[Peetwo]

CVDPA update on AOCVA: 11/07/24

Courtesy CVDPA, via YouTube:

Streamed live on Jul 11, 2024

In June 2024, CASA finalised their new Colour Vision policy, which reintroduced an operational flight test, the passing of which results in a 'clean' medical with no CVD related restrictions. 

Join CVDPA directors as they break down the final instrument, the progress of the implementation, and discuss what this means for CVD pilots.

Plus CM update to his PPrune thread "Avmed delays in granting medical certificates - CASR 11.140":

Clinton McKenzie

Ms Spence’s response, yesterday (10 July 2024) to my email dated 27 June 2024:

Thanks for sharing Clayton Utz’ advice in relation to the operation of CASR 11.140 in relation to medical certificates.

I’ve discussed it with Jonathan, and there is nothing in Mr Sibley’s advice that changes our position that CASR 11.140 does not apply in respect of medical certificates.

It is not unusual for there to be different interpretations of the civil aviation legislation and as you infer in your email, it is ultimately a matter for courts to determine the correct interpretation.

While we have different views on the legislative interpretation, that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss any practical concerns you have around the impact of our interpretation on the aviation community.

Should you wish to meet with me, Andreas and Jonathan to do that, please let me know.

My response this morning (11 July 2024):

Thank you for responding to my email.

I think the chronic delays in CASA’s medical certification processes are well known – CASA’s own published service delivery data have been there for all to see for years. And the impacts of those delays on a person who requires the certificate to lawfully earn a living or engage in their life’s passion should be obvious on a moment’s reflection by anyone with empathy. (For those without empathy, I’d commend the many submissions made by representative bodies and individuals to numerous inquiries into aviation regulatory matters and reviews of medical certification.) Those impacts would have been and continue to be avoided, with no risk to the safety of air navigation, if there were a regulation keeping medical certificates in force while CASA processed renewal applications submitted on time.

You have confirmed that CASA will persist with its interpretation, knowing the impacts and despite Mr Sibley’s reasoning and conclusion. As you say, it’s a matter for the Court. And we’ll see if – as with ‘RoboDebt’ – Mr Sibley’s conclusion turns out to be correct. I therefore do not consider that a meeting would be productive of anything for anyone, but I thank you for proffering it as a potential next step.

Before I seek and publish Mr Sibley’s advice on the interpretation of CASR 67.150(7) in relation to the colour perception criterion in the medical standards, could you please confirm that CASA’s position continues to be as quoted in my email to you of 27 June 2024.

And in reply:

Chronic Snoozer

It is not unusual for there to be different interpretations of the civil aviation legislation and as you infer in your email, it is ultimately a matter for courts to determine the correct interpretation.

The legislation should not be open to interpretation otherwise what is the point of rewriting regulations? The output has to be clearer, more succinct and logical, not to mention simpler than what came before. What is the benefit from going to court to get the “correct” interpretation of a vague piece of legislation? Just write it properly in the first place. In “pilot speak” would be handy too.

---

Clinton McKenzie

All words are open to interpretation, no matter who writes them and no matter the intended audience.

My view is that 11.140 is clear and succinct and is intended to achieve a very obvious and reasonable policy. And Mr Sibley's advice explains why there is no risk to the safety of air navigation arising from interpreting 11.140 as applying to medical certificates.

I can't help but conclude that CASA's interpretation is influenced by what's convenient for CASA (at the expense of people exposed to the vagaries of CASA delays in the medical certification process).

That's what happened in RoboDebt. A sycophant senior bureaucracy ran the system the way the government of the day wanted it to run, interpreting the legislation to suit that convenient outcome while sweeping under the carpet legal advice - such as that of Mr Sibley - that ultimately proved to be correct.

Sadly, the practical reality is that it falls to powerless individuals to fight these matters in court to get an authoritative interpretation.

---

Chronic Snoozer

All words are open to interpretation, no matter who writes them and no matter the intended audience.

Hence the proliferation of clauses containing the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt”, the hallmark of less than optimal wording.

Sadly, the practical reality is that it falls to powerless individuals to fight these matters in court to get an authoritative interpretation

The nub of the issue. The power imbalance.

---

triadic

AvMed would have to be the least trusted section in CASA, which is really sad as those that manage it should be out in the field on a regular basis, so that we get to know them and they learn how to understand the industry. In my now over 50 years in aviation, I can only recall ONE manager of Avmed that was a qualified (ATPL) pilot. Of course things were very differnt in days gone by, but there are many lessons to learn from on how things were managed in the past. But these days it is the rules and the i dotting and t crossing that is more important than having a manager that understands the industry and has the ability to make appropriate judgements.

MTF...P2