Collective Colour Vision Thread 3

[windforce]

Hello everyone,

For those who want to test themself before going to Gatwick for the visit, you can have a test at the City Uni in London where you can try the Nagel Anomaloscope (which is a test accepted by JAA) and other tests... I'm not sure but i think that u can also sit a lantern test (i don't know which one).

[whitelabel]

Can anybody tell if it is possible to downloas a practical colour vision test.
I do not mean Ishihara but a Lanter software program like beyne or HW, anomaloscope etc.
I know that it exists! I saw screenshots on internet pages.
greetz:8

[whitelabel]

maybe practical is not the right word but I think you know what I mean.
And yes a final solution would be great but if I found the solution I would not be here. But if you got the final solution for us, say it and make a lot of people happy.

I think you must use all the resources that are available. That can be your advantage. I checked the whole internet for a program but the only thing I can find is Ishihara and Farnsworth D15.

grtz

[east_sider]

City Uni Colour Vision tests write up

I went for the City uni tests at the end of July, here's what you get for your £125 if anyone is interested.

The whole appointment lasts about 90 minutes, I took 6 different tests in total.

1. Ishihara colour vision test (1-25 plates of 38 plate test)
As discussed plenty on this thread previously, first you look at the Ishihara plates. Test is in a darkened room, you sit at the desk and the plates are put on a stand with a light overhead to control the light conditions. The Ishihara plates are the ones where (hopefully!) you can see numbers on them.

2. American Optical Company (HRR) Plates
Similar to Ishihara except you have to identify shapes (circle, cross, triangle etc) and point to the outline of the shape.

3. Colour Assesment and Diagnostic test (CAD)
This is a computer based test, you sit on a chair and look through a chin/forehead rest to keep your head aligned. You look at a computer monitor, which has a square (I'd guess about 10cm sq) of grey and colours. You have a remote with four buttons that correspond to the corners of the square (top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right). Each test is about 1 second, the square you are looking at moves for about 1 second, flashing lots of different shades of grey small squares. Within this you should be able to see a coloured area, moving across one of the diagonal axis. Once the movement stops you have to press the button on the remote for the corner the coloured area stopped in. If you don't know you are told to guess. Its a difficult test (and I was warned this before I started), because it adjusts to your answers as it runs. You go through loads of the 1 second iterations, hundreds. It probably took me 15 mins in total. Further up this thread somewhere there is a link to a simple online version of this test.

4. Farnsworth D15 test
This is a series of 15 coloured counters (like a boardgame) of slightly differing shades, they put one counter in place to start you off and you have to put them in order of colour change, like a "spectrum". Its the only test I passed, with one mistake.

5. Nagel anomaloscope
Apparently this is still the Rolls Royce of tests. You look into a instrument similar to a telescope, and see a circle of colour split into to semi-circular halves. The operator sets the top half to one colour, you have to look into the eyepiece and twist a dial to match the bottom half to the top. Frankly I found it very difficult.

6. Holmes-Wright Lantern (Type A)
This is what I'd really gone for, becuase I understand this is what you get at Gatwick if you fail Ishihara. This test was done in a different room, twice, once with near darkness, and again in as close to pitch black as possible. I found it more difficult in the total darkness.
You sit 6m away from the lantern, which has 2 lights. They are about 2mm in diameter (same size as a standby LED on a TV set), positioned in a vertical line about 3cm apart.
The lights can be three colours, Red, Green, White. Before the test starts the operator shows you all three colours and tells you which is which.
The lights are shown in pairs, and you have to call out in turn what the colour is, top then bottom. Eg Red-Red, Red-White, Red-Green, Green-Green, etc etc. There are about 30-40 pairs I think. You are not allowed to make any mistakes.

Disappointingly but unsurprisingly I failed most of the tests. For the Holmes Wright lantern I can't differentiate between White and Green. I answered White-White when it was White-Green, White-white when it was Green-Green, etc etc. My condition is diagnosed as Protanomaly.

Written report
You receive a written report of the results about 1 week after the appointment. You are also verbally told the results on the day, and of course you can ask questions. I was advised it is highly unlikely I can pass a Class 1 medical, certainly not in the UK.

New PAPI test trials
City Uni are developing a new test based on PAPI lights as mentioned in this thread. I asked about this, was told (and shown the kit - looks similar to lantern) that it is about to be trialled, but it is not CAA approved yet. City Uni are looking for volunteers for the trail, if anyone is interested PM me for the Uni contact name and number.

If anyone wants to know more feel free to PM me.

cheers
Ian

[lazyjai]

Hi everyone ...I am a new member of this site ... This site is great and i learned alot from other's experiences. I have a few questions, and i am hoping that someone can give me a hand.
I just realized that i have REd Green Colour deficiency . I failed the Ishihara test and my optomerist is booking the Lantern test for me. I was reading some of the posts from this site and others are stating that Airlines (such as CX, KA ..etc) have their own medical standards. Even if i am qualify for Class 1, airlines might not accept me since their medical standards are usually tougher than Class1 standards. I emailed the aviation doctor for CX and he said as long as i pass the lantern test, i will be qualify for Class 1 in Hk . But he did not say whether CX accepts anyone with Colour deficiency.
I am currently in my 2nd year of university study and i want to make Flying my career. I got to start saving money for flying school if i am to pursue my career as a pilot. I am just wondering if there is a way to Know the airlines medical standards? Will my colour vision problem prohibit me from getting into airline such as CX? enough for CX.

Thanks you
best regard
steve

[2close]

That's a good point, Jimmy.

Ishihara tests are designed to be conducted in Northern Daylight. Most Optometrists have a lamp which simulates this condition but as with all things mechanical they will all be subject to degradation over time.

According to an Optometrist friend of mine, the Ishihara tests are only ever truly reliable if they are conducted in good daylight conditions.

As for the Ishihara tests being different, I was informed that the only differences were between the 24 and 36 plate editions . JAA requirements are based only on the first 16 plates of the 24 plate edition.

2close

[kansai]

I am applying to become an ATCO and have a question about the ATCO version of the JAR CLass 1 medical for eyesight....

For the JAR Class 1 medical the CAA says that you must pass the Ishihara test, and if you can't do that then you must pass an approved lantern test.

For my own peace of mind I have taken the Ishihara test locally and will take a lantern test next week. I can get most of the questions right in the Ishihara but do have difficulty with some. As I suspect that I failed an RAF medical on colour vision 12 years ago, I am a little anxious.

My question is,

Are the rules for colour vision for ATCO and pilots EXACTLY the same, or are they slightly less strict for ATCO? (The CAA says that the eyesight medical for ATCO "generally" follows the JAR Class 1")

I don't see any posts on the forum colour blind thread specifically about ATC so I hope that someone can help here.

