CVD pilots can fly – it's official.
#1

Well done John, CVDPA and Arthur Pape.  Bravo.  We need to send a special well done and thank you to both VIPA and AIPA who stood quietly but firmly behind the effort, doing their membership proud.  Doc Rob Liddell and other true experts who unselfishly did a great support job a big thank you.  The AAT deserve recognition for a sane, balanced ruling and sorting the sheep from the goats.  Last but not least, the inestimable 'Creampuff', who proved to be as staunch an ally as one could wish for deserves a special mention.  Bravo; bravo and well done; one and all.    

 
It's absolutely bloody marvellous that O'Brien has finally won the right to operate as qualified: as a Captain.  John can do the lot, always could, everyone said so, except Pooh-Shambollic.   Signing off John's medical – unrestricted – should be the final act of the self styled 'Principal Medical Officer', before being escorted off the premises. 
 
This ridiculous little man has, protected by the McComic insanity, been encouraged to take an almost god like stance with regard to pilot medicals and build an empire to support his claims as 'the' ultimate' medical authority.  This was to be achieved using the extremes of law, the mystique of aviation safety and the magic of medical science rolled up into a hellish concoction which make passing a medical a nightmare.  His penchant for 'signed confession' (pilot medical form - have a read) has made many lives unnecessarily miserable and expensive for a long while now; but that is not the true evil in the system.
 
The true evil is that no one with half a brain will own up to breaking wind let alone having any sort of medical condition, not at the medical check up anyway.  The choice between cheerfully signing a lie or being miserably out of work is a counter productive no brainer side bar to the whole farce.  Many of the medical conditions on which Pooh-Shambollic made his heroic stance against 'expert', specialist diagnosis were hardly life threatening and certainly not in the 'drop dead' at any tick of the clock class. Gods alone know how much was spent trying to legally support his ludicrous stands against specialist medical advice.  Mind you some of the remarks addressed to him by counsel and judge were priceless.
 
Now is not the time to take your eyes off the ball, remember the Hydra of legend had more than one head
 
Aye well, he cannot stay, not now.  Let us all pray that we can have a 21 st century doctor, one without an ego demanding an empire built to support the notion that the supreme arbiter of pilot's lives is Pony Pooh Shambollic. 
 
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out.  A good riddance indeed. – Click. 


This - HERE - is worth reading.


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjiOvcKw3JHVQ0845SL92...SuE22IAh3C]


Toot toot.
Reply
#2

John O'Brien has won his case at the AAT !!!

Late on Friday 20th February the Australian Appeals Tribunal handed down their decision after over 2 months of deliberation following the standoff between John O'Brien backed by the CVDPA and pilot unions against CASA.

John can now make use of his ATPL qualifications and upgrade to Captain of a multi-crew airliner - something he and his employer have been wanting to do for a considerable time. The statement 'Not for ATPL use' on his Class 1 medical certificate will have to be lifted by CASA.

John, a protanope, has been unable to pass any colour vision testing (Ishihara, Farnsworth, CAD and Tower Signal Light) but has defeated CASA by proving in court and in the air [via the normal line check and training] that he is able to perform all tasks at least as safely as any colour normal pilot. He is a 5000 hour+ DASH 8 co-pilot with an outstanding record (in Oz a copilot only needs a CPL)

Protanopes were left out of the 1989 test case 'Denison' which ruled that deuteranopes were no risk to safety.

Over the last 24 years CASA has stubbornly insisted a CVD pilot still pass the tower light gun test in order to be de-restricted. Many CVDs pass this test as the wavelengths used in the workplace are not confusing to CVD people - we pilots have never had a problem. Its only the lab tests that use wavelengths of red, green and white on the confusion lines for CVD people.

This is a landmark decision by the AAT effectively making all colour vision testing of pilots redundant.

For a copy of the decision see 
http://www.CVDPA.com


 
Reply
#3

Yes well done one and all - the result was a true team effort!

Here's CVDPA's initial analysis of the result and what it means:

John wins AAT challenge allowing use of ATPL privileges!

Quote:Dear Friends & Colleagues,

After a long and anxious wait, we received news late on Friday of John’s favourable Administrative Appeals Tribunal result. After a 15 year wait, he can now finally exercise his ATPL privileges. The tribunal's full 50 page decision is available via the link to our website below:

Re O'Brien and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015]

The tribunal found that despite John’s severe protanope form of CVD, he is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation in the role of captain. The result is a major victory and essentially means that he can now progress his career to the fullest extent with any domestic airline within Australia.

The tribunal did still leave a number of restrictions in place as outlined below:

1.  The class 1 medical certificate is only valid for operations within Australia;
2.  The applicant is not permitted to conduct night time operations other than as or with a qualified co-pilot; and
3.  The applicant must disclose to his employer, any person lawfully training, assessing, endorsing or re-endorsing him on any aircraft in respect of his Air Transport Pilot Licence, and other assigned flight crew members of his colour vision deficiency.


Several times, we have proposed a condition similar to (3) as an acceptable means of compromising with CASA for CVD pilots seeking to operate in an ATPL environment. From a practical point of view, this restriction poses no major obstacles.

Condition (1) is largely based on political and policy issues due to Australia’s (until recently) evidence-based CVD standards compared to the rest of the world. It is a restriction which may still take some time to fully overcome. There has been some confusion regarding the wording of this particular restriction, as many pilots also have a medical certificate which states “Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1.” CASA’s website states that this restriction allows the pilot to operate overseas provided they seek advance permission from the appropriate regulatory authority of that country.

