APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT SECTION 55 AND SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT SECTION 44: CIVIL AVIATION MEDICAL STANDARDS.

I claim some  expertise in the area of aviation colour perception standards.  My claim is based on the following:

In 1987 I brought a case against the CASA (Then Department of Trasnport) in the Federal AAT, asking that a restriction on my licence be removed, a restriction that prohibited me from operating an aircraft at night.  That appeal was successful.  However, the Authority at that time sought to restrict the benefit of this outcome to myself personally

In 1989 I was instrumental in bringing a wide-ranging appeal before the AAT (Denison vs CAA), and this appeal was conducted,  with agreement from both sides, as a test case for ALL colour defective pilots.  The appeal comprehensively examined the entire field of colour vision and its abnormalities as they relate to the tasks that pilots need to perform.  This appeal constituted the most far-ranging, and independent examination of these topics EVER CONDUCTED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD to that date.  The tribunal's conclusions were overwhelmingly in favour of the removal of restriction from the licences of pilots with colour defective vision.

In 1996, I participated (as the representative of the International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) in an ICAO workshop in Warsaw, Poland, along with the then Director of Aviation Medicine, CASA,  Dr. Geoff Brock.   The purpose of the workshop was to re-examine the ICAO visual standards, including the colour perception standard. 

My eyes were opened as to the mechanism at the basis of ICAO decision making.  Having been through the rigors of the AAT examination of the colour perception standard, the degree of inquiry employed by the ICAO study group was nothing short of feeble.  This experience alerted me to the fact that there is nothing sacrosanct in the ICAO medical standards.  They are no more right than not right simply by virtue of being "ICAO standards".

Since the decision handed down in Denison vs CAA, I have lectured on many occasions to national meetings of the Aviation Medical Society of Australia and New Zealand.  Most recently, in September of 2002, I addressed the 50th International Congress of Aerospace Medicine at its meeting in Sydney.  My paper was well received and supported.  

I claim no experise in other area of aviation medicine, other than being  a practicing Designated Medical Examiner for the CASA.  However, my detailed knowledge of the colour perception issue serves to alert me to many inconsistencies in other areas of aviation medicine regulation in this country.

It is my view that Australia is the most fortunate country perhaps in the world  BECAUSE it has bodies such as the HREOC and the federal AAT, to which aggrieved individuals can turn for independent and impartial re-examination of executive decisions by government instrumentalities and corporations.  I have personally met and come to know many aviation medical bureaucrats from around the globe, and I have come to understand that in many countries their actions and decisions are totally beyond any external scrutiny.

It is my fundamental belief that it is incumbent upon statutory authorities to base regulations that seek to restrict partipants in an industry (such as aviation) to base those regulations upon the most sound and reasonable scientific knowledge.  This was not the case in aviation colour perception regulation prior to 1987, and even today there are elements of the colour vision policy that could justifiably be brought to appeal, and would most likely succeed.  I am in frequent contact on an ongoing basis with individuals who are still being unreasonably discriminated against.  It would be a travesty if their right to independent and impartial consideration were to be "exempted" away.

In summary, Australia's CASA's attempt to seek exemption is an attempt to put itself beyond independent scrutiny.  Its claim to do so on the basis of the need to "harmonize with ICAO", is a nonsense, as there is nothing intrinsically beyond criticism ( ie correct beyond doubt) about the ICAO standards.  Many ICAO standards are scientifically flawed.  The CASA would be better advised to take heed of findings by independent bodies such as the HREOC and the AAT, and then endeavour to bring those findings to the ICAO tables for incorporation into the ICAO regulatory standards.  This attempt to disempower such independent bodies in the area of aviation regulations should be seen for what it is: a flagrant attempt to put itself (the CASA) above Australian law.

I strongly object to the CASA request.

Dr Arthur Pape

350 Purnell Road

Lovely Banks

Victoria, 3221

Telephone +61 352761343 (home)

                 +61 352 781122 (office)

                  0412522394  (mobile)