Thanks

KIX

[A-FLOOR]

Flight article (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/01/Navigation/177/208737/UK+review+of+electronic+colour+blindness+test+set+to+be+inte rnational+standard+as+pilot+vision.html)[...]

The authority says it is "concerned" that the present colour vision requirements may be inappropriate for pilot tasks that have emerged since current tests were introduced. It is working with City University in London to develop a computer-based colour assessment and diagnosis (CAD) test that aims to be "fair and task-related", says CAA optometrist Adrian Chorley.

[...]I have protanomalous vision, which means I have difficulty distiguishing red. I won't pass an Ishihara colour-card test, so to say the least I am very interested to know if this might mean I actually have a shot at getting a class I medical after all. :suspect: ;)

[shgsaint]

Hi Kaijakk,

I've used a colour vision contact lens in the past and it certainly wasn't very useful for many things.

I'm unsure if they're exactly the same as the ones you mention but the one I tried was a clear contact lens with a distinct deep red spot on the centre of vision.

I don't know how it works but I went from not being able to read a couple of Ishihara plates to seeing every one of them. It didn't help all that much.

The negetive side is that there is only one lens and this is placed on your weaker eye. So through your weaker eye everything within your immediate centre of vision is a red colour. The peripheral (spell?) vision is normal but you get a strong clash with normal vision in your strong eye (with no lens in) with a red/clear vision in your weaker eye. It is sort of like looking through those great 3D glasses you get out of cereal packets. The ones with a Red and Green lens.

You then find yourself fighting to control what eye you really want to look out. Your strong eye is dominant but your weaker eye helps the colour vision in certain tasks. I must stress that I personally got confused an awful lot on some things. Because the lens makes you see red, everything has a red tinge to it. Even Green things! I found myself seeing red things in my strong eye that were in fact red, but the lens then turned them into a bright green! It was a very very perculiar experience. I know the contradicts the previous sentence but that did happen.

However red objects and red colours, say red spots on a brown background did then stand out like i've never experienced before. The funny thing is I think I have mild deutanopia. Mild green deficiency.

I think one of the problems I found was that it wans't perscribed with enough accuracy. My optician has given me good eyesight figures but when he ordered the lens with those figures in mind, my sight was a little blurred when looking through the lens. Don't forget the lens has to be specially made for your eyesight and I think mine needed a slight perscription altered to it.

I was told very adamently not to go driving with them and I understood why. I only tried them for a couple of weeks but they did help with the Ishihara plates. I think they may help me spot the brown ball on a snooker table when I watch TV too. In real life I don't have much problem with the colours on a snooker table. Its just tv that makes me struggle.

I'd be interested in seeing how it affects vision for pilots and ATCOs but I think i'd rather trust my natural colour blind vision.

You really need to try it to understand my experience and it is likely that your experience will be different anyway because our colour vision is very unique to each and everyone of us.

Hope that helps.

Shg.

[2close]

Some info for anyone thinking of going to the USA - the FAA has scrapped the Farnsworth Lantern Test (See FAA medical website).

9 out of 22 is a pass in Canada? How the hell can one country (or group of countries) stipulate NIL errors as a pass whereas another country will permit 2 errors, another 6 and another country allows lots?

Isn't it strange that one of the the only countries that doesn't permit any mistakes is the same country that publishes a document stating that the Ishihara tests and the lantern tests are unreliable!

HTH

2close

[east_sider]

After my appointment with City Uni for a full colour vision assessment back in July I volunteered to trial the new PAPI test and have just been back to do the tests today, this is a write up of my experience.

I was given a number of different tests. Three of these were a repeat of the Colour Assesment and Diagnostic test (CAD) described in my post above. It is the computer monitor with grey animated square, and an area of colour moving across one of the diagonals. It runs in 1 second cycles and you press a button corresponding to the corner of the square where you think the coloured area stopped moving. The difference each of the three times I took this test is the amount of background noise added in to the animation. The "standard" level is 45% noise, which I did last time. This time I did 12%, 60% and 90% (I think). Presumably the idea is to see how people perform at more extreme levels of ease/difficulty, to help find or confirm the "normal" noise level to use.

Then took the PAPI test - this is basically a series of four lights in a horizontal line, which can be white or red. They light for about 1 second then you have to say how many red lights you see, from 0-4 (ie five possible answers). Having never used PAPIs (I'm a <10hours PPL student) I found this test easy, but I can seperate red and white ok, its the white/green on the Holmes Wright lantern I struggled with.

There is a second stage to this test with five different colours - white, red, green, yellow and blue. These either appear on their own, or in a pair, one of which is always white. You have to say the other colour. I found blue and red easy every time, struggled to differentiate white, green and yellow sometimes.

The CAD test is important as according to the person testing me, it will likely be used in conjunction with the PAPI test in the future. This is basically because the CAD test is relatively easy to recreate in reasonably equal conditions (its basically just a software package I guess, maybe with a certain type of monitor etc). The PAPI test is a large, fairly mechanical piece of kit which is cumbersome and expensive, so I gathered not practical for widespread use.

It is my understanding that something like this could happen in the future:

1. The CAD test "replaces" Ishihara plates as the initial screening, possibly for Class 2 as well as Class 1. It is more accurate than Ishihara as it narrows your CVD down to a fairly close range.

2. Anyone "failing" this test, against whatever standards/prescription is set, would then have to take the PAPI test. This would probably only be possible at a few or even just one (Gatwick?) location.

Please note this last hypothesis on the future is entirely my understanding from talking to the person testing me, I got the impression it was still a moving piece (so to speak) with the CAA and nothing is definite yet. Clearly the results of the testing phase I took part in will help shape the future.

I hope somehow this all leads to a fairer or more realistic set of standards and tests for colour vision in the future. All I want to do is fly and no one I've spoken to so far can point to specific things that I can't do, apart from perhaps identify an aircraft at night from wing lights only. How likely is that in this day and age? If you're IFR in controlled airspace you'd better know a collision is approaching long before those lights save you.... or they could just change it worldwide to blue and yellow for port and starboard!!!

Probably too much detail on here already but if anyone wants more feel free to PM. I know one or two other people posting on this thread might be taking part in this trial, any comments from others experiences would be very interesting.

[Rogal]

Hello,
I failed the ishihara test on my 2 JAR class, but as alternative test I has few grey triangles - in every cornel was colour light (red, green, orange etc..what is name of this test?). All my answers were correct so I passed. Have I chance to pass tests for 1 class?

Regards!
Piotrek

Sorry but my english isn't very well ;)

[Shunter]

Hi All

I thought I'd post a note following my visit to City Uni yesterday. When I got my medical (and failed Ishihara) in January, I subsequently went to Gatwick and failed both lanterns. They put my name forward for the City Uni research project, and after a few months wait I went down there.