We will be seeking more clarification on the wording of restriction (1) in the coming days and weeks. Ultimately, until such a time as CASA starts becoming proactive and leading the world on CVD issues, rather than following, CVD pilots like John will potentially still be limited to Australian airspace.

Condition (2), while not ideal, does not have any effect on John operating at night (or IFR) in a multi-crew environment. At first glance, it appears as though the tribunal may have overlooked the fact that under his previous CPL privileges, he was able to fly unrestricted at night in a single pilot environment and for more than a decade until early 2014. Early last year, John was forced by CASA to undergo the CAD test which he failed and as a result, this particular night restriction was added to his medical certificate. From reading the decision, it appears that the tribunal focused their attention primarily on the ATPL side of things. Perhaps inadvertently, they may have assumed that he would only ever be flying in a two-pilot airline cockpit and therefore this particular restriction posed no burden. Possibly, this is without having fully considered the consequences as they related to his CPL in the event that he ever wishes or needs to return to general aviation single pilot operations in the future.

We will also be seeking more clarification on restriction (2), given that it does appear to contradict the tribunal’s acceptance that the earlier 1989 Denison decision was conducted as a test case that related to commercial pilots. We continue to believe that all CVD pilots (including deutans and protans) should be allowed to operate unrestricted at night, as has been the practice since the Denison decision and until CASA’s regressive actions began last year. We will continue to fight hard to ensure this occurs.

While the tribunal was at pains to point out that they did not view John’s case as a test case, it is most certainly a major victory in the overall scheme of things. Comparisons can be drawn to the earlier Pape and Denison AAT decisions:

“The success of my own appeal was a just reward for a great deal of hard work and wide support, but the victory was bitter-sweet, as the Authority of the day refused to let the benefit of my success flow to any other pilot with the colour vision problem. That in turn led to a second far more comprehensive appeal for all the colour defective pilots of Australia. This case was nominally on behalf of Jonathon Denison, a young colour defective commercial pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited from night flight in Australia. By mutual agreement between the parties, it was decided by the AAT to treat the Denison appeal as a wide-sweeping test case.” – Dr Arthur Pape

While John’s result is not 100% perfect, it is a massive leap forward given that it is the first time in the world that a protanope CVD pilot has successfully challenged an aviation authority in respect to being allowed to fly as a captain in an airline environment. While this is a good victory and sets a precedent, the war is far from over and we must continue to fight hard to ensure that all CVD pilots receive the justice they deserve. Whether that happens with subsequent legal challenges in the future or with political pressure remains to be seen. None of this is a quick or easy process but we remain as resolute and committed as ever.

Senator David Fawcett has already been informed of the result and we will be having further discussions with him to see what else might be able to be done to further advance our campaign both in Australia and abroad.

We will provide more updates again in the coming weeks and months, but for now, thank you to all who have supported John’s case. This result would not have been possible without each and every one of you!
Reply
#4

Ode to Creampuff on CASA's moral compass... Angel

Quote:Although I’m very happy and unsurprised by John O’Brien’s overall success in this case, I’d urge caution for others who assume CASA will cease its crusade.


CASA’s submissions and contentions in the O’Brien matter were exactly as would be expected from zealots on a crusade, and it remains to be seen whether Dr Navanthe was the chief and only CASA zealot, or merely the chief zealot of a bunch that remain. The Tribunal had little choice but to confine its substantive decision to John O’Brien’s specific circumstances. If CASA puts subsequent applicants through what John O’Brien had to go through, you’ll have your answer.

According to CASA, it’s a new and much more complicated and scary world compared to the olden days of the Pape and Denison decisions. According to CASA, there’s a greater awareness of the safety risk posed by pilots with CVD based upon conclusions drawn from accident and incident investigations. Fortunately the Tribunal perceived a rather obvious flaw in these contentions – obvious, at least, to someone who’s objective:

Quote:
Quote:It is significant that in all of those years when many pilots with various forms of CVD have flown there has been little research made available to us upon which that contention was based.

CASA’s submission was that the CAD test is “a simulation of an aspect of a task required in an operational situation”. However, CASA had little choice but to concede, in its submissions, that the expert they called had acknowledged that the CAD test “does not simulate an aviation task”. But that concession was only in a footnote in the submissions. In my opinion, downplaying inconvenient truths isn’t the behaviour of an organisation with a properly calibrated moral compass.

More importantly in my opinion, CASA’s submission was also that even if the CAD test is not one that can reasonably fall within the description of a test that “simulates an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)©:

- the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review CASA’s decision to determine the CAD test for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)©; and

- the Applicant still hasn’t passed any of the prescribed tests.

In other words, CASA said that even if the CAD test does not simulate an operational situation as required by the law: Too bad; too sad. The AAT cannot do anything about it and the Applicant’s career certainty, and other people in like circumstances, can go hang.

My opinion is that these are not the submissions of an organisation with a properly calibrated moral compass.

I ask myself: What would I do if I were working in CASA I were considering the question: “What if we have this wrong and the CAD test is not a test that simulates an operational situation in terms of CASR 67.150(6)©?”

I would have a cold chill down my spine, because I would be wondering how much stress might have been caused, and how many careers might have been put in disarray, if CASA has it wrong.

I would have this nagging feeling that perhaps the operational reality of the tens of thousands of hours flown safely in fact by pilots with colour vision deficiencies may mean that they are being treated unfairly by not having the chance to demonstrate compliance with the colour vision standard through the administration of a test that does simulate an operational situation, as stated in the law.

I would wonder what valid objection there could be to setting a test that simulates a real aviation situation in which the identification of the meaning of lights that happen to be coloured was a safety-critical activity, to see if the applicant could manage the situation as safely as his or her colleagues without CVD.

