a mechanism by which a pilot who fails to meet the medical standards set out in CASR 67.150 or CASR 67.155 may still be issued with an aviation medical certificate if CASA is satisfied that issuing a medical certificate to the applicant would not endanger the safety of air navigation. A dispute often arises in situations where the applicant may have suffered a medical condition which his or her medical specialist has determined will not affect his or her ability to safe! y operate an aeroplane, but notwithstanding the assessment by the medical specialist in the field, CASA aviation medicine will often ignore the specialists' expertise and advices; and refuse or cancel the applicant's aviation medical certificate. Extract - The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator. In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination. Extract - The medical certification seems to involve a large amount of second guessing the Designated Medical Examiners (DMEs) and demanding more expensive additional tests and re-examinations. Is there any good reason why DMEs in Australia cannot be authorised to actually issue the Medical Certificate as UK Authorised Medical Examiners are – even to the extent of issuing a UK/JAA medical here in Australia? It is the opinion of many in the industry that the medical section of CASA needs a complete overhaul. It's not just CVD, no siree; hair loss and flatulence are next; after 'funny turns' that is....High priority, big ticket items so don't say I didn't warn you. Toot toot. |
Is there any good reason why DMEs in Australia cannot be authorised to actually issue the Medical Certificate as UK Authorised Medical Examiners are There are a couple of concerns though:
|
Ausdoc, an objective question: can you direct me to research (peer reviewed) that shows that pilots who have a cvd are less safe than non-cvd pilots.
I have spent days trying to search for such a reference, but have been unable to find any. What I would point out is that globally there have been millions of flight hours flown by cvd pilots and not one accident or incident recorded where a cvd has been shown as a cause. This would suggest a very strong case that a cvd is not a threat to flight safety. |
Anthill, I'm sure your search abilities are no different to mine.
|
"This has already started (for Class 2 at least). There is a trial going as we speak, with DAMEs issuing certificates, and will be expanded once the system has been confirmed as robust. A lot of DAMEs around the country have done the training for this over the last few months."
More bureaucratic Flim Flam. There already has been a trial, its been going on since aviation first started. It works very well, there are no safety issues apparent, it is cost effective, and processes vastly more pilots than This third world country will ever aspire to. The trial I refer to is the FAA, and it would seem the Brits have finally seen the light as well and followed them. I am somewhat embarrassed that our foreign PMO has such a low opinion of the standard and probity of the medical profession in Australia, Perhaps we should be sending our doctors to Mumbai to train. |
Thorn bird
I am somewhat embarrassed that our foreign PMO has such a low opinion of the standard and probity of the medical profession in Australia, Perhaps we should be sending our doctors to Mumbai to train. |
Thorn bird,
Sending doctors to India to train could have a negative impact on standards unless our own universities faire worse than India. Most DAMEs would have several more years training in a hospital too so the quality of hospital would contribute I suspect. The Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings published on Tuesday ranked 800 universities from 76 countries on the basis of four criteria - research, teaching, employability and internationalisation. Even the elite Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), which are counted among the country's finest universities, could only manage a ranking of 222, the Hindustan Times reports. The ratings are "an unpleasant surprise" to those who think that Indian higher education is world-class, the paper says in an editorial, adding that "there's little doubt that the absence of truly exemplary institutions of learning is terrible news for a country that aspires to be a world leader". |
Nugatory purgatory.
Doc # 306: the argument is circular and probably redundant. Had the Avmed ever intended to progress to a revised DAME 'sign-off' system, the process would have started with a letter saying that a new system was being considered, discussion sought and a pathway mapped. It certainly would not involve sending letters spouting some half assed, insupportable bull**** relating to CVD.