First of all was good old Ishihara, a few different variations of, all of which I got some wrong. Second was a test based on the sample they have on their website where you follow the coloured square around the screen. Completely different to the website version though; it's designed to give a really accurate evaluation of where your colour deficiency is and to what extent you are affected. The conclusion of this, and I quote "Very mild dueteronomy (sp?) and your green cone wavelength recognition is left of centre, which will mean green/white differenciation is where you'll have trouble". Nice to finally get something other than "sorry sir, you've failed, now **** off".

After a couple more tests including the anomoloscope we moved onto their really useful test, the PAPI simulator. I got 100% of these right. The idea behind the project is that they can build a picture of what level of deficiency can be classed as acceptable, instead of just a black & white approach. The current CAA approach is based purely on the fact that until recently there just wasn't a satisfactory enough method of establishing where you were on the scale of perfect to useless.

I was told that when the new system is adopted I would be one of the lucky ones to benefit from it as my defect is very mild. It's certainly reassuring to know that change and common sense are both in the pipeline.

The project is currently about half way through their sample subjects, so I would encourage anyone in the same boat as me to request the CAA pass your details on to City. By the way, as it's part of a research project, the whole 2 hour exam is free and at least you'll get the satisfaction of knowing exactly where you stand in the grand scheme of colour vision things.

I hope this is useful to some of you. Cheers.

[YVRtoYYZ]

Hi all,

I have been following the 2 threads regarding colourblindness closely and, while understanding that most of the discussion pertains to the CAA/JAA, I am hoping for some insight into my situation with Transport Canada.

Just today, I took the Farnsworth D-15 colour test where I flawlessly passed the first two tests administered and made one error on the third test administered. I then took the Holmes-Wright lantern test, upon which I was informed that my answers were inconsistent with the green/white colours being displayed. Upon completion of the Holmes-Wright, I then took the Farnsworth D-15 again to prove for a fourth time my competency in flawlessly determining the pattern of colours.

This then brings me to my question:
If I have consistently demonstrated complete competency and accuracy with the Farnsworth D-15 test (which is considered an alternate to the Ishihara, while the lantern is considered an alternate to the D-15), upon which grounds will Transport Canada consider my colour vision competency? Does the fact that I was completely successful with the D-15 indicate that I have meet TC's colour distinction requirements or will my failure on the Holmes-Wright lantern test outweigh my successes with the Farnsworth D-15.

Thank you in advance.

-YVRtoYYZ

[2close]

How come the UK CAA are failing to correctly apply the instructions laid down by the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine with regard to Ishihara testing?

"Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given by each test"

The instructions for the Ishihara 24 Plate version clearly states that up to 2 errors on Plates 1 - 17 still constitutes a pass.

So why does the UK CAA not permit any errors?

Is this the same with other JAA states?

Surely, this must be open to challenge.

[gijoe]

How come the UK CAA are failing to correctly apply the instructions laid down by the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine with regard to Ishihara testing?
"Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given by each test"
The instructions for the Ishihara 24 Plate version clearly states that up to 2 errors on Plates 1 - 17 still constitutes a pass.
So why does the UK CAA not permit any errors?
Is this the same with other JAA states?
Surely, this must be open to challenge.

Because they make it up as they go along and noone can touch them !!

Roll on progress.

[dscartwright]

FAA accept the Farnsworth.
CAA accept both Holmes Wright and Anomalscope.
HTH
2closeCAA also administer the Holmes Wright, and from my experience it's a complete farce (I failed the Ishihara Plates but fancied getting a Night Rating for my PPL, so I went for the H-W). I paid my fee, trekked down to Gatwick, and got five minutes into the test before being told that because I'd got one red/green combination wrong, the test must cease immediately.

On one hand, that's fair enough - if that's what the procedure says, that's how it should be.

On the other hand, it's damned annoying. First of all, you're sat quite a long way from the tiny light pin-pricks (I know it's called a "lantern" test, which makes you think of carol singers with socking great candles in metal boxes, but we're talking tiny points of light) and so distance vision is being tested just as much as colour vision. Second, the test begins in ambient light - in this case fluorescent light in a windowless room - and after a while they turn the lights off. Third, I'd paid my fee so I damn well think I was entitled to go through the entire test just to see how I'd done in the dark (this was never tested, as the tester stopped the test during the ambient light phase).

So after a day off work and a fee to the CAA, I know that I have trouble picking out tiny points of red and green under a bright fluorescent bulb (not exactly the conditions I come across in the sky all that often). Sadly, I have no idea whether I would be able to meet the standard that matters - red/green requirement in the dark. If the test had carried on to the "dark" stage and I'd failed, I'd have been OK with that - at least I'd have known that there was a problem. As it is, I have no idea whether my colour perception in the dark is up to scratch.

The other thing that annoys me is that the guy doing the test basically said: "Sorry, you've failed". He actually thought I was aiming for commercial flying (he didn't know I was just a PPL wanting a night rating) yet there was nothing in his manner that was even close to "letting me down gently". And in fact, as I was sat outside waiting for my taxi to the station, he even came out and asked me to go in and let him check my distance vision, as it had suddenly occurred to him that the problem may be the inability to see the lights, not the inability to distinguish the colours. Didn't make a difference though.

When I told my AME about my experiences at my last medical, I think the word "furious" pretty much sums it up. And I agree with him. Since then, I've been told that I have a "slight" colour vision problem by an optician who did a City University test on me. All I really want is a realistic test that I can come out of with a verdict of whether my colour vision is crap or not. So I think I'll track down an Anomalscope test and see how I go.

David C

[Strobe lights]

Good post David.. you should claim to the CAA that the test was not conducted properly!! This is not fair!! and I totally agree with you, it´s a farse..

********************************

Does anybody knows where can I find information about the Spectrolux lantern test procedure for califications?? e.g no fails allowed or one fail allowed on first turn, etc.. ??
I was checking the CAA Manual of Aviation Medicine from JAA main web page and it doesn´t mention the Spectrolux, but the JAR-FCL 3.225 (b) appendix 14 does..
Any hint?

Thanks..

[Strobe lights]

Hi all.. I need to try my question again.. sorry :bored:
Please.. Does anybody knows where can I find information about the Spectrolux lantern test procedures?? e.g no fails allowed or one fail allowed on first turn, etc.. ??
I was checking the CAA Manual of Aviation Medicine at the JAA main web page but it doesn´t mention the Spectrolux (only Beyne or H-W), but the JAR-FCL 3.225 (b) appendix 14 does.. and it says no errors with the lanterns but I know that for example, Holmes-Wright accepts some mistakes on the first run and then there is a dark adapted test.
But, how it is with the Spectrolux? no errors allowed, one error on first run?
Does anyboby knows where is it published or where can I find information about it?

Thanks..

[JuHan]

hello everyone.i'm really really new to pprune.
i feel that pprune could help me as it has already helped thousands of other members.

i'm from malaysia.i failed the ishihara test last year and i was hoping to try my luck in australia to become a airline pilot.

