|
Perfect Example Of CASA Outrageaous Behaviour?
I refer to the letter sent to AOC holders regarding their employment of pilots with known colour blindness.
Reading between the lines, this is an open recommendation to an employer to terminate any pilot with a colour vision defect under threat of the loss of the AOC. Is this not outrageaous? The offending text, well all of it is offensive. I write to you now, as the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) 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 http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Colour%2...%20holders.pdf |
That does seem offensive and without seeing what advice has been given to pilots affected by this it seems insensitive and no doubt very disconcerting to those involved.
I acknowledge the fact that this letter is susupposedly designed to advise AOC holders of a change that may affect pilots that they employ but to couple it with the statement that Sunfish has quoted above is in my opinion threatening and insensitive. My thoughts are with those that may be affected by the upcoming review. |
wtf are employers supposed to do while their "cvd" employees hold valid medicals without being dragged in to fwa?
|
CASA = gutless - if they are so concerned then issue an interim determination/order/directive. But to throw it back on an employer to potentially stand down an employee whose medical is still valid shows CASA up for what it is.
Have CASA sent employers the details of this latest research upon which they (employers) are encouraged to make an informed medical related decision but for which they would have no expertise. FFS, isn't that why we go to a DAME and have a Medical Branch in CASA. I doubt ANY employer will take someone off-line for the reason Waren9 mentions. |
Surely this is CASA giving the long finger to the Senate committee and Sen Fawcett in particular.
The trouble is I doubt the screaming skull cares. He's on the way out. Full package. Gov't super. There is nothing bad going to happen to him. He just has to weather a couple of weeks of name calling. Where else in life can you screw things up with immunity? |
See below thread for more of the saga:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-pilots-7.html For those who haven't seen them, the full episodes of the Senator Fawcett's questioning is below. :D If it wasn't so serious, the performances would be laughable... Senate Estimates - 18/11/13 Senate Estimates -24/02/14 Senate Estimates - 26/05/14 |
I'm certain the Australian Human Rights Commission will be very interested in the latest CASA letter. I would be very interested to see if CASA could get away with such blatant discrimination.
|
Of course CASA can get away with, it's all about "SAFTEY".
If only the whole industry got together and told CASA where to go, and started a new, industry led governing body, if that were to happen, what would CASA do, throw us all in gaol? I know it won't happen, but I can dream of a world without CASA. :) |
Colour Vision Defective, A Pilots perspective.
I am a 47 year old CVD pilot. I currently work as a Captain on the A320/321/330 with a major carrier. Before joining this company I was a Captain flying an Embraer 170, a very modern fully EFIS Jet and prior to that a First officer on Dash 8’s. Prior to that many years in GA When I first found out that I was CVD at my initial aviation medical I was shocked as, for me, it had never been a problem. I was advised by the all knowing “experts” that I would never fly for an Airline, but there were many careers such as instructing, charter, power line inspection and the likes. I continued on with my training building hours the same as all the colour normal pilots did. I did everything the same as them despite being colour defective. I have followed the continuing discussions and arguments for and against CVD pilots for many years as I have a vested interest. I personally believe that my CVD is not an issue in my chosen career based on 20 years of experience being acutely aware that I am CVD. I fly daily looking and manipulating coloured buttons and switches, I am sure if I was misinterpreting these, I would be picked up by my colleagues and by the rigorous check and training that we, as pilots endure. The few colleagues that know of my colour vision issue are genuinely surprised and the usual comment is “Well I can’t see a problem”. These professionals have been in the industry for decades and are extremely experienced check and trainers Airline flying is highly regulated and extremely procedural. Tasks, be they normal or abnormal, are carried out in a step-by-step logical manner. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what colour a light is on a switch. We as professionals have learnt the system, know where the switch or push button is and whether it is illuminated or not. Allowing easy verification along with other visual and aural cues that are presented. So let's break it down. A Master Warning or Master Caution sounds and the button 60 cm from the end of your nose flashes “Master Warning” or “Master Caution”, it happens to be “RED” or “AMBER”. You cancel the warning and after identifying the failure and after confirming with your colleague you begin dealing with the problem, either by ECAM, EICAS and or QRH, depending what you fly. Certain tasks are carried out to deal with the failure. This may be identifying a system panel and then actioning a button or switch. This is done in a thorough logical manner, which requires you to be familiar with the position of all buttons and switches and what they do. A modern cockpit is not a mass of unlabelled coloured lights. It is designed in an ergonomically logical fashion with systems labelled and clearly marked. As professionals, like any other professional, we are highly trained and skilled to know our systems interpret what they are telling us and act upon it. On the A320, landing gear indications use symbols for example “green” triangles that illuminate when the gear is down. If it doesn’t you get a master warning and it also lights up the word “UNLK” above the suspect landing gear as it happens this is “RED” but it wouldn’t matter if it was any other colour as long as you understand that when the word is illuminated you have a problem I know where the gear doors are despite the colour coding by their position and numerous other visual and aural cues that are at hand. I know that all the doubters out there are going to bring up the PAPI. PAPI is unreliable in certain atmospheric conditions, our Flight manual states not to be used below 200’. I certainly would rather use a DME vs Height check or a VNAV guidance than rely on a PAPI in any weather conditions. Notwithstanding this I have never had trouble interpreting PAPI indications or any other lighting system. When I learnt to fly it was the runway perspective in the window not a coloured light that told me I was "on slope". Now we come to the issue which is the draconian steps CASA has taken to this issue despite the 25+ years of CVD's flying with zero incidents. All pilots should stand up to this, colour normals and CVD's alike this is an aggressive attack on our livelihoods and ignoring the in depth examination from the AAT appeals in 1989. If CASA is successful in stopping CVD's from flying, and have no doubt in your minds this is what they intend to do, It will be a huge experience drain to the industry, it will destroy peoples careers. It will also affect operators bottom lines when they have to replace pilots and train new ones for these loses. Help Australia show the world in this area that there is no issue. Please get behind the upcoming appeal and donate to Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) |
Unhappy, Jan
Having been privy to the current chief medical dude's vendetta on this matter, this stinks! :ugh:
The pilot concerned, like Bill Smith below, has an impeccable record of airline flying over a number of years which was going to be terminated by this bloke on a completely spurious, trumped up excuse. It's a disgrace!! :\ G'day ;) |
Discrimination, bullying and harassment?
Workplace Bullying Have a read of Senator Xenophon's appendix to the senate report. Interesting is there does not appear to be a strong safety case being put forward to support. |
Don't be so hard on CASA. Like their predecessors, Dept of Transport and the Dept of Civil Aviation, they are only just doing their job.
That is....making sure that when the fit hits the shan there is no doubt about who else is to blame ! Emeritus := |
This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry.
Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual. I've know poor sod's on CAsA's sh..t list to be pursued from one job to the next, all around Australia. The contents of this letter doesn't surprise me, what does is the regulator has become so brazen that they think they can get away with it. I'm with Creamie sue the bastards,take their house, kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly. There is a rumour gobbles is frantically scrounging wood to construct tumbrils and Kharon has enrolled at Madam DeFarges knitting school, already turning out elephant sizes socks I'm told. |
kick their dog and debauch their their missus, or vice versa if the missus is ugly. |
Time to target the Minister
Dear oh dear, the Frankenstein truly has grown into a rabid frothing beast hasn't it? I can just see them all now - Dr Voodoo, Dr Pooh-Shan, Anustasi, Herr Skull and Terry all with their robust elongated middle fingers proudly in the air!