I would be submitting that if the AAT came to the view that the CAD test does not “simulate an operational situation” in terms of CASR 67.150(6)©, I would be acting immediately to determine a proper test and reducing the stress and uncertainty for pilots and aspiring pilots, whether or not the AAT had jurisdiction to review the decision. That would seem to me to be the fair and honourable thing to do.

But that’s just me.

It is fascinating to read CASA and its experts’ convolutions to avoid the inconvenient truth that John O’Brien has no problems with PAPI approaches and other tasks in reality. Some highlights from the Tribunal’s decision:
Quote:
Quote:The information obtained by CASA from [CAD] testing of Mr O’Brien is little more than that to which they were already aware, having had the diagnosis of protanopia confirmed in previous tests.


In their paper 2006/04, the UK CAA identified two tasks as being the most safety critical, demanding of colour vision and without redundancies. These were the coloured red green parking lights for positioning a plane at an aerobridge and the PAPI lights.

… Mr. O'Brien pointed out that he had no trouble seeing these lights and in any case, explained that most airports are now moving to a different system which involved symbols instead of colour. [My comment: Whoops, how inconvenient - first-hand evidence of facts. Perhaps the aviation colour environment is becoming simpler, not more complex...]

The UK CAA also decided that the PAPI lights were the more demanding and more safety critical of the two and decided to set the performance criteria of their new CAD on successful performance by subjects in a simulated PAPI test.

The evidence of Professor John Barbur is that the PAPI is the most appropriate test of colour recognition for pilots as it is very demanding in terms of colour vision and there is little or no redundancy in that system which is, in essence, a redundant system to the primary systems in any event.

Professor Barbur’s evidence was clear and it seemed to be accepted by the experts from CASA and by Associate Professor Geoffrey Stuart.

There was some disconnect in the evidence of Professor Barbur. Initially he said pilots who pass the CAD test or just missed out should be given the PAPI test but later said that pilots who fail the CAD test should be excluded in terms of pilots.

The evidence of Mr O’Brien was that he has never had difficulty identifying the PAPI light guidance throughout his years of flying; he said he had never incorrectly identified the lights. [My comment: Whoops, more inconvenient first-hand evidence of facts.] The concern raised by CASA was in the context of low visibility close to the runway, such as in the FedEx accident or at 5 km. This is in the context that the PAPI is an additional aid to the primary system within the aircraft, and presumably an aid to a pilot’s visual identification of the runway during approach and landing. [My comment: I’ll return to the FedEx accident later.]

[After 8 more paragraphs of analysis of the various theories and positions of various experts, we come to this rather startling turnaround:] Professor Barbur and others urged us not to become overly focused on the PAPI test, reminding us that there are many other colour demanding tasks for the pilot.
 
In other words, if a candidate with CVD passes “the most appropriate test of colour” - the PAPI test – we should just forget that and look over there at all those confusing colours.

It’s almost as if they’ve decided the outcome, and they just move the goal posts as necessary to achieve that outcome. There’s a word for that.

This was my favourite bit on this issue:
Quote:
Quote:Professor Barbur also pointed out that performance on the PAPI test could be variable amongst subjects for reasons other than their level of CVD. Some examples of these variables include:


(a) Experienced pilots may perform better because they have learnt to use cues such as luminance differences between the reds and whites of the test and there is also a natural variability between subjects in their ability to do this. …
You see: There has to be explanation for the inconvenient truth of candidates passing the test, and it cannot be that the candidate performs just as well as someone without CVD.

A couple of CASA FOIs gave written evidence about how confusingly colourful modern cockpits have become and the scary situations in which complete power failures on the ground have resulted in control towers having to use light signals. At this point of the submissions I thought: At last! Someone from CASA is going to provide some factual evidence about the actual performance of actual pilots with CVD in these real-life circumstances.

Perhaps, at last, someone from CASA was going to provide first-hand evidence of the substantially slower performance of pilots with CVD, compared to pilots without CVD, in these confusingly colourful modern cockpits. First-hand evidence to show that despite the design and redundancy of these modern cockpits, and despite their training and experience, pilots with CVD are substantially slower and less effective and efficient than their non-CVD colleagues in those cockpits. Things called “facts” about the performance of CVD pilots in a thing called “reality”.

Perhaps, at last, someone from CASA was going to provide evidence of the actual mayhem caused when pilots with CVD were thrust into circumstances in which a control tower could not communicate through VHF and the CVD pilots were unable to arrange separation with other aircraft, use other means of communication with the tower (mobile phone/sat phone), see whether a runway is clear to land and otherwise operate safely. Things called “facts” about the performance of CVD pilots in a thing called “reality”.

But, so far as I can tell, no first-hand evidence of those facts was provided by CASA.

Now to the FedEx accident.

A copy of the NTSB report of the investigation into the FedEX accident is here: http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/r...722_N497FE.pdf The Executive Summary states, among other things, that (my bolding):
Quote:
Quote:The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the captain’s and first officer’s failure to establish and maintain a proper glidepath during the night visual approach to landing. Contributing to the accident was a combination of the captain’s and first officer’s fatigue, the captain’s and first officer’s failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captain’s and flight engineer’s failure to monitor the approach, and the first officer’s color vision deficiency.