I understand that CASA only accepts ishihara and lantern test results.But for me,the timing of events couldn't have been worse.

the only lantern eye testing facility(tun hussien onn eye hospital) known is not operational.instead the nurse asked me to do a 100 hue test.Unfortunately,CASA does not accept the 100 hue test results.

could anyone tell me where could i do the lantern eye test in malaysia?
thanks:)

[Rogal]

I would try an alternative test if I were you.
Hi,
The problem is simply - in poland only anomaloscope and ishihara are accepted for 1 class. I passed lantern test for 2 class (100% correct). I will try anomaloscope in poland...maybe i will pass - my friend have the same blindness as me and he is captain in PLL LOT. If I doesn't pass anomaloscope, i will go to USA...I can pass tower test i think.

I haven't any problems with color blindness in every day life and flying as turistic pilot so why they won't give me 1 class :confused::confused:

[Strobe lights]

Thanks G/A for the link.. the problem is that I am looking for something more JAA-FCL or CAA´s official stuff, something like the JAA passsing-failing criteria for the Spectrolux lantern test. The link is very useful, but it is more research oriented.. thanks anyway..
Has anybody gone threw the Spectrolux? Does anybody knows the JAA passing-failing criteria for this specific test?

[JuHan]

hello everyone..
i've just got off the phone from a eye specialist doctor..(i'm CVD btw)
at first..i asked the doctor about conducting a lantern test on me..but he replied saying that he would conduct a 100 hue test on me..and certify me as colour safe for the CASA class one medical..(this is in malaysia)

i was confused by the doctor's saying..
at first..i was told by CASA would only accept ishihara,lantern and tower light tests..and also would not accept the results of 100 hue test.

but on the other hand..the eye doctor said he could give me a class one CASA medical with the 100 hue test..right now..i do not know what to do..this thing is kinda like against each other right now..

could anyone enlighten me about this issue..

thanks in advance

[biggles7374]

I have a colour vision deficiency and currently hold a class 2 UK JAR medical restricted to vfr flights only. I have been told my defect is marginal and failed the HW lantern by one set of lights

Sometimes I pass the ishihara plates and sometimes don't and can only put this down to the lighting conditions in the medical examiners room and the way this slightly affects the perception of the colours. I seem to do better without the 'daylight lamp' shining on the book (ie the controlled conditions that are supposed to be in place during the test).

I have read about taking medicals in other JAA countries, does anyone know, or does anyone have experience to know whether the ishihara is carried out in 'controlled' conditions in european locations such as schiphol? or whether they are just carried out in the doctors room under normal flourescant lights.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

[2close]

Biggles,

The Ishihara test is being improperly applied by the JAA.

It is designed to be used in a room lit with actual daylight conditions, not artificial lighting, and that is what is stated within the instructions.

The 'daylight' tubes used are as close as they can get but are still not the same as actual daylight.

Furthermore, the JAA insist on nil errors whereas the Ishihara instructions state clearly that up to TWO errors is still considered a pass.

Therefore, the JAA is operating a prescribed medical test which is not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Request a re-test in daylight conditions or if you go to another country tell them before you book that you want to be tested in actual daylight conditions.

Although, I would have yourself checked in these conditions at your local optometrist before going down this road.

HTH

2close

[JuHan]

i've just done my eye test..
my colour vision was abysmal...out of the 25 ishihara plates..i could only read one..
the doctor told me that i will fail all the other test in the world..
i know i shouldn't be let down by it...but are there any similar cases like me..
i could perceive colour fine in everyday life..but when it comes to ishihara...i'm like a blind man..

the 100 hue test is coming for me..should i try it or just forget about the whole flying career?

[Bealzebub]

"true when they lower the intensity of the lantern, instead of bright and intense colours... you'll see fake colours!!! a greenish red, a reddish green and so on.... I'm really thinking that the CAA tries to stop or fail you whenever they can... very sad... "


What an absolutely ridiculous comment that the CAA try to fail you whenever they can. I have had many involved dealings with the medical division of the CAA over the last 25 years and they have always, always been professional and helpful. There has never been any doubt at all that they will bend over backwards to ensure you retain the medical wherever that is possible. You need to remember that the division is comprised of medical professionals with a great deal of experience in their respective fields and who naturally have a particular focus on its application to the specific field of aviation medicine.

Very recently my son failed his colour vision test based on the Ishihara plates at his class 2 initial medical. An appointment was made for the lantern tests to be conducted at the CAA today, and both he and I are delighted that he passed and had the restriction on his medical certificate removed. However the tests were conducted in a proper manner and whatever the outcome had been a full explanation was offered on conclusion.

Whatever the situation, these are the people to see, as ultimately ( in the UK at least) they will be responsible for the decision to issue the appropriate class of medical certificate. The medical division of the CAA is not Lourdes, nor do they have a magic formulae to elevate all candidates to the required standard, however I am sure they are delighted to be able offer reassurance wherever that is possible and similarly to offer advice to possibly overcome a problem. Nevertheless they are also charged with ensuring standards and inevitably that means some candidates will be disappointed with the results. I am convinced that is an occurence which gives the individual doctor no pleasure at all.

[TelBoy]

I took the CAA colour vision tests about 14 years ago. First was Ishihara then some coloured domino things and then the Holmes Wright test, I failed all of them and was classed CVD. Looking at the treads in this forum I feel that the test were not properly carried out - no daylight for Ishihara and dark only for HW, as for the dominos thing the examiner would not even tell me what he wanted me to acheve??? A few years after this I went to the USA got my PPL and did the FAA light signal test and passed so I have the SODA waiver and unrestricted medical.

My question is (as I would like to now do CPL or ATPL in the UK - my home) would the CAA alow me to do another test? my last was so long ago and not JAA at that time and if so and I pass and spend a fortune on training and get my CPL or ATPL, when I go to an employer they will put you through a company medical - how do they treat CVD and do their tests?

Any help would be great

[davidd]

I dont understand this at all, does this mean that he could get a cpl/atpl in the usa then work for an airline in the UK ?
Sorry to hear you failed, out of interest when you did the ishihara test did they do any of the wiggly lines or just the numbers ?
As I know non cvd people fail these or certainly hesitate.

Can you identify the colour of the individual dots that make up the plates?

[east_sider]

out of interest when you did the ishihara test did they do any of the wiggly lines or just the numbers ?
As I know non cvd people fail these or certainly hesitate.

Can you identify the colour of the individual dots that make up the plates?

Davidd - the isihara plates were only numbers, no symbols. It was the same set at CAA Gatwick as at City and also found online.

