[Peetwo]

The following was extracted from the long stickied Prune ESB thread on CVD pilots - most disturbing indeed:

brissypilot -

It was nice to see the responses to October's questions on notice were finally published yesterday, only 2 months past the due date



ATSB

Question No. 238


Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put this on notice: in the period since last estimates, how many safety related incidents have there been that ATSB has investigated? As a subset of that, how many, if any, relate to a pilot who had a colour vision deficiency?

Mr Dolan: I am not aware, but I think we can safely say that we have not investigated anything that relates to an occurrence notified to us relating to a colour vision deficiency.

Senator FAWCETT: That does not surprise me, but if you could still come back to me with a number that would be great, thank you.

Mr Dolan: We will confirm that on notice



Answer:

• The ATSB has initiated 59 investigations of safety incidents and accidents since the last Senate Estimates.

• None of these 59 relate to a pilot who had a colour vision deficiency.

CASA:

Question No. 242





Senator FAWCETT: Mr Farquharson, can you tell me how many pilots who have a colour vision deficiency have lost privileges of their licence as a result of having to sit the CAD test, since the last estimates?


Mr Farquharson: I cannot directly inform you of that.


Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take that on notice. Could you also find out how many initial applicants for an aircrew medical have been required to sit the CAD test as the third level of testing and have subsequently failed and been denied an aircrew medical?






Answer:


• Two candidates have fail results. The applicants have been notified of the intent to issue licences with the restriction “Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flying only”. One certificate has been issued with applicant agreement. One certificate is pending applicant response.


• No initial applicants for an aircrew medical have been required to sit the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test.


CAsA's new practice of issuing Day VFR medicals to those who fail the tests goes completely against the findings of the Denison AAT test case - and not to mention the legal requirements in CASR 67.150 (6)© that Creamie has eloquently highlighted in his past posts. These newbies are now being denied careers even in GA that many others before them have been able to enjoy over the past 25 years. What's the point of investing in a CPL now if AvMed won't even let you fly at night or IFR?

Hopefully it won't be too much longer now before the AAT publishes its latest decision. No doubt it'll be another interesting read!



For anyone who's interested, the next round of Estimates is happening late Tues night



Clearedtoenter -

Two candidates have fail results. The applicants have been notified of the intent to issue licences with the restriction “Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flying only”.

That is absolutely disgusting. How dare they fly in the face of the Denison ruling? How can they get away with this? They have no authority to do that. If they don't reverse these decisions, heads, acting or not, must roll!

brissypilot -

That is absolutely disgusting. How dare they fly in the face of the Denison ruling? How can they get away with this? They have no authority to do that. If they don't reverse these decisions, heads, acting or not, must roll..

And that's not all. I'm reliably informed that at least one person has been refused a class 1 medical entirely due to his CVD...


Clearedtoenter -

And that's not all. I'm reliably informed that at least one person has been refused a class 1 medical entirely due to his CVD...

Appalling! Is that initial or renewal? If renewal, I guess we'll all need to be looking for a new non flying job!



By stating day VFR only, they seem to have gone from the most enlightened regulator in the world to most uneducated, conformist, destructive, arrogant bunch of ..... imaginable..


How did we get to this? I hope they're pleased with themselves. All of that.... For what benefit to whom?



LeadSled -  

---- they seem to have gone from the most enlightened

Cleared to enter,



Said in jest, I trust!!


Just in case you were/are serious, CASA's predecessor expected to win Denison, and was most put out at the loss, but it took up until the arrival of the current management for CASA to have a team that was prepared to thumb their nose at Denison.


CASA is very mired in a "winners" and "losers" mindset, and any success by "the industry", a "win", is seen as a "loss" to CASA, and a score to be settled.


A "loss" is never accepted as CASA might have got it wrong.


As a former DAS said to the National Press Club, some years ago:"Judges get it wrong". That is the mindset, CASA is never wrong.


Tootle pip

While we are at it in an earlier post Creampuff rather eloquently summed up the state of affairs at Avmed up till now...

Creampuff -I’d overlooked this relatively recent decision of the AAT in which CASA’s behaviour was described as “most inappropriate”: Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014)

As a final comment on the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in situations where an applicants’ licence or certificate has expired, the Tribunal considers, notwithstanding the legality of their submission, that CASA’s timing in bringing to the attention of the applicant and the Tribunal notice of the certificate’s expiration was most inappropriate. In knowing the likely ramifications, CASA ought to have raised this issue well in advance so the applicant and the Tribunal could have responded accordingly and in a timely manner.

The Applicant in the matter was 75 years old and had been flying since 1977. CASA suspended the Applicant’s Class 1 and Class 2 medical certificates in May 2013, because the Applicant had been diagnosed with melanoma. The Applicant applied to the AAT for a review of that decision.


By the time the substance of the matter came to be dealt with by the AAT, the Applicant’s certificate had expired, but CASA hadn’t told the AAT. Instead, CASA stumped up and said, in effect: “Nyanie Nyanie Nyah Nyah: His certificate has expired so your review is legally pointless!”



Way to go, CASA. Way to treat a 75 year old citizen and the AAT. It’s just about the law. Your opinions about matters medical are, of course, objective truths that must be enforced with a crusader’s zeal. I feel so much safer.

Hmm...I think DAS Skidmore may have a fight on his hands...

MTF...