I’d commend the entire report. I’d just note a couple of paras of the Analysis, at pages 53 and 55, bolding mine:
Quote:
Quote:During postaccident interviews, all three pilots reported observing red and white lights on the PAPI display, consistent with normal PAPI operation. [My note: the Flight Engineer was a qualified pilot on type. Hence the reference to “all three pilots”.] Although the flight engineer and captain reported seeing a pink PAPI signal on one of the four PAPI lights at some time during the approach, they also reported seeing red and/or white lights (which would have provided appropriate glidepath guidance) at the same time.


In post accident statements, the flight crew and ground observers indicated that there were no obstructions to visibility along the approach path. However, the comments made by the first officer (“gonna lose the end of the runway”) and captain (“disappear a little”) suggest that they may have encountered a temporary obstruction to visibility (for example, clouds or mist) as they approached runway 9. If such an obstruction existed, it may also have obscured the PAPI lights. Although a temporary obstruction might help explain the flight crew’s failure to recognize the PAPI guidance while that obstruction was present, it does not explain why the three pilots failed to recognize the presence of four red PAPI lights throughout the rest of the approach. Further, according to FedEx procedures (and FAA regulations), if the approach end of the runway became obscured at any time during the visual approach, the pilots should have performed a go-around.

Who reckons the FedEx accident would not have happened if the first officer had had no CVD?

CASA’s crusade on CVD is, objectively, a focus on the easy trivia at the expense of dealing with the substantial and far greater risks to aviation safety. Easy targets versus hard problems.

Of course, it makes no difference to CASA, because they get paid the same either way.

MTF.... Tongue
Reply
#5

From one Aunty to another...

Quote:Queensland pilot wins right to captain airliner despite poor colour vision


By Josh Bavas


[Image: 6251366-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo: A tribunal found John O'Brien was "not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation in the role of captain". (ABC News)


Map: Brisbane 4000

A Queensland pilot with poor colour vision has become the first such person in Australia cleared to captain an airliner.
Under Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations, pilots with colour vision deficiency have not been permitted to hold an open air transport pilot's licence, necessary to captain large jets.

Depending on the range of their visual deficiency, pilots like John O'Brien usually reach the peak of their career as a first officer.
But in 2012, Mr O'Brien launched an appeal against that decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane.
Late last week, the tribunal upheld his appeal, paving the way for hundreds of other pilots to follow suit.

The tribunal found Mr O'Brien was "not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation in the role of captain" and that his "ability to operate aircraft safely with CVD [colour vision deficiency] is not in question".

Quote:What is CVD?
  • Colour vision deficiency (CVD) can occur in varying degrees, with colour blindness being the most extreme form.
  • British website Colour Blind Awareness says CVD affects about one in 12 people, mostly males.
  • Normal colour vision utilises all three light cones in the eyes. CVD can mean one cone is slightly out of alignment, with affects vision depending on which cone is affected.
  • Some people with CVD have one non-functioning light cone, impacting one area of the colour spectrum.
  • Completely colour-blind people see no colour at all.
  • The most common form of colour deficiency is red/green blindness, but CVD can be mild, moderate or severe.

Mr O'Brien said it was a sensible decision.

"Vision perception is much more complex than simply being able to name colours that we see around us," he said.
"For example, on an instrument panel, looking at the shapes or the message or the text or the numbers that are presented - certainly there are colours presented in there, but the colour on its own is insufficient to interpret the information that we need to interpret."

He said it was difficult to gain a commercial pilot's license of any type in New Zealand or in many European countries, owing to the reliance upon clinical testing.

But in the United States, trainee pilots underwent a practical flight test, meaning it was easier for many people with CVD to become licensed, Mr O'Brien said.

Last June, with the tribunal's decision pending, CASA wrote to 500 aviation licence holders and 900 pilot employers advising them to consider whether it was safe to allow their CVD pilots to continue operating.

In the letter, CASA manager Peter Fereday said the regulator would be reviewing new research into CVD and encouraged operators to "consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges" under current regulations.
Significant legal victory, pilots association says

CASA declined to comment to the ABC, and is considering whether to appeal against the tribunal's ruling.

Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) executive director Simon O'Hara said it was a significant legal victory for pilots with CVD.
"This is a vote of confidence in the thousands of other CVD pilots who have operated at the highest levels of aviation in Australia with unblemished safety records since the '90s," he said.

"VIPA has long maintained that CASA's claims relating to the safety implications of CVD pilots are distinctly wrong.

"This was justified with the tribunal's findings that Mr O'Brien had an impeccable flying record, and his risk of having an accident whilst in command of an aircraft is the same as any captain."

According to CASA, out of 36,000 Australian pilots, about 400 have CVD.
Of these, 140 flew commercial operations.

In 1987, Dr Arthur Pape won a similar appeal, allowing him to become the first CVD pilot to fly at night.
Two years later, after more pilots started appealing, commercial pilot Hugh Jonathan Denison won a landmark case reversing the night restrictions, leading to sweeping changes.

Topics: air-transport, courts-and-trials, brisbane-4000
Reply
#6

Folks,
It may be far from over for John O'Brien.

In last night's RRAT hearings, Skidmore's very aggressive reply to a carefully considered question by Senator Fawcett was:

"We still have time to appeal".

That means the Federal Court and big money.
It is worth watching the RRAT video for the whole exchange. He made it very clear that this was not a test case, no precedent had been established.

His treatment of Angel Flight was not much better, in my opinion.

Regards,
Bill Hamilton
Reply
#7

I have a slightly different take on that Bill but then again I am forever the optimist... Angel

Anyway I'll let others be the judge here is (at 05:30 minutes) the segment where the John O'Brien case gets brought up, the first part is also interesting as it deals with UAVs:

 

MTF... Tongue
Reply
#8

Let's not forget, it's not two AAT losses that CASA have had on CVD. This is the 3rd AAT loss after the earlier Pape and Denison appeals. When will these guys accept that they've got it wrong?