Not sure what you mean by "Can you identify the colour of the individual dots that make up the plates?" I can see the individual dots, and I can see the colours are different. But I can't see they are different enough to make out a number. So as I go through the book the colour of them get closer and closer together, they look like all dots are shades of a browny/green, I can't distinguish the shades enough to see a number. On certain plates I can't see any number at all.

Hope that answers your Q.

[Blinkz]

Hey guys,
Does anyone have any experience of how airlines view colourvision? I have a full CAA class 1 medical with no colourvision restriction on it, only a VDL for having to wear contact lenses. However I failed the Ishihara plates and passed the beyne lantern. I'm just coming to the end of my commercial training now and will be starting to hunt for jobs in the near future.

Do airlines have a problem if you have had to pass a lantern test?
Since I have actually passed a lantern test could I just say that I'm not actually colour blind?(since I have passed one of the offical JAA tests?)

Any information anyone can give me on airline medicals and colourvision would be very greatfully received!

[Bealzebub]

Hey guys,
Does anyone have any experience of how airlines view colourvision? I have a full CAA class 1 medical with no colourvision restriction on it, only a VDL for having to wear contact lenses. However I failed the Ishihara plates and passed the beyne lantern. I'm just coming to the end of my commercial training now and will be starting to hunt for jobs in the near future.
Do airlines have a problem if you have had to pass a lantern test?
Since I have actually passed a lantern test could I just say that I'm not actually colour blind?(since I have passed one of the offical JAA tests?)
Any information anyone can give me on airline medicals and colourvision would be very greatfully received!


If you passed the lantern test then that is fine. Some people do have problems with the Ishihara plates that do not manifest themselves on the more involved light tests done at the CAA. If you pass the lantern tests then obviously you are not "colour blind" or sufficiently colour deficient to fail the qualification. As such you will have no restriction on your medical certificate that is relevant to this. Most airlines in the UK will not require you to submit to an additional medical. Some overseas airlines and the odd UK one that might would need to be told of your CVD with regards to ishihara plates only if that became an issue.

On a seperate note, to those that feel it is fine to be able see the colours on an EFIS /EICAS display despite a CVD anomaly, it should be remembered that individual colour guns do fail on these displays which can make a big difference to the colours, shades and hues that are displayed and can present problems if these differences cannot be readily observed and compensated for.

In addition what happens with regards to the medical standards in other countries is academicaly interesting but not necessarily relevant. In the USA for example many of the standards and requirements are geared up to a system that is relevant to that countries operating infrastructure and norms. For example it is comparatively rare for very low hour pilots to be employed as airline First Officers. It may well be that the FAA considers the higher experience base and general operating environment to be sufficient to allow a different level of colour vision deficiences, than that permitted in the UK.

[TelBoy]

Soeren

You are quite right everyone should look at their colour vision testing. In my mind the FAA route of a practical flight test is the ONLY real way this can be acheved.

Even people classed as colour vision normal have a huge difference in the way they perceve colour and could it be that someone who has passed the ishihara test might have problems with something practical - I don't know the answer but its possible.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the "colour normals" on CVD. I have had it said to me (on MANY occasions) I guess you know if the traffic lights are red or green by wether its the top or bottom light. This seems very ignorant as most CVD people could give you the colour of a traffic light from a great distance without knowing its position (I can) - however these people don't understand and perhaps this is the case with Bealzebub.

I would hope that everyone contributing here CVD or not would not want to compromise aviation saftey. I for one would happily give up my dreams if I thought that I would represent a danger (though CVD or anything else) and I'm sure that I speak for the majority. The recless that could not care I hope would be sorted out at interview etc as they obvioustley do not have the responsibility to be a potential captain.

[davidd]

Bealzebub, I understand your comments about CVD pilots having a route to follow in respect of further tests and anyone serious has probably subjected themselves to this, yet it still seems crazy to me that a high hour US pilot can have CVD and demonstrate that the CVD is not an issue yet the UK pilot isnt even given a chance to become a pilot unless they follow a route that is likely to see them fail compared to a practical test where a situation encountered by the pilot is tested.
Personally as a child I discovered I have a mild form of cvd mild enough to see me pass the CUT cvd test for my employment, yet fail the ishihara somedays and pass other days.
As a matter of interest I have booked my city university tests and look forward to taking the tests maybe my cvd is slight enough to enable me to pass and get the illusive cvd class1, should I fail the testing it seems absurb to think I would be able to fly an aircraft into heathrow with cvd simply by moving house!
I think this thread has been done to death now.
btw city uni are charging £75 including the research tests for aviation.
Best Regards
d
A test that provides a quantifiable and accurate measure of color vision as a way of reliably grading the loss of color sensitivity would solve some of these problems. A better understanding of color vision requirements in the aviation environment is also needed so as to set sensible pass/fail criteria that are relevant and safe and can, therefore, be accepted internationally.

[2close]

A point for consideration regarding the proposed new tests.

If the final decision is going to be made on a PAPI simulator which only uses Red and White as its decisive factors, why should any form of pre-screening be carried out, using Ishihara or the computerised test devised by City University?

The screening tests are designed to identify a Red / Green deficiency which is then not taken into consideration when making the final decision.

Therefore, persons with red deficiencies are being placed at an unfair disadvantage over persons with green deficiencies.

The case may arise where a person with a mild red deficiency could fail to meet the colour vision standards whereas a person with a critical green deficiency could pass the test.

It seems that the CAA / JAA / EASA are determined to find themselves in the Courts facing discrimination 'charges'.

Is the time for talking over and the time for action here and now?

2close

[benwizz]

I thought I would give a summary of the testing procedures at Gatwick from my recent experience to give an idea of what to expect.

Firstly, I was given the ishihara test along with all the other eye tests and at the end of the eye examination the doctor told me that I had failed 2 plates, and although this was the pass mark Dr Ishihara set, JAR rules require no mistakes. I was told I had to do the lantern tests, and was sent back to the waiting room.

A nurse then took me to the lantern testing room, which consisted of a long, thin room with a chair at one end, and a trolley with the 2 lantern test boxes on at the other end, and she explained that she would be doing the Beynes test first. She explained the colours (red, blue, green, orange and "white", which looked identical to the orange colour for me). She did warn me that the white was a muddy white, like the colour of a light bulb in a room. The lights were turned off so the room was in near darkness, and I was sat about 5m away. She showed me the first colour as a demo. For the actual test, she showed me at a guess around 20 different lights, and I couldn't tell the difference between the "white" and the orange. The red, blue and green were however very easy to distinguish, as the lights were surprisingly clear and a bit larger than I expected. The lights remained on for about a second, and you just had to shout out the colour.