A progressive regulator would send letters saying we are initiating a new system and 'You' need to tick boxes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should you wish to be one of the super DAME approved to issue a full 12 month certificate; otherwise tick boxes 1,2,3 to have CASA continue to oversight your professional assessment. The proposition, as stated is flawed; wrong on a couple counts, not least of all insinuating to those who hold a DAME delegation – the inference is that without advanced 'qualification' over and above those presently required, only being allowed to assess under CASA 'supervision' the DAME is, in some way, 'sub-standard, despite some of those DAME being able to sign off FAA and CAA medicals. Then the liability insurance ploy; this is a risible nonsense. I'm sure any competent insurance risk assessor would tell you that, even if it were remotely true, at the worst a pilot medical would be what, $20 more expensive, and that a scam to cover the almost non existent matrix risk. The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible... So on balance, post #306 is, in light of USA, UK and other 'enlightened' countries experience rendered well and truly nugatory; and of value only to supporting an increasingly inefficient, bureaucratic, self aggrandising edifice, which offers DAME not education but insult, in the land of nugatory regulatory purgatory. Sorry chum, need to do better than that to sell that particular bill of goods to the IOS. Toot toot |
Not sure how it's a circular argument Kharon, despite your flowery language. Casa did notify all DAMEs that the new system was being considered, discussion with the relevant professional bodies was conducted, and all DAMEs were invited to attend training on the new system if they wished to participate. Training courses were conducted nationwide. Now, a small number of practices that do a lot of medicals are being used as a trial of the system (particularly relating to the IT systems). Once the systems are confirmed to be robust enough (Beta testing is pretty common you know), all who have done the training can apply for the designation to do the extended role.
There is no "advanced qualification", as you put it. The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now which offers DAME not education but insult |
The good Doc’s false dichotomy.
Kharon:
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible... Perhaps to drift back we can focus on a couple of posts from a 2012 Medical & Health thread on CVD, which perhaps highlights the good DOC’s true colours (so to speak) on CVD. First a quote from ausdoc from this passage of play.. “..The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment)…” Okay our very own brissypilot kicks off the discussion: brissypilot #106 Hi all, Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world. The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia." Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots. The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing. ausdoc #107 I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA). Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me. There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation. It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment). Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited. Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency. I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this. I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test. I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges? “..I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test…” But pponte was not prepared to let the good Doc off the hook quite so easily..:D pponte #119 let's support what we're saying then.. Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions. I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots. By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches. We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore. Happy to go to court.. Are you? “….Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference? You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?..” And pponte in reply.. “…Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize for targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter. This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base…” After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from. Maybe also because, a couple of posts later, AP weighed into the argument..:E : Why keep talking about these tests? It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels. If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely. Cheers ps perhaps here: Collective Colour Vision Thread 4 Further OBS on the Doc: Passing strange that prior to the Doc's recent interest in the ESB thread the last contribution he made was back in November last year in his favourite haunt the Medical & Health forum and on this thread: Should he list Attention Deficit Disorder on his first class medical? Hmm...further research required here I reckon..:E |
And here we go again. Rather than discussing the matter at hand, the standard response is to go dredging into history to attack the individual.
Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP To which ausdoc completely ignored After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from. |
My turn.
Sarcs you crafty devil; just worked back through all of that; including a couple of interesting asides from one 'AirMed.Ind' who was panting to ingratiate himself with his mate Ausdoc.
So, I'll try out my basic, uneducated Anglo Saxon instead. Bollocks. Creamy, I'll see your dichotomy and raise you an ad hominem.. Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus A special version of this fallacy is known as falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, essentially “false in something, false in everything”. This is a combination of a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack, because it attempts to disregard everything the person is saying by the claim that they’re either presenting the truth or presenting falsehoods. It ignores the possibility that the individual is wrong about one thing but right about others. The fact that someone has been proven wrong about claims they made is a potential reason to suspect other claims they make, but not a logical reason to disregard them entirely. Acknowledging the bleeding obvious don't signify either: i.e. that in every day life, people have accidents caused by illness, well fancy that. – It is a statistical certainty, a fact the underwriters, who bet fortunes on it know all too well; much better than anyone, including Avmed. FFS; if they are comfortable for our Docs can sign you as fit on a FAA or UK docket, then they are comfortable for the same Doc sign one for this third world place. No, it's unfortunate, but the devotees of Shambollic Hole-mystic medicine are beyond all credibility or redemption. The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco; let alone some of the other famous 'red-face' cases. Avmed, claiming to be anything other than a retrogressive, inefficient mess is disingenuous. Seeking only to become a 'name', either by following or being led by the nugget who took the Kiwi's back to the dark ages is more the mark. The notion of CVD discrimination is simply as disgusting as the underhand methods used in the vainglorious attempt to achieve it. Flowery – forsooth.. I think I'm flattered; should I flutter my eyelashes now? |
uneducated DAME mate (although there does seem to lots of real letters after his name though, perhaps it's a medico 'thing') Ask him how many aviation medicals he does in a year. Also ask him if he meets all of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements to maintain his DAME designation. Ask him if he has attended the DAME2 training, and if he intends to register to do the medicals. If he has, ask him if he understands that it will be him, not CASA, who will be standing in front of the coroner when the statistical certainty of a medical condition causing an accident just happens to occur in somebody that he's certified. Whether he was right or wrong in his assessment, it is a traumatic experience. |
The Avmed crew should have been run out of town on a rail after the - Hempel - fiasco In the end, a paying passenger, who had no knowledge of the risks they were accepting ended up dead. |
Out, damn'd spot.
Creampuff (for an example) is more often an adversary than an ally, as are some others here at one time or another. Bloggs and Leadsled for example, I can't find a skerick of agreement, different views, but there is not a drop of troll blood in either. Honest, worthy opponents all in a good cause, present two options to ponder and discuss. There have been some 'entertaining' bouts, robust discussions, even areas where it was agreed to disagree. Mutual even if grudging respect had been earned; and, as part of any healthy society, considering the independent nature of pilots, this is a fine thing.
After a while, playing on this board one can discern and even predict an outcome; some are worth waiting for; some are not, but even to retire hors de combat carries some credit. There are some clever, lively, articulate folk haunting these portals, all capable of expressing a point of view; unfortunately, this attracts trolls. Now your Trolls come in various guises, with different agendas. It's pretty easy to spot them though, you see even a poster who is disagreeing 'fits'; the argument may be diametrically opposed, but the protagonist 'fits'. Trolls do not. Perhaps it's in the sly syntax, maybe it's the devious 'attitude', the deliberate word traps to bait the unwary, the scathing attack, the retiring to more neutral ground to wait a chance: the pattern, the stance if you will. But inevitably, they get sprung, a little patience, a dab of Troll bait and Wallop; you have a troll head for the mantelpiece. Minnie Bannister hates them, but I like to see 'em there and they make great ashtrays. Lady Macbeth: Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? |
ausdoc;
The passenger didn't pay, his girlfriend did. Neither had an inkling that he was a "protected species". But CAsA did! Were his visual conception skills brought up in the Coroners inquest? It appears he lacked the medical score on many counts. |
Not quite sure what you're on about here Kharon. I didn't bring up the issue of DAMEs being able to issue certificates. I didn't bring up the Hempel issue. I didn't go dredging through old threads to try to make a point or to "catch" somebody out. I've used no "sly syntax or deliberate word traps".
I'm no fan of the way CASA does some of its business, but if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence - not anecdote, not tantrums, not character assassination. What should have happened at the very beginning, when pilots with CVD were first permitted to fly, was a proper prospective study regarding the way that these individuals operated aircraft in all conditions. Unfortunately, it was not done. It was done from the start when the first trials of antidepressant medication in pilots were conducted. The data was collected and analysed, and the particular conditions under which this was appropriate were determined. It's public data, look it up. Show me the real data and I will fight CASA to the end. But it's got to be data that addresses all of the uses of colour in aviation. Not just that the pilot can tell the difference between red and green, but that they can interpret displays every bit as quickly as colour normals. Not just that they've flown x thousand hours without crashing. A well designed study that addresses the conditions that are likely to be questioned in any appeal. In many cases, coulour is redundant, but redundancy in aviation is good. One does not argue for removal of redundant hydraulic, electrical or ignition systems. In other cases, colour is used to "cue" attention to other data. Are CVD pilots as quick at picking up this data, and if not, does it matter operationally? These are the questions that need to be answered, and the data is just not there. |
Frank, I totally agree. CASA did know, and so did just about every person on the airfield. I still don't quite know what CASA could have done to prevent the accident.
|
I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself.
|
This is at the heart of what utterly astounds me about the recent regulatory controversy about pilot CVD:
The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment). “There is complex, subtle use of colours in modern cockpits. It is no longer a red/green/white environment.” So what? In the normally certified aircraft I fly most often, there is a system that has a red light which illuminates when the system is in a particular state. There is another system which has a blue light which flashes when other systems are in particular states. There is yet another system which has an orange light that illuminates when that system is in a particular state. Neither the colour nor the difference between the colours of those lights has any actual or intuitive implication for the relative importance of the system state indicated. I know what it means when each light is on, and I know what it means when each light is off. And that’s all I need to know from a safety perspective. If I changed all those light colours to Mission Brown or Barry White, it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference. When a big CAUTION light flashes, one does not need to pause to consider whether it’s Duck Egg Blue or Mojave Mist. The proposition implicit in the quote is that there is a safety risk if pilots cannot distinguish between the subtly different colours in complex cockpits. That proposition has never been proved. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Objective people can see that. |
Creampuff, I agree with you in a cockpit that has lights that are either on or off. My understanding is that the problem is when a light changes colour depending on the state of a system, or when the colours of digits change on an EFIS display. The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance.
An analogy is traffic lights. The position of the light in the stack provides a redundant cue to those with CVD, and in most cases this is enough. There is good research though, that shows CVD drivers (and not all CVD is the same) are slower to detect the red and amber lights than non CVD. There is no difference in green detection, and it probably doesn't matter. So what, you may ask? Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights). |
I didn't know Hempel had a medical/licence restriction - the only person required to sight his medical would be his chief pilot. CASA should have notified his chief pilot. You can't blame anyone but CASA, chief pilot and Barry himself. But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying. Happy to continue this discussion on the more appropriate thread. |
There is plenty of evidence to more than suggest that it is risky for folks with serious Depression to fly I'd be happy to fly with either of the groups that you mention, and I regularly do. I just think that proper data gathering on CVD pilots from the start was a missed opportunity. I also think that money spent on lawyers would be better spent on science. There are a couple of universities in this country with extensive experience in testing visual perception, and I'm sure that they could design representative study tasks (using real cockpit instrumentation, lighting, etc rather than simulation) to give the data to put this matter to bed once and for all. |
Ausdoc wrote:
But how can CASA notify everybody that a pilot may fly for, or hire an aircraft from? The coroner's recommendation that CASA publish a list of all restrictions on all medicals would have given CASA some deniability, but I doubt it would have stopped Hempel from flying. |
Yet year after year professional CVD pilots are required to undertake the same scrutiny of their standards and ability, during the same checks that "normal" pilots do, and nothing..not a hint, not the tiniest scrap of concern from any of their checkers.
If there was the slightest shred of concern it would have surfaced by now. For goodness sake after a quarter of a century in this country, and a whole lot longer in other enlightened places, not a single definitive example of CVD having the slightest affect on a pilots ability to safely commit aviation. Sorry Doc. that's a whole lot of positive research, show us the research to the contrary. Regarding DAME's and CAsA's rather demeaning attitude towards them. I question why CAsA deems it necessary to squander, how many zillions, of tax payers money? on some Flim Flam "Training" exercise. Are Australian doctors competent or not? I'm told by DAME friends that the so called training exercises are very like the professional development courses ATO's are required to attend. More being lectured AT rather than lectured to, hardly education. I reiterate there is ample research, in the history of FAA medical examiners that doctors are perfectly capable of assessing whether a pilot is fit or not. The furphy of liability is exactly that. In the most litigious society in the world is there or has there ever been a problem? Given the size of the US industry, the massive numbers of pilots the FAA must medically administer, is there any issue with their DAME's issuing medical certificates? I go to the same DAME every year to renew my medical's. Same process. Difference is my FAA medical is issued on the spot. My CAsA medical is given a three month extension, until some clerk in Avmed adds up the points and decides if I can earn my living or not...and for that "service" I have to pay a fee of $75. As someone once said "What a nice little earner" Someone else might call it corruption. |
Well it turns out that in particular circumstances, that 40-50% increase in detection time does matter, and CVD drivers are over-represented in rear-end collisions at traffic lights. Not a lot higher, and they are usually low speed, but the data is clear. Simple system, the light is on or off, and there is redundancy built into the system (standard position of the lights). Seriously: Is this the quality of the logic justifying the recent change? Where is the data to which you refer, and where is the evidence proving causation rather than correlation? When was the last time a policeman asked the driver involved in a rear-ender, do you have CVD? How could this data be collected? The message is still there, but the time to detect it may change. Whether that actually matters or not depends on the system and the circumstance. If that change of colour has any safety-critical implications, it's badly designed system. The history of aviation is littered with systems that seemed brilliant in theory but caught out many perfectly competent pilots in practice. |
FF road to perdition v CVDPA petition
Thank you Flying Fiend & FOI crew :D:D;)
While trolling through Fort Fumble's FOI Disclosure log I came across a new entry, which must be said was published in world record time, that possibly may shine new light on the PMO's new evidence on CVD. Here is a couple of excerpts.. http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/...CASAAAMAC2.jpg No nothing there?? However the next excerpt does have an interesting comment by the PMO on a CAMI (FAA) new research on CVD testing: http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/...ercras/two.jpg So ausdoc, since you are in the know, any chance that we could get a copy/summary of this CAMI (FAA) research paper?? It could be the key to this new research that the PMO is banging on about?? OK back to the petition which still needs far more support, so come on people get on-board… SIGN HERE A couple more recent comments:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.