Quote:"The success of my own appeal was a just reward for a great deal of hard work and wide support, but the victory was bitter-sweet, as the Authority of the day refused to let the benefit of my success flow to any other pilot with the colour vision problem. That in turn led to a second far more comprehensive appeal for all the colour defective pilots of Australia. This case was nominally on behalf of Jonathon Denison, a young colour defective commercial pilot who had qualified for night flight in New Zealand, but who was prohibited from night flight in Australia. By mutual agreement between the parties, it was decided by the AAT to treat the Denison appeal as a wide-sweeping test case." – Dr Arthur Pape

déjà vu?
Reply
#9

Peetoo,
We will know if the time runs out for an appeal, and CASA does not appeal, and that will depend on how much political pressure is brought to  bear on CASA to not appeal.
And, of course, when the next pilot with a CVD problem presents for a medical.
Cheers,
Reply
#10

My renewal is due next month. They have tried to pull it due cvd before. Watch this space
Reply
#11

Litmus test, Skidmore pointed out that John's ruling was only for John and that CASA could appeal,   The big questions are will they appeal, and will each CVD pilot have to follow the JoB pathway.  Seems a bit pointless to pursue it again and again; but then that was the MCComvict  way.  I think Skidmore is a wee bit too canny for the arrogant path.  We shall see, but Bill - keep us posted....

Stay.. Cool
Reply
#12

(02-26-2015, 03:25 PM)Minnie Banister Wrote:  Litmus test, Skidmore pointed out that John's ruling was only for John and that CASA could appeal,   The big questions are will they appeal, and will each CVD pilot have to follow the JoB pathway.  Seems a bit pointless to pursue it again and again; but then that was the MCComvict  way.  I think Skidmore is a wee bit too canny for the arrogant path.  We shall see, but Bill - keep us posted....

Stay.. Cool

Nailed it MB but the litmus test does not include the draconic restrictions & mixed messages the wannabes identified with a CVD are getting before they even begin poling an aircraft around.

The following is a very good summary of the JO'B AAT decision & its implications for the future from Arthur Pape {courtesy of the ESB UP thread  Confused } : 

Quote:The Empire Ain't Beaten! Their power is immense.
The John O’Brien result is indeed bitter-sweet. John has had a victory of sorts and indeed most of the decision is such that it will enable him to progress his career, but with considerable operational restrictions . As to the rest of the CVD population, there is still a big dark cloud hanging over them. At a big meeting of aviation medical people in Melbourne this last Saturday, the O’Brien decision got a cursory mention. My take home impression was that existing CVD certificate holders would continue with what they now have, but that new applicants would be subjected to the standard three levels of colour vision screening in accordance with the existing ASR 67.150 (a), (b) and ©, where the CAD would be the standard test for the purpose of ©. A fail at all three levels will result in the refusal of ANY Class 1 medical and a Class 2 confined to Day VFR only. The attendees at the meeting were instructed that the Chatham House Rules were to be observed, whereby one could report but not attribute to any given speaker or attendee. Further, the meeting offered no opportunity at all to question, discuss or debate on any topic, and in particular the topic of CVD.

The use the CAD was falsely claimed to be a progressive step that would enable the rate of meeting the colour vision standard by pilot applicants to increase from about 95% to 97%. This claim is profoundly absurd. This entire project involving the CAD will send colour vision policy back to the Stone Age (i.e. pre WW2). CVD pilots who were unable to pass any of the levels of colour vision testing have nevertheless routinely been entitled to the Class 1 medical (with restrictions) for at least sixty years.

The implementation of this draconian measure by CASA is based on absolutely no credible evidence that supports the prediction that CVD are likely to perform their duties in any measure of unsafe manner. The real significance of the O’Brien decision is that the AAT accepted John’s impeccable safety history and outstanding reputation as a competent and highly regarded pilot.

CASA successfully objected to the submission of evidence that other individual CVD pilots, just like John O’Brien, had progressed to the highest levels of commercial aircraft operations with equally impressive and impeccable safety records.

To illustrate that CASA is determined to execute its new draconian measures, I will briefly outline the story of a very keen intelligent young man who is fresh out of year 12 at school and, in short, he has had his aspirations of a commercial flying career denied by CASA, and all this in the last few weeks, even as we awaited the O’Brien decision by the AAT. He has had a formal refusal of his application for a Class 1 medical certificate on the basis of his failures on the Ishihara, the Farnsworth and finally the CAD. In the letter of refusal from CASA he has been offered a Class 2 certificate valid for VFR Daytime only. He was advised that he could appeal to either CASA internally, or to the AAT. I am advised, but with little extra detail, that he has lodged with the AAT and that his first conciliation conference is scheduled for April.

So, in summary, the departure of the last PMO, it appears, will have little influence on the path CASA seems determined to follow. The issue of morality is bouncing around in my head. Indeed, there is a big battle ahead; the O’Brien case was never going to be the end of it!
  
I have recently heard a couple of similar stories to that which AP relays. One of these related to a once potential wannabe who had his long held dream to become an airline pilot dashed by an ill informed DAME, who told this young man on failing the Ishara test that his chances of becoming a commercial pilot were next to zero. Prior to this initial medical this potential wannabe had no idea he had a CVD and had recently passed his driver's licence. Consequently this young man's whole career trajectory has changed but he still carries the bitter disappointment of that DAME's words.