I then did the H-W test, which was positioned slightly further back than the Beynes (6m or so). This was carried out with the lights on. She said this test should be slightly easier because there were only 3 lights - red, green and white. She showed me one set of lights, to indicate the position of the lights. There are two, one on top of the other, and you have to name the top one followed by the bottom one. She turned the thing on and showed me what I needed to do, and at this point I was surprised at how bright and clear the lights were. She promptly turned the intensity down by I would guess about half and explained that this was the brightness the test would be carried out at :eek: There were probably about 20 or so light pairs I had to identify. I knew I had confused the green and white colours, and as expected she told me we would have to do it again in the dark. This time, the light pairs were on for about 5 seconds.

I was then left in the room in total darkness for 15 minutes to get accustomed to the light, which was plenty of time to get stewed up about it! After that time, the lady returned and started the test again. This time I was able to name the lights correctly, and I passed. I found it a lot easier in the dark, and although the lights are very small for the H-W test, there was not a problem with the white and orange looking similar.

All in all, although it was pretty stressful knowing that just one wrong answer would fail you on each test, the staff were very nice and seemed as if they genuinely wanted you to pass, as other people have said. It just shows that it is possible to pass the medical even if you have problems with the ishihara plates.

Good luck

[benwizz]

Nope you just need to pass one, it doesn't matter if you fail any others, just either the ishihara, the Beyne or the H-W.

[TelBoy]

When I did mine all those years ago the only lantern was the Holmes Wright, beyne was not an option (well for me anyhow) I guess this would give me a good reason for asking for a retest.

To give you the larger picture. In those days there were 3 classes of Medical. Class 1 for ATP and CPL, Class 2 for BCPL (remember that) and Class 3 for PPL. The Class 1 could NOT have any restrictions so with CVD the highest class was 2 with daytime restriction and need for radio in aircraft.

The first test I did was Ishihara - failed miserably. He then gave me some coloured domino things and told me to "arrange them logically" when I asked him what he ment, he just said "anyone with normal colour vision would understand" - failed miserably again as I did not even understand what I was supposed to be doing. Then the HW test. This involved sitting for about 15 mins in a chair with a British Airways blindfold on to "dark adapt" the test was then taken in total darkness. He showed me the lights, one above each other, and I thought "this is easy" I could tell the colours with no problem. Then came the test. The apatures of the lights was taken to a pin pick and I think I mixed up the green and white, although I was only told I had failed:{ I then took the rest of a class 2 medical and passed, but with day and radio only restrictions.

Following this I went to the USA and passed my PPL and light signal test, the FAA have given me a SODA for any class medical:ok: Now the only problem is I'm English and could really do with going the CAA way.

Sorry if this has waffled on a bit - its a history lesson for most, but if anyone can comment on my chances of getting the CAA to retest me I would be greateful, although I will not be asking until I have been to the city uni next month to get a full report.

[TelBoy]

east_sider

It seems all tests are different, a very confusing and irritating situation for the likes of us. Have you taken the city uni tests? as I think a report from them will help you.

My view is to get all the relevant facts together - try writing to the CAA and ask what the protocol is - or even better get someone else to write so that they do not give the protocol used on you, because it is you who is asking!! Get the citi uni report etc. Try looking at ishihara plates in proper daylight as it should be. At the Hendon RAF museum there is a display about needs for pilots and colour vision is included. It has a selection of ishihara plates on display. Standing next to them I could not make out anything, but after looking around at other things, I looked back and could tell all the numbers as sunlight was falling on them. I was amazed as I've never been able to tell what they are.

Try pushing - I'm sure others here might be able to help you more than me, but if Gatwick say no then you won't be any worse off than now.

All the best

[TelBoy]

east_sider

The FAA test involves reading the tower light signals at 1000 and 1500 yards. Remember the towers often have tinted windows that distort the signal.

You need to contact the FAA to get an authority to do the signal test. I do not know if it can be done in the UK, try phoning the FAA, they are VERY helpful and I would give them 10/10 all the times I have had dealings with them. They also have an office at Aviation House I think.

If not a good holiday could be had with a bit of flying and a signal test to boot. A champagne dinner when you pass I bet:O . Remember you need an M1 student visa AND security clearance to fly in the US now (for training anyhow - not sure how hour building and signal tests go)

And still we all look forward to the new tests. People are calling it the PAPI and seem to confuse it with the glide slope indicator, but I think it is a sort of computerised ishihara, not just red and white - not sure if it will be any better for us!!

[2close]

Telboy,

I have to disagree with several points of your post.

Firstly, the CAA is looking at replacing the CVD tests but this is a case of replacing one inappropriate test with another inappropriate test which it is doing because it is fully aware that its misapplication of the Ishihara Test is in breach of proper medical procedures and is leaving it wide open to civil action, therefore it needs a test whereby it controls the procedures. It cannot introduce this test unilaterally therefore it needs to persuade all other JAA member states that it would be in the interests of member states to apply this test. This is a lengthy process, hence the delays, and not because the CAA wouldn't bring it in tomorrow if it could.

A point you mention is the matter of aviation safety. This is an area where the hypocrisy of the CAA and JAA is greatly understated. They insist on standards for their own aircrew but make no such insistence on pilots flying foreign registered aircraft in their airspace. Therefore, if the CAA /JAA believes that its CVD standards are the correct standards and anything less is unsafe I will make a public accusation right here and now that the CAA is failing in its legal and moral duty to protect the citizens of the UK and should, no MUST, be brought to task over this issue.

The CAA, in its application of the present CVD standards, is not contributing to aviation safety but what it is doing is applying discriminatory practices which are in blatant breach of current UK legislation - they know it, we know it so why are we doing nothing about it?

I do agree with you regarding the practical testing. A communication I received from the Disability Rights Commission stated that, to conform with the requirements of the DDA, the CAA could only refuse to issue a Class 1 medical certificate to a CVD pilot if they could prove that the person was not competent to hold such a certificate. Such competence can only be proved or disproved by appropriate practical testing and not a 'lab' based test whihc only touches on the area of aviation operations.

As for legal proceedings being of no benefit I can not agree with this either. Legal action must start somewhere. By bringing the action against one national authority makes other national authorities take notice. Change is brought about by action and the time for action is before EASA harmonises EU regulation not after - the prospect of multiple legal actions against all member states should make those member states think hard about future regulation.

Do the mathematics - a legal action for discrimination and loss of earnings brought by a 20 year old with a potential 45 year career in commercial aviation. How much does that add up to? Now multiply that figure by 8% of the male population. Enough to make the authorities think hard about their regulation? Even the costs of defending multiple claims would be astronomical.

In answer to your question regarding CVD and accident statistics, I read a while ago that there has never been an accident in the history of Commercial Air Transport that was solely attributable to CVD. One accident occurred a couple of years back in Tallahassee whereby a Fed Ex freighter, handled by a SODA pilot, flew below the GP on a visual night approach. However, whilst the NTSB did highlight the issue of CVD the other contributory factors such as working time and exhaustion were, as I recall, given greater prominence.