Make no mistake, these guys are fighting back like a cornered Gerbil at the Mardi Gras. They have lost their marbles completely. Their egos and pride are beyond comprehension and their consciences seared, devoid of anything. The focus of matters needs to shift, as I have stated in the past. Forget CAsA, they are untouchable and somewhat 'vampire-esq', the beast cannot be killed. It's time to get smart - Our focus should be directed solely at the Minister. You want to shake the apple cart? Then go after the main man. It is the Ministers department that is out of control, and he needs to be held accountable. Letters of no confidence and an explanation including copies of the aforementioned matter should be sent to every media outlet, ICAO, the UN, Human Rights commission, FWA and any and every legal firm that may be interested in acting on this matter. The Miniscule's name needs to be put up in neon lights, along with the equally incompetent PM, Sunnys beloved PMC, Pumpkin Head Mike, Infrastructure, the whole stinking lot of them. CAsA does what it does because the government sanctions it's activities, supports and fosters its methods. If the government and Minister didn't support it then they would cut it off at the knees. And they have not done that have they? There needs to be strength in numbers boys and girls, and it is better to die on your feet than on your knees. CAsA are reminiscent of General George A Custer. This is the Australian battle of Little Bighorn and winner takes all. The IOS has been tolerant thus far, enduring endless amounts of crap, patiently enduring endless toothless inquiries etc, and trying to avoid all out civil disobedience towards these Canberra indoctrinated a#sholes. But the line in the sand has been crossed on this latest issue. So there you go folks, smack bang after what has been touted by some as being Australia's most fundamental and astute reviews of its Aviation oversighting bodies, a report not even 48 hours cold, and CAsA respond by delivering one of the hardest, unjustifiable, immoral actions EVER! TICK TOCK |
Constant as the northern star.
TB # 13-"This is the first written evidence of CAsA bastardry. Their usual modus operandi is the sly, off the record phone call to a CP or CEO that so and so is not in CAsA's good books and perhaps, just perhaps there could be fairly severe repercussions if this particular person remains in the employ of their company. That despite no criminal nor administrative ever being taken against the individual. That aside, the thing intrigues me is the 'why do it'. Take the CVD kids case; on one side there is expert opinion, supported evidence and a sensible approach toward the issue by a crew that is probably prepared to sit down and have an adult discussion with a concerned regulator. Nope, none of that from the litigious Shambollic team; first muscles are flexed, then the bully boy tactics, then AAT, then the threats and now, the fangs are revealed. Idiot letters to DAME sighting evidence which is at best 'awkward' at worst 'dodgy', then thinly veiled threats to pilots and operators. I will never understand why the issues could not be resolved without CASA humiliating and insulting Australia, taking the Mickey out of the Senate, the Parliament and industry with impunity; and, why we just sit back and let them. Sad really, for a sovereign nation which prides itself on the ANZAC spirit, brags of its competitive approach and claims to support the underdog. I just wonder why then, all this vanishes the second a mongrel dog barks in a back alley. Selah. - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - Oi. There is, by the by, a new colour vision test being developed – the Shambollic system. Very simple – you take a meaningless sentence and adopt it as "your" egocentric 'philosophical' dogma ("Wow, that's deep and meaningful", say the barely literate; "oh, how recherché) – and use it in two colours i.e. red and green at the end of each portentious (pretentious) missive despatched There are two statements about human beings that are true: that all human beings are alike, and that all are different. On those two facts all human wisdom is founded. Mark Van Doren- Emphatic, n'est-ce pas? True Hubris. Aye well – off to Madam D's house, lessons start at 0700 – sharp. It's quite technical this knit 2 purl 1 caper. The old besom uses red and green needles, so I keep stabbing sensitive areas with the one I can't see. But I have determined to master the art; in time. 004 – those flaming gerbils keep hiding in the elephants socks; it creates absolute bloody mayhem. Elephants are bad enough with mice – but the gerbils......(cracked me up). |
|
Well, if I was a pilot with colour blindness the first thing I would do is triple my loss of licence insurance and then sit back and wait.
This strikes me as far more cynical than it seems. If companies can be persuaded to fire or request resignation of such affected pilots then it stays a matter between the company and the pilot (and then the tribunal), on the other hand, if CASA issue new legislation that bars pilots with colour blindness, it is a whole new ball game. Now we are in the area of compensation from CASA, loss of licence insurance from the insurers, who will, sure as night becomes day, having paid out, sue CASA for radically changing the risk and exposing the underwriters. Next, the pilots themselves will form a group and bring a class action against CASA for their loss of employment through no fault of their own. So much easier if the companies let these pilots go 'voluntarily' before the legislation becomes law, so much less expensive than having to pay compensation etc.! The letter quoted above is nothing to do with safety and all about money. |
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demand that all public servants with CVD be removed from their jobs.