Apparently this misinformation on CVD in AvMed circles has been going on for a number of years - Q/ I wonder how many potential wannabes have been similarly discouraged from pursuing a flying career in that time by some over zealous Poohshambolic example of a DAME?? Angry

MTF... Tongue  
Reply
#13

A message from Creampuff - TAKE HEED!

Quote:
Quote:How can CASA continue to get away with wasting so much taxpayers money on prejudice and inequity on the basis of a spurious CVD testing methods being used to weed out those who can and cannot fly? There are decades of real experience that show the opposite?

Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".

All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.

Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous. (Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving by Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.)

The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.

But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.

Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!

And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.

The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:

Quote:
Quote:The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel's view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
...

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator. ...

Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.

Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):
Quote:
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: So you do concede that there have been, in the past, barriers between industry and CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I am aware the ASRR put that forward as a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are attempting to redress that view?

Mr Skidmore: I will attempt to redress a view of that perception. I cannot say, because I was not involved in that discussion, whether it was actually occurring or not.

You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?
Reply
#14
Thumbs Up 

Quote:How can CASA continue to get away with wasting so much taxpayers money on prejudice and inequity on the basis of a spurious CVD testing methods being used to weed out those who can and cannot fly? There are decades of real experience that show the opposite?

Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".

All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.

Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous. (Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving by Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.)

The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.

But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.

Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!

And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.

The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:

Quote:

Quote:The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel's view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
...

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator. ...

Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.

Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):
Quote:

Quote:Senator XENOPHON: So you do concede that there have been, in the past, barriers between industry and CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I am aware the ASRR put that forward as a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are attempting to redress that view?

Mr Skidmore: I will attempt to redress a view of that perception. I cannot say, because I was not involved in that discussion, whether it was actually occurring or not.

You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?
[/quote]

The following quotes are pinched from UP HQ off the ESB thread, which kind of flows on from this - Is Skates joining the CASA Conga Line??

brissypilot:

Quote:DAS announces AvMed review



Redix,

For a good read on the scientific flaws with the ICAO colour perception standard, check out this peer reviewed article written by Dr Pape a few years ago which was published in an aviation medicine journal:

Colour Perception Standards in Aviation: Some implications of the AAT decisions regarding colour perception and aviation

On another note, DAS Skidmore has just announced a review of the CASA AvMed department:

CASA Briefing - March 2015


Quote:

Quote:The management of aviation medical certificates is an issue of interest to many pilots and air traffic controllers. I recognise some people have strong views about CASA’s aviation medical system, the decision making processes and medical rulings. This is not surprising as we process more than 25,000 medical applications each year. But the debate about CASA’s medical system needs to be put in context – in 2014 we refused 102 applications out of 25,855 and in the second half of the year there were 13 official complaints. Despite this low level of complaints and medical refusals I believe we can do better and the relatively small number of complaints we receive can be reduced. That is why I have initiated a full review of CASA’s AvMed capabilities. This review is now underway and I expect it will be completed in the second half of 2015. It is looking at our strategic approach to aviation medicine policy standards and clinical practice development, options for the better delivery of medical services in the future and the recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced aviation medicine doctors. Our bottom line is to find ways to improve medical service delivery, ensure our decision making processes are transparent and evidence-based, as well as improving the management of complex medical matters.


In addition to the broad review of aviation medicine CASA will undertake a review of the arrangements that currently allow approved Designated Aviation Medical Examiners to issue and renew class 2 medicals. The results of this review will facilitate an examination of the potential for DAMEs to renew class 1 and class 3 medical certificates in the future. I will ensure CASA consults widely and effectively with the aviation community during the course of these aviation medical reviews. Where criticism is warranted I will make sure the causes of problems are identified and addressed as quickly as possible.

I believe the aviation community and CASA need to build a closer working relationship based on our mutual interest in achieving the best safety outcomes. This relationship must be based on respect and trust. CASA is open and committed to an appropriate ‘safety partnership’ with the aviation community and I am devoting a good deal of time and energy towards working to the achievement of this goal. Of course a closer relationship between the aviation community and the regulator does not mean CASA can agree to every proposal or view put to us. Not everyone will get what they want and consensus may not always be possible. However, I will make sure we are listening to your views and criticisms and we respond in a considered and respectful way to your comments, questions, concerns and complaints.

You can read my speech on the way forward in aviation medicine which was recently delivered to the aviation Medical Society of Victoria.

Safe flying
Mark Skidmore AM

If the new DAS is truly serious about making sure AvMed decisions are "evidence based", he would be well placed to look at Australia's 25 year history of CVD pilots operating safely and to take notice of the AAT's findings in CASA's three CVD losses (Pape, Denison & O'Brien) at the tribunal.

If he is serious about "consulting" with the aviation industry, a good starting point would also be for him to actually meet with Dr Pape and some of the many CVD professional pilots operating in this country to hear first hand "real life evidence" of their experience and career histories.

Maybe he could then explain why new CVD pilot entrants into the industry are now being denied medicals or having them severely restricted to Day VFR only, when their fellow pilots have been operating safely for decades.

In the speech referred to in his article above, Skidmore makes the following comments on the CVD issue:

Quote:

Quote:My speech won’t be complete if I don’t touch on the delicate subject of CVD. Australia does differ from other countries in relation to the requirements surrounding CVD. Australia is more flexible in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where they record a fail and can issue a medical certificate if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility. For example the UK does not allow for any second chances if an applicant fails their only test, the CAD test. They do not receive a Class 1 medical certificate.