In response to W w/W, my own investigations and conversations with solicitors on this matter have revealed that there is more than sufficient ammo, more like a broadside.

These are all, I accept, points for discussion and I am sure we will never get complete agreement on them but I must be honest, my patience is rapidly running out and I feel that the time for action is upon us.

2close

[TUIFly]

Hi guys from finland.I think i have joined today your club :-)

I got ishihara test 2 plates wrong, it was 38 plates edition,then thay ask me to perfom other test I don't know how it calls but it was line of colored buttons, i have made 1 mistake there.Then third test was introduced, with 2 lights(don't know name correctly ).I have made 7 mistakes!Unbelivible if you remember that i have made just two mistakes with Ishihara!

Doc says that they can issue only class 2 daytime or even worst, nothing in case if authority deside to...I'm shoked,Don't know what to do.

Anyway I need also FAA Class Medical 1,because i want to take JAA training in Florida.

So iit's seems that I have opposit problem, I can see Ishihara(mostly) but not light test.Crazy? :-)))

[TelBoy]

Hi all. I took the City Uni tests today and turns out I am trichromate with green dificency. The test took about one half hours and are very thorough. I did ask about the new CAA tests and the girl who conducted the tests says they should have the data compiled by the end of next month and then its up to the CAA. When asked what the tests will be, she only said that they would be several tests to accuratley determine the degree of colour blindness and they will have to agree on a pass criteria (I'm not so sure it will be any better for us).

Now my questions that I hope you can answer are:

Will I have trouble getting the CAA to retest me now? I failed the HW test at Gatwick about 15 years ago and was not offered the Bayne (I feel that this is my best hope) this was before the JAA and with three levels of medical.

Also should the CAA allow me a retest and I fail, when the new tests come in - is it likely I will get another test?

Also - am I right that you can only book the colour vision test? about £30?

Can someone who has done the tests recentley state the type of tests available and order. I understand Ishihara - Bayne - HW am I right? also as much info about how they are done will be great.

Any info that you can throw my way before I pick up the phone to our friends at the CAA will be very gratefully received.

[TelBoy]

Hi all, just got results back from city uni. Can anyone tell me if my results in the Nagel Anomaloscope are within range for any full JAA state that uses this test.

Results were

Matching range: 27-31
Deuteranomaly

All advice appreciated.

[TelBoy]

Thanks Biggles for your reply - as I thought really.

Can anyone give me a full idea of what to expect from the Bayne Lantern at Gatwick. What I'm interested in is

How many lights in total do you have to answer?
Do they alter the hew?
How far away are you?
Do they - or will they if asked demonstrate the lights before the test?
In dark or light room?
Is it reflected in a mirror? if so why?
Any room for errors? - well got to ask:)
Any views between this and the HW?


Also I guess at a colour vision test they will first give you the Ishihara - fail that - do they then give the Farnsworth D15 (coloured domino things in a line) if so why do they do this, from what I understand even if you pass that it is not acceptable - correct me if I'm wrong.

As usual all advice is gratefully received as I am trying to prepare myself as much as I can to get passed this damm problem (guess you all know about that)

[gijoe]

Telboy,

At City Uni they will do the whole gambit of tests.

At Gatwick they will first test you with the Ishihara books - fail those and then you can have a go at the H-W Lantern. Fail that and you will be allowed to 'dark adapt' in order to open your eyes as much as possible. I don't know if they have a Beynes at LGw at the moment.

Fail that and i think that they will suggest you go for further investigation at City Uni or provide test results using the Nagel from somewhere else.

This is where it gets a little bit hazy because the wording in JAR FCL 3 says a device suitable etc...

G
There is lots on this thread about the whole process.

[biggles7374]

I am looking for some advice.

I have held a restricted class 2 medical since my initial class 2 examination in 1999. The medical is restricted on account of failing the Ishihara and not having uncorrected 20/20 vision. At the time I went to Gatwick and did the Holmes Wright lantern and failed by one misreading. This meant flights by day only and wearing and carrying a spare pair of glasses when acting as pilot under the priviledges of my PPL.

About six months after my medical my car went into the garage due to strong petrol fumes entering the car's cabin. With hindsight I recall the smell of petrol existed at the time I took my medical but was less significant. I usually spent 25-30 hours in the car each week at that time and I got used to it but when others occasionally came in the car they commented on the smell and when it got worse it was this that prompted the trip to the garage.

Could this, or any other factors have affected my eyesight and my ability to pass the colour vision tests in the medical?

The reason I ask is this.

I have recently undertaken a pre-employment medical and I recall my heart sinking when the colour vision books came out, but low and behold the doc said I passed it, the numbers were not as clear as the first plate but I could just make them out. Not only that he tested my vision and told me I had at least uncorrected 20/20 vision in both eyes and each eye seperately.

I was obviously encouraged by this revelation and in curiosity I made an appointment at my local optician. It was confirmed that my uncorrected vision was 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left eye and 20/15 together. She also tested my colour vision and again I passed although this time seemed slightly easier than before. I explained the situation to the optician and she said that this could be due to the type of lights under which the test is carried out.

My questions are these.

Will the CAA allow me to try for a class 1 medical in the knowledge that I have a restricted class 2?

As this is an initial class 1 and that I have not applied for a class 1 before do I have to declare my PPL and restricted class 2 on the medical application? On the basis that these items are specifically tested in the medical would not declaring them under the medical history section of the form be seen to be deliberately witholding infomation?

Assuming i was able to take a class 1, would the CAA use the coloured plates or would they, on the basis that I have a restricted class 2 and have previously took the Holmes Wright Lantern just allow me to try the Beyne Lantern?

If the plates were used does the CAA use any special lighting or do they just present them under normal office lighting?

Any help on these questions would be appreciated

[TelBoy]

biggles, the CAA see colour blindness as something that does not change as it is usually inherited, but it can be due to health problems. Ask the CAA for a retest - they seem happy to help. You can do just the colour vision test for £28 and if you pass will unrestrict your class 2 and be good for a future class 1.

The ishihara test should be taken in daylight, but everone uses lamps that simulate daylight - there is actually a case where strong daylight at an angle can allow CVD people to see the plates, it has happened to me. My test at the CAA was under a special light.

As for a class 1, I feel that you will have to tell them about your restrictions, as they do already know about them. Tell the CAA about the your other examinations (did you get a written report from any of them?). You can now get a restricted class 1 with day VFR because of CVD so you should at least be able to try for it.

Sorry that this is about the only advice I can give and it is only based on my personal dealings with them.

[biggles7374]

Thanks Telboy.

So are you saying that even though I did try the Holmes Wright in 1999, if I book a colour vision test they will try the Ishihara again, and then if need the lanterns they will try the Holmes Wright again?

Are you also saying that should I pass the Colour vision tests they will not expect me to do the tests again when I apply for a class 1?