They're a national threat - they could easily screw up a major project because of their inability to differentiate important colours in PP projections. What about dyslexics?? A bigger threat than anything. Dyslexic LAME's frighten the bejeesus out of me. Tightening a crucial fastener to 84Nm instead of 48Nm?? Where are the recorded major incidents/fatalities that can be sheeted directly home to a CVD pilot? Proof, please, CASA. If CASA want to move on this; definitive, provable incident figures have to be produced to back up the proposed change/s. I'd be more concerned about hidden heart disease posing a real danger to the operation of aircraft, than I would ever be concerned about CVD. The medical techniques for finding narrowed arteries are still very limited. We all know people who have lied in medicals. Media releases: 13 January 2005 - Pilot incapacitation led to fatal aircraft accident at Mareeba People suffering from CVD adjust to their deficiencies as well as one-eyed people. One-eyed people aren't banned from holding a pilots licence, they can pass with a medical waiver in the U.S. Wiley Post is a classic example. Post wasn't killed by his lack of eyesight, he was killed by his ignorance of aeronautical engineering design! |
A Perfect Storm.
From ProAviation...:ok:
Colour vision deficient pilots see redLeave a reply While the topic of aberrant regulatory conduct dominates the nation’s aviation dialogue, we’re wondering whether a letter from CASA to all employers of pilots might represent a practical joke, an early example of a scorched earth strategy, or an act of rebellion against the ASRR’s erudite recommendations. We’d speculate that such a bizarre missive could hardly have originated from the aviation medics, who would be well aware that when you want to quote medical research convincingly in support of a position, you need to provide a reference to the relevant original medical research papers that present the evidence referred to. (We’ve requested that reference from CASA and are still awaiting a response.) It also seems unlikely that the letter got the nod from CASA’s legal office, because it seems to be asking AOC holders and/or pilots to make decisions which CASA’s not prepared to make itself. No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.” But what on earth it hopes to achieve is difficult to discern. It tells employers that “the possibility exists that your pilot’s CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued,” and then it goes on to tell their employers to make decisions they are not equipped to make because CASA simply hasn’t told them what the hell it’s on about and it doesn’t tell them what the problem is and what it considers is an “appropriate” course to take. Here’s the letter which all AOC holders received on June 5. We follow it with a commentary by Dr Arthur Pape, who is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading expert on the issue of colour vision deficiency (CVD). If you’re bewildered by the letter, you’ll find Dr Pape’s analysis enlightening by comparison, and indicative of a clear way forward for any responsible medical official seeking to develop intelligent and effective policies on this not-so-complex issue. 5 June 2014 Dear AOC holder, Colour Vision Deficiency A number of pilots have taken their medical certificates issued subject to a limiting condition because they do not meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception specified in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). You may employ one or more pilots whose medical certificates are subject to such a condition. 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, and the possibility exists that your pilots CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued. CASA is reviewing the situation and will consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken on the basis of that review, at which time affected medical certificate holders will be notified accordingly. In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD-related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or designated aviation medical examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review. As I told recipients of that advice I would be doing, I write to you now, as the holder of an air operator’s certificate (AOC) 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. For more information visit CASA’s website at: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593. For further details, please contact Dr Pooshan Navathe, principal medical officer, on 131757. Yours sincerely, Peter Fereday Executive Manager, Industry Permissions Enlightenment from Dr Arthur Pape At its philosophical/scientific core, this so-called “standard” represents a conclusion (or argument) based on three implicit assumptions, as follows: Assumption 1 There is extensive use of colour-coded information in the aviation environment. Assumption 2 The “safe performance of duties” in the aviation environment is dependent on “the ability to perceive readily those colours necessary etc etc……..”. Assumption 3 Without ‘the ability to perceive readily those colours, the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties”, these duties will be performed unsafely. Discussion The validity or “truth” of the ACPS relies entirely on the validity or “truth” of each of the three assumptions. In turn, the validity or “truth” of each of the assumptions relies on evidence, as opposed to opinion and/or established prejudice. Let’s consider the first assumption. At the dawn of aviation, over a hundred years ago, colour coding was used solely in the form of signalling by means of coloured flags or lights, as the means of communication between people on the ground and in the air. It was suggested that people who could not readily perceive the colours of those signals might perform their duties “unsafely”, and that suggestion, under the circumstances of the day, would have had some merit. Out of this there arose the ACPS, whose wording has changed little from those heady days of cloth covered aeroplanes and simple instructions to pilots using simple coloured objects in a simple “code”. Since then there has been an exponential increase in the use of colour throughout the aviation environment, both in the aviation physical environment and in and on aeroplanes. The list of uses of colour is enormous, and the validity of the first assumption is self-evident to anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the aviation environment. Result: Assumption 1 is “True”. Assumption 2 is, however, problematic. For this assumption to be valid, it needs to be demonstrated that the perception of the colour(s) is sufficient and necessary to see the information that is required for the “safe performance of duties”. In other words, “see the colour” equals “see the information”, which results in “safe performance of duties”. This assumption could be tested empirically, but this type of work has never been done in respect to the aviation environment. Result: Assumption 2 remains an unproven assumption To paraphrase assumption 3, would go like this: “see no (or different) colour” equals “see no (or wrong) information” which results in “unsafe performance”. To digress briefly, let me state that the existence of individuals with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) is a proven reality. That 8 to 9 percent of the male population and just less than 1 percent of the female population have one or other of the various types of CVD is beyond any doubt. Further, there are numerous reliable and proven tests available to detect and classify the severity of any particular CVD condition. Let me add also that the CAD test is an excellent test to diagnose and quantify CVD conditions. So, in short, the ACPS, via the implicit Assumption 3 would predict that people with CVD should perform the duties (involved in flying an aeroplane) unsafely. This proposition could be tested empirically (i.e., by measurement, observation and analysis). No formal empirical testing of assumption 3 has ever been conducted. Result: Assumption 3 is also problematic. It is a fact that pilots with CVD have been around for a very long time and in considerable numbers. For almost a century, the FAA has applied a wide variety of colour vision tests and practical tests, whereby tens of thousands of CVD pilots either passed the ACPS or were granted waivers against the standard. Since 1989, a few thousand Australian CVD pilots have enjoyed the freedom to fly at night and many hundreds have achieved successful careers in airline operations. If Assumption 3 were “true” one would expect there to be evidence of “unsafe performance of duties” by these pilots. This should be particularly evident in the incident and accident records kept by the aviation authorities of the USA and Australia. A landmark study in the mid 1970s by two researchers (Dille and Booze) working for the FAA examined the accident records of the large group of CVD pilots with a “waiver” and found not even one accident where the existence of a colour vision defect could have contributed to the cause. Furthermore, the accident rate for this group was no different than that of the general pilot population (accidents per 100,000 hrs of recent experience). Until 2002, the FAA had no record of any accident attributed to CVD, and since 2002 there have been none. The significance of 2002 is that in that year a Fedex B727 crashed while on a PAPI-guided night visual approach, and the CVD status of the flying FO was attributed a causal role in the crash. However, two other crew had normal colour vision and also did not see what the PAPI should have been showing them. The relationship between this crash and the significance of CVD is highly contentious. The ATSB and CASA have admitted they have no record of any accident attributed to CVD. The Australian experience since the Denison case in 1989 has provided excellent positive evidence against the “truth” of Assumption 3. There are estimated to have been several thousand CVD pilots operating with either no restriction or minimal restriction in the period in question, and a significant number at the highest level of airline operations. I can say with confidence that we have examples of even the most severe kinds of CVD working as captains and FOs on the full range of airline type aircraft. These pilots are surveilled, trained, tested and examined in exactly the same way that pilots with normal colour vision are handled. They pass and keep on meeting all requirements “necessary” for the “safe performance of their duties”, and these assessments are made by duly qualified examiners of airmen, as opposed to aviation medical doctors or optometrists. This is taken by many informed commentators as evidence that Assumption 3 is “false”, and raises the question as to whether the ACPS serves any useful role in modern aviation. It is abundantly evident that the appeal by John O’Brien [A pilot with CVD] and the unprecedented interrogation of CASA on this topic in the Australian Senate has triggered a tsunami of hysterical and irrational activity within CASA. It is my view that CASA’s actions and the responses by the Director and the Principal Medical Officer to the Senate Estimates Hearings reflect an absurd and indefensible position. Claims of “medical evidence” by both in support of their stance cannot be substantiated because such evidence does not exist. There is no “rocket science” in any aspect of this saga. |
No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.” If he has indeed made this foolish decision then his head should roll as a result. Then again, accountability isn't part of CAsA's framework so keep the stupid illogical biased decisions coming Fort Fumble! It's what we are accustomed too. TICK TOCK |
----- for finding narrowed arteries are still very limited Actually, nothing could be further from the truth, you obviously have not kept up to date with modern medical imaging technology. It is really quite amazing to look at every little variation in diameter of all the heart arteries, and look at and measure the efficiencies of the delivery of arterial blood to every sector of the heart. Don't anybody tell CASA, they will want to mandate it for every medical. It ain't cheap, but it is not limited. Tootle pip!! |
Wtf is the agenda here? If CASA has research that says cvd pilots are a safety threat then they should cite the evidence. From where I see it, the evidence supports the contention that cvd are safe.
Bill, the issue with PAPI is a bit of a furphy, IMHO. According to ICAO annex 14, PAPI is designed and intended to be used within 5000m of the tdz. Although the color differential between red and white can be seen at much greater distances by color normals, pilots with a 'mild' cvd can still use the PAPI within 5km. Besides, there are other methods of determining "on slope" besides a PAPI. Like you, Bill, I have a cvd. I have also held a professional flight crew licence for 30 years and have some 14,000 hours of flight time. I have never had any issues with colour differentiation on the flight deck or with aerodrome aids, such as PAPI. As a sailor, the nature of my cvd is evident as I am able to differentiate between yellow and white navigational markers at distances well beyond what colour 'normal' sailors can. :8 |
Anthill,
I think you have misunderstood me. I have no more problem with the PAPI as any of my colour normal colleagues do. Depending on the state of the system, WX, long grass :-) and some of our ports the serviceability is dubious to say the least. I know that all the doubters out there are going to bring up the PAPI. PAPI is unreliable in certain atmospheric conditions, our Flight manual states not to be used below 200’. I certainly would rather use a DME vs Height check or a VNAV guidance than rely on a PAPI in any weather conditions. Notwithstanding this I have never had trouble interpreting PAPI indications or any other lighting system. I hope you've helped the cause with a donation :ok: |
This video seems very apt. Constable Savage with Rowan Atkinson from NTNON
|
I understand,Bill Smith and agree. I've never had any issues with PAPI either. What I am saying is that PAPI has limitations and ICAO is aware of these (Iknow that we are in agreement here:ok: ).In fact, Annex 14 describes when PAPI is suitable for glide path reference and that's in close proximity to the aerodrome.
When CASA introduce the PAPI as the pivotal element of their argument they are clutching at straws; they are totally mis-representing its utility in operations. They are also wrong in saying that CAD should be the sole test to determine the ability of a pilot to discriminate between colours within the design parameters of ground based aids. If there are flaws in their argument (which there are) then they simply can't mount a safety case. The feedback that I have heard in the industry is that the current Medical Section of CASA is regarded by DAMEs and specialists as being a pack of idiots. My own DAME is clear about this, he says they should be sent back to where they came from. A mate who is a specialist (also holds a CPL+IR) tells me that CASA frequently order tests on pilots that have no scientific validity within his field! CASA are ordering these tests to determine if a pilot can return to work after a medical issue. He says that these tests are ordered by the medical section after he has already been determined that the pilot is fit to return to flying. I emphasise: he states that the tests that they order have NO VALIDITY as a diagnostic tool in his field of speciality! I will be writing to Senator Fielding about shortly. |
Weren't we luck when one of ours (CAA/CASA medical) went over the be one of yours. P N I'm thinking of.
Though to be fair we still have one of yours (D W) as our PMO and he's caused a few issues this side of the Tasman and isn't all that highly regarded by some DME's and AMA's. |
If CASA has research that says cvd pilots are a safety threat |
This needs to be stopped in its tracks, first they'll get rid of those pilots who have CVD restrictions on their Class 1's, then once the overall numbers are reduced they'll come after those who have passed one of the practical tests and currently have no restrictions. The agenda here is to have the minimum standard of the CAD test period and if you do some research you'll be surprised how many colour normals who can easily read the ishihara plates cant pass the CAD.
The big issue here is that CASA are fighting with public money and the pilots have to fund this from there own wallet. Years ago an AAT case qualified for legal aid, what the hell happened to that? Its just not cricket, we need AIPA and the AFAP to come to step up and earn their keep, this is why we pay our fees. SN |
note in the following that I don't use effing irritating abbreviations.
Pilots who are deficient in their abilities to sense colours and colors have no deficit in intelligence. they have no deficit in self discipline. in fact the colour/color deficit pilots that I personally know are seen by their critical peers as above average skilled pilots. so my considered conclusion is that CAsA are total utter wankers in this matter. my advise to CAsA, backed up by centuries of roman catholic church wisdom, is that if you don't stop wanking on this subject you'll all go blind. bannning CVD (colour vision deficient) pilots is a stupid piece of pseudoscience. can we make it plainer than that to the incompetents in CAsA? ....or do we have to shoot them? |
The hong kong mason
What an incredulous Tool .
Do you actually have an aviation department in Aus ? - sounds like a beurocratic wing of the HK cad to me . Spineless governmental rubbish . Screaming skull never had the nuts to scream at Bundy B . Nail these axxxxxes |
Call the next witness.
What we are witnessing, through the actions against CVD pilots is classic, clandestine CASA operating in broad daylight. Normally, witnessing this kind of 'treatment' is not a spectator sport; usually it's by special, private invitation only. Ever see a Chief pilot weeping in the car park; or an operator tearing hair out in the bank managers office, or a fellow pilot on the dole queue, well that's the result of a special invitation.
Until the cold, clammy hand of the 'regulator' has slithered around your neck, it is not possible for the average 'Joe' to remotely contemplate, let alone come to grips with exactly what individual victims are forced to deal with. I'll try to explain. There are 'classically' three elements to a CASA smoke, mirrors and safety show: an unfortunate, a 'safety' issue and an agenda. The 'unfortunate' part is played by the hapless victim who has normally, in some way, had an 'event', take Quadrio for an example. A video on U bend tube leads to an administrative 'conviction'. The road to that 'conviction' and subsequent denial of an ability to earn a humble living as a joy flight pilot has been the subject of an intense two year investigative effort. The mere fact that evidence was always available to prove that Quadrio was not the pilot on the day has as yet, had no impact on his situation. In Pel Air – anyone could be forgiven reasonable doubts, the 'event' generated enough smoke to cover the agenda, had it not been publicly, openly and robustly examined the opinions formed and the event, would have been 'filed' away. This is not so in the CVD story; there is no 'event'. Nothing untoward has occurred; except 20 years of reliable, normal service. This cannot therefore be parlayed into a 'safety case' through an 'event'. This is what makes the CVD issue unique; the 'safety-case' cannot be generated from event smoke, why? there ain't none, that's why. So other means must be used to satisfy 'the agenda'. I dare say O'Brien can enunciate and document the tale of woe and can probably find a handful of similar, supporting cases. There is a trail of breadcrumbs to follow from initial embuggerance to the final despicable 'letter' distribution. Classic tactics, only in public this time, against a bunch of innocents and their employers. There was never a more valid reason nor better time to examine, in depth, the unsupportable machinations of a 'regulator' against the industry it serves. The list of damaged, disadvantaged operators, from the McComic years is long; the list of pilots administratively and clandestinely denied the right to work and put food on the table is as long again. It is understandable that DPM Truss is reluctant to look retrospectively and to a degree, I can agree with the pragmatic approach but: to re-establish industry confidence – in short order – without addressing some of the aberrations and atrocities of the past five years will only serve to delay true rehabilitation. The CVD pilot embuggerance is occurring on 'his watch'. As a responsible, honest, competent minister of the crown he must act. Act swiftly, fairly, openly and honestly – and, while the tools are out, why not buff some of the detritus off the image of the 'regulator' by examining, in camera under Senate confidentiality some of the more onerous, outrageous events of the past few years. Soft soap and white paper are very nice to have; but, equality, fairness and justice are the essentials men and women of this country fought and died for. We waste millions on land rights for gay whales, how about a little be put aside to give honest, hardworking Australian pilots a fair go. Those, who, through no fault of their own are being penalised in the most draconian way, loss of profession, loss of earning, loss of pride, loss of dignity, loss of mortgage, loss of kids education – just because some minor medico's running a sheltered workshop have decided to make it so. It's Bollocks. It will cost less and achieve more to mount a Senate inquiry than it will to allow the flummery and hypocrisy of yet another AAAT 'hearing'. The commonwealth spent the money, 20 odd years ago to provide the ruling which has been proven correct, over two decades of 'non events'. It is not the AAT ruling which is flawed. Selah – steam off. |
Hear, hear Kharon.
Perhaps what is needed is a "Truth Commission" much like South Africa had to get at the truth, then reconcile the industry. |
Very well written Kharon
|
A Truth commission..??
When so many ***** in CAsA dont know the meaning of the word "truth" then we have a problem.:mad:
A Judicial enquiry, to allow the Quadrios and Butsons of this industry be heard...and actions taken, wrongs righted and a new proper regulator, based on common sense and sanity bought into being. Its either a complete make over or a revolution, civil disobedience , whatever.:ok: Root and branch, twig, trunk and dead wood, the whole CAsA tree needs up- rooting and the axe.:ok: Chop, chop, W Truss. time is short. |
Aroa, I heartily agree, the "Truth Commission" was very much tongue in cheek, but the truth commission in SA was very much about Government embuggerance and the corruption it generated.
|
Sen Fawcett -Chair of Parliamentary Friends of Aviation
Senator Fawcett has championed many aviation related causes and now he is banging the drum on the CVD phallacy i.e. that CVD pilots are, contrary to empirical evidence, a risk to aviation safety.
At the recent Estimates, in an exchange with McComic & the PMO, DF made this statement: Senator FAWCETT: Before we go to Dr Navathe on that, your previous principal medical officers—Brock, Liddell and Wilkins—have all had a different view. They respect the medical science but Brock, in particular, has gone to ICAO and some of his documentation indicates that at the vision and colour deficient working group they actually acknowledged that a lot of their current rule set was not necessarily good at determining whether a person was competent to fly an aircraft. It was just good at determining if they had a colour vision deficiency. It was for that reason that Mr Brock allowed people to do a flight test where they could demonstrate in an aircraft their ability to operate it. On that basis, there are now people who have CVD—that is proven, and they do not dispute that—who are now operating airline aircrafts as captains around the world. So CASA has in fact previously established a precedent that has shown there is an alternative third level of testing that accepts the fact that somebody may have CVD but that is not a determinant as to whether they can competently and safely operate an aircraft. My question is, with all due respect to the theoretical approach, which the CAA in the UK has taken: what steps have we taken to build upon Australia's 25 years of experience to provide an alternative means of demonstrating whether a person is safe in an aircraft and not whether he or she has a colour vision deficiency? {Comment: Also recently DF was made the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation, see..The Fawcett Flyer March 2014} |
Hmmm?? thought bubble expanding here....
Is CAsA getting a little pressure put on them by ICAO??..you know as in.. "Now old boy, really!! team effort an all that..you cant just go running off and doing your own thing...I mean team spirit and all that...united front, what!... cant have "evidence" interfering with things can we!!...more caviar old boy...another cigar??" Which sort of begs the question?.... If we cant influence ICAO with indisputable "Evidence", what the hell are we doing spending Gazillions sending numpies to gabfests and various ICAO committee meetings all over the world...I mean what the hell are they going to "Influence" they don't understand half of what's happening here!! In other words " WHATS IN IT FOR US" and by that I mean Australian industry and those that work in it, not the industry Rejects that inhabit CAsA. Oh and Sarc'si, he knows, he knows. Finally a Pollie who can recognize Bullsh..t from half a mile away...would love to see the last video, he who must not be named was very close to losing it. |
Oh and Sarc'si, he knows, he knows. Finally a Pollie who can recognize Bullsh..t from half a mile away...would love to see the last video, he who must not be named was very close to losing it. |
All CASA are doing here is shifting the responsiability elsewhere & in this case onto the AOC holder, one less thing for CASA to be held responsible for:ugh:
It's all about ass covering & we all know how CASA have that down real pat! Wmk2 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.