In mid-2014, it was determined that the handling of pilots with CVD had not been in strict accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 (Medical). CASA advised industry of its new process relating to the regulations in June 2014. This was done to provide industry with information to assist in understanding their obligations in relation to the regulations. The new processes related to new applicants only and there were no impacts on existing pilots. In response to some of the correspondence received, CASA updated the CVD information on its website.

In February 2015, CASA had 134 Class 1 medical certificate holders and 252 Class 2 medical certificate holders who have failed the Ishihara test.

CASA is considering the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test as a third-level test. CASA has determined the CAD test is suitable as an aviation specific test for detecting CVD. It is used by the UK and is also available in the US as an option for testing for CVD. CAD provides for colour and diagnostic testing, which can determine the degree of colour deficiency, which is something that is currently not able to be determined by the Ishihara or Farnsworth tests.

Whilst I am not considering further changes to policy or standards at this time, any proposed changes will be consulted through the SCC Medical sub-committee. Pilots with existing CVD restrictions will require no other tests related to CVD, unless other medical reasons determine a need to do so.

Mr Skidmore, everyone agrees that the CAD is a brilliant CVD test. However, it doesn't remotely come close to fulfilling the requirements of the third level test under CASR 67.150 (6)©. CASA still cannot answer the question - "what operational situation does the CAD simulate?" It's a fairly basic and fundamental question...

He also states that they are "considering" using the CAD test as the third level test. This is also a blatant lie, as AvMed are already using it for the third level test. Here's just one example from Bill Smith's post last year:

Quote:

Quote:CASA has determined the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) to be an appropriate test for the purposes of regulation 67.150(6)©.

In the O'Brien AAT hearings, evidence was also heard that the former PMO wrote to Mr O'Brien prior to his medical renewal last year, refusing to re-issue his Class 1 medical at all, unless he undertook the CAD test. This was despite his medical being renewed repeatedly for the previous 15 years without issue.

Mr Skidmore needs to stop blindly following the advice of the AvMed zealots on their crusade to save the world from CVD pilots. He needs to actually take the time to listen to the other side of the story from pilots with the operational expertise to see what they think should be an appropriate test of an operational situation for the purposes of CASR 67.150 (6)©. Maybe he might be able to hear first hand examples of why colour useage in aviation is not as important as the AvMed zealots would have him believe.

Perhaps then we can then start leading the world at an ICAO level with our "evidence" on CVD issues, rather than following it based on the "assumptions" of other countries like the UK! [Image: eusa_wall.gif]

Creampuff:
Quote:Quote:

Quote:in 2014 we refused 102 applications out of 25,855 and in the second half of the year there were 13 official complaints. Despite this low level of complaints and medical refusals I believe we can do better and the relatively small number of complaints we receive can be reduced.
I wonder whether Mr Skidmore is really so naive as to believe that's anything other than a cynical manipulation of terminology and statistics.

What is an "official" "complaint", Mr Skidmore?

What about all the people who weren't "refused" certificates, but were f*cked around with delays and operational conditions that had to be appealed and overturned through AAT review, Mr Skidmore?

Have you read the submissions to the Forsyth Review, Mr Skidmore? What did AOPA say was the single biggest complaint of its members? What did some of the professional pilot associations' submissions say about Avmed? Do those submissions constitute just one "complaint" each, or no complaints at all?

What about all the people who signed up to the petition on CVD, and wrote letters to the Deputy Prime Minister and local members of parliament, Mr Skidmore?

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you've joined the long line of people who are part of the problem.

TBC with Part II.. Wink
Reply
#15

Creampuff:

Quote:In case Mr Skidmore hasn't read the submissions to and report of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, here are some quotes.


From pages 10-11 of the submission by that hot-bed of aviation fringe dwellers and risk-takers, the Australian and International Pilots’ Association (AIPA):
Quote:

Quote:AIPA’s most frequent and often most frustrating interaction with CASA is through the Aviation Medicine Branch. The frustrations arise due to the inconsistent administration of medical clearances and certificates, the near impossibility of being able to talk to anyone about the administration processes and, most critically, what most members report as the CASA-unique approach of disregarding practicing medical specialists’ advice in favour of “riskbased” decisions made by non-practicing medical bureaucrats.

...
AIPA is most concerned about the immediate uncertainty caused to a member when the often expensive advice and tests are considered to be acceptable by DAMES and specialists but not by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO). Where else are they to turn? The problem is often exacerbated by the turnaround times, the best of which is 28 days, but as the applicant you will rarely be made aware that the clock has not started because some component of the required information is “missing”, at least until you can break through the communication firewall to ask as to what point your certificate has progressed in the administrative sequence.

Paragraph 13 of the submission by the aviation equivalent of base-jumpers, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP):
Quote:

Quote:13. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue1. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.

From page 7 of the submission by a representative of notoriously inexperienced aviators, the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia:
Quote:

Quote:One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose. The ability of the branch to hide behind the facade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.

AOPA's submission, paragraph 9:
Quote:

Quote:9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, rejection of DAMEs opinions, demands for ever more complex specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and which are then frequently ignored by Avmed itself. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience, eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor.


For what purpose? Most GA pilots intend to fly themselves and perhaps a few associates, mostly in VFR during daylight. Motor vehicle licencing is nothing like this, yet driving is only slightly less stressful.