Thanks

Andy

[2close]

Biggles,

Firstly, the answer to certain factors affecting colour vision is an absolute and unresounding YES.

There is established evidence that certain medical conditions and medication can cause a temporary reduction in a person's ability to perceive colours. After all, colour perception is the result of a chemico-electrical activity in the body and this activity can be disrupted by external influences.

And of course any form of poisoning, as you were subjected to, could have an adverse affect on your general vision.

As for your Ishihara Tests, it may be that you made two or less mistakes which, according to the test designer / manufacturer, constitutes a PASS but which according to the CAA (and UK military) is a FAIL. The FAA allow up to two mistakes in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.

The test is designed to be conducted in Northern Daylight conditions and the lamp used for the tests is designed to simulate this lighting temperature. However, you try and find a lamp manufacturer that will state unequivocally that it is a 100% representation of Northern Daylight and I can assure you that you will not find one - it merely simulates it as closely as possible. Therefore, whilst this lamp is the closest thing that can be obtained to simulate the actual daylight conditions it is NOT truly representative.

I have been assessed at City University as having a very mild deutoronomaly and can pass the Ishihara test in daylight but make a few mistakes under simulated lighting conditions - normally one error on the 24 plate Ishihara test.

Therefore, the JAA (not just the CAA) is conducting a prescribed medical procedure out of accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Let me try and equate this with an analogy - if a surgeon was instructed to carry out a medical procedure by his employers that he knew was in contravention of the manufacturer's directed procedures and he nevertheless bowed to his employer's wishes and the result was to have a detrimental effect on the patient what do you think would be the outcome of this scenario?

If I were you I would write directly (Special Delivery - proof of receipt) to the CAA Head of Aviation Medicine, Dr Sally Evans, outline your case with a full explanation of the circumstances as you have in this forum and request a full eyesight retest. Try to be specific with dates, etc. Class 2 medical, job at the time, amount of driving, diagnosis of problem with car, date problem was formally diagnosed and repaired and the situation since then.

Explain that you have no problem with the original testing but that given the facts of the case you feel that you may have been subjected to mild but protracted chronic organic poisoning and that this may have adversely affected the results of the tests. I may even be tempted to seek expert medical opinion on this and submit this with your request.

What I would also do is print off the CAA Extended Eye Examination form from the CAA website, take this form to at least 2 x separate optometrists and ask them to carry out a full eyesight test, including the colour vision test. Ask them to complete the forms and submit the forms to Dr Evans with your request. It'll cost you a few squids but it should be worth it.

If you do pass the Ishihara with these optometrists don't let the CAA refuse a further Ishihara test.

Good luck, keep us posted on your progress.

2close

[biggles7374]

Thanks for your advice 2 close.

Here is an extract from the JAA Medical Handbook, although I am sure you know this already.


Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given
by each test. It is important that the quality of the illumination is correct: either northern daylight or an artificial daylight source should be used. Ordinary incandescent lamps or fluorescent tubes make these tests easier to pass, especially to deuteranomals. The daylight source should give an illumination equivalent to the standard illuminants ‘C’ or ‘D’ of CIE (Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage). The plates should be shown at right angles to the visual axis of the applicant, at the correct distance and for the time specified in the test. The applicant should not wear tinted glasses. The number of failed plates serves to classify the subject as normal, defective or ‘doubtful’ according to the specifications of the test.


There are two pertinent sentences:

SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY EACH TEST.

THE NUMBER OF FAILED PLATES SERVES TO CLASSIFY THE SUBJECT AS NORMAL, DEFECTIVE OR DOUBTFUL ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TEST.

If you are able to pass the Ishihara in daylight then surely you are a pass. The FAA seem to be carrying out the test according to it's specifications by allowing up to 2 mistakes so I am assuming according to the specifications of the test you should also be considered a pass under light simulated conditions - assuming you don't make more than 2 mistakes. But this it would seem is irrelevant as you say you can pass the test in daylight - ie the originally intended conditions for which the test is designed.

It seems to me that it may be the CAA that is making up it's own rules since it is setting pass marks above those set at the time this test was validated. The JAA medical handbook states quite clearly and unambiguously that this test should be performed in accordance with the manufacturers recomendations.

This point is, as I see it clear cut and in your specific case could be worthy of a relatively simple legal challenge. I am sure the CAA know this already!!

Anyway, I will take yours and Telboy's advice and will report back at a later date how I get on

Biggles

[biggles7374]

The JAA rules were written in collaberation with each of the 'CAA's' of the member states and agreed upon.

But you've missed the point, the JAA medical handbook '(the document agreed upon) calls for the test to be done in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, which say up to 2 mistakes can be recorded as normal.

The UK CAA has taken it upon itself to suggest that Mr Ishihara was wrong and that people should only be considered normal if they get no mistakes.

[2close]

And the solicitors that I have talked to who specialise in dicrimination and medical cases have been quite clear that this is potentially unlawful and that it leaves (a) the orgaisation and (b) any person making a decision based on the test open to legal challenge - it is NOT a defence that your employer instructed you to do it this way; if you know it is in contravention of a prescribed medical prodecure then it is your legal (and moral) duty to inform your employer of this fact and that you are not prepared to conduct the test in the manner outlined by your employer.

Why do you think the CAA is so eager to bring in the new tests? The reason is as clear as daylight. They can set the pass/fail criteria for the new test which is far more restrictive than the Ishihara Test. They know they are 'breaking the law' with the Ishihara Test but are getting away with it because, like all good Brits we do what we are told and sit in the corner not questioning authority, therefore no one is challenging them.

[TelBoy]

There has been a lot said about the ishihara tests at Gatwick here, but does anyone know why the CAA will not demonstrate the Bayne test? Should it be demonstrated by manufactures instructions?

Maybe it follows a set sequence! - anyone know that sequence?

[TelBoy]

Well all, I did the colour vision tests at Gatwick today - and failed them all miserably:{

For some feedback for you all, I have done the colour vision tests at Gatwick before, but it was 15 years ago now. I thought I would have trouble getting a retest, but the CAA seemed more interested in my Credit Card number than the fact that I had done it before. I think this is only fair as the Baynes test was not done when I took my last test.

First they did an eye chart test to see if you have normal distance vision. Then the tests went ishihara (they would not do it under daylight) then the Baynes test. This is where you get 5 colours to tell - White, Red, Orange, Green and Blue. The light is quite big (a few mm) but only stays on for one second. You see only one light at a time and have to name it. They will not demonstrate the colours to you - I did ask for a demo and they refused. The test is done at about 5 Meteres and you will have to name about 20 (maybe more) lights. The test was done in darkness with about 2 miniutes to dark adapt.

Next was the Holmes Wright test - two lights one above the other. They are very small and at a low hew, they stay on for about 5 seconds. Colours are Red, White and Green only