CASA should rely on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.
 As Thorny says below that.... "Not that much I can add to that Creamie. "  P2 Tongue
Reply
#16

My medical went smoothly, however I'm under no illusion that they may have a crack at me in the future
Reply
#17

That - is good news. Let's hope good leadership, good logic and good will make sure it stays that way. If you spot Creamy, let him know his Tim Tam is on it's way; or he can get the cupboard key from Arthur. Meanwhile, fingers crossed and keep the data flowing into the right channels in Cantberra. Thanks for the update Bill.
Reply
#18

It's my turn to 'do' the unspeakable, sometimes the effort is rewarded.  On CVD from the inestimable Arthur Pape :-

Quote:We are appraising the current situation in detail, and here is a précis:

• Current CVDmedical certificate holders, we are asked to believe, will be left alone, at least for now. It would appear that the political fallout that would follow a continuation of the madness that befell AVMED in June of last year would be suicidal for that elite body.

• New CVD candidates for medical certificates are to be dealt with in a manner that can only be described as "pre-historic". Not in living memory have new CVD pilots in Australia been confined to PPL, VFR and daytime only conditions.

• CASA appears hell-bent on pressing on with the use of the CAD test in Australia (as well as the sneaky introduction of the Holmes Wright Lantern) in response to the clear requirements of CASR 67. 150. 6 © which demands that "for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation".

• Currently, we are making in-depth inquiries into the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of the CAD test in the Federal Court. So far, it appears that such a challenge would carry a healthy prospect of success, but that the cost is likely to be over $200,000, which to me is not a piffling sum of money. We are exploring several ways of raising the money. The maths are not overwhelming. One thousand pilots with or without CVD make a contribution of $200, and we are in the game. The trick is to get a thousand donors to cough up $200 each.

• Next, we would need a candidate to figurehead the challenge, and without going into much detail, that candidate would need to be a pilot or wanna-be pilot, who needs to refuse to take the CAD test on the grounds that it is an unlawful test, in the terms in which CASR 67. 150.6© is written. In other words, that no reasonable person could view the CAD as a test that simulates any operational situation that any pilot will ever find him/herself in.

I think that will be enough for now to indicate we are actively working on "the way forward", and that once again, progress will be careful and necessarily slow. John O'Brien's recent victory is not the final end point of this project. It is just the stepping stone to the next goal.

Cheers!
Reply
#19

Doc. Arthur Pape (bless) is mounting another important challenge to the stone-age mentality of those who would, despite all evidence, logic and supportable decisions penalise those with Colour Vision Deficiencies.  This is potentially of global importance to those who can, as ICAO requires safely perform their duties.  The thread on Pprune is valid and important; please do what you can, to support the world wide CVD challenged pilot fraternity.  


See – HERE – All the very best Arthur from Aunty Pru.    
Reply
#20

(04-10-2015, 07:53 AM)kharon Wrote:  Doc. Arthur Pape (bless) is mounting another important challenge to the stone-age mentality of those who would, despite all evidence, logic and supportable decisions penalise those with Colour Vision Deficiencies.  This is potentially of global importance to those who can, as ICAO requires safely perform their duties.  The thread on Pprune is valid and important; please do what you can, to support the world wide CVD challenged pilot fraternity.  


See – HERE – All the very best Arthur from Aunty Pru.    

Courtesy of the ESB thread on the UP.. Rolleyes  
Quote:Thanks to all for your supportive and encouraging replies. For those who don't know, we have a legal entity called the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)which was set up primarily to act as a focal point for CVD pilots, would-be pilots and others who would want to support the cause. As an entity, we collected about $80,000 from all sources. However, the vast bulk of that has been spent supporting the legal fees for John O'Brien's appeal to the AAT. The money spent made it possible for John's appeal to even happen, and for the successful outcome to become a reality. John is now going ahead in leaps and bounds towards the dream of being an airline captain. While the outcome was a success, it isn't the end-point of the project, just a very big advance towards the ultimate goal. That goal is to end the immoral and unscientific discrimination against a particular group that has a trivial variance from what is considered "normal". In aiming for that goal, we seek to hold CASA accountable for its flawed logic, its misrepresentation of evidence and its flagrant disregard for the law of this country.


The fact that we can even try to achieve these goals is a great reflection on our legal system. In no other country in the world is there the opportunity available to challenge the blind bureaucracy that is behind the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). We are unique in our access to independent and expert review of bureaucratic decisions, and that is the full explanation of why the Aussie version of the ACPS has led the world on the topic, at least until June 2014, when the "Empire" struck back.

Whatever money is or was raised, serves solely to finance legal challenges. No one takes any payments for services. There are small outgoings for accounting services and for court related witness expenses. I personally keep the records for the CVDPA, and those records are supervised by an independent accounting firm in Geelong. All financial records are available to subscribers upon request.

As discussed in an earlier post, our current target is to raise about $200,000 to enable the CVDPA to support a challenge to the lawfulness of the CAD test, under Australian law. It is vital that we raise the bulk of the money before we can engage lawyers to do the detailed preparation for taking this challenge to the Federal Court of Australia. If the appeal fails to reach its target, meaning the case can't go ahead, refunds will be made available to the original donors.

At the CVDPA website (www.cvdpa.com) individuals or groups can contribute by subscription or by donation and there are a number of means available to make the transactions happen.

You will understand that it is probably unwise to discuss legal strategies in detail in a forum such as this one, but very easily done through a subscription website such as the one the CVDPA has.

Keeping in mind what I have indicated earlier, the donation of $200 by only a thousand pilots would achieve our goal, but that doesn't confine any donor to that amount. All donations, large and small will be greatly appreciated.


Cheers,


Arthur Pape

Yes well done Arthur... Angel  Hopefully the whole aviation fraternity will get behind this campaign, it may not personally effect people now but if left unchallenged who knows what crusade the Avmed zealots will come up with next - in light of the Germanwings tragedy perhaps pilot/ATCO mental health??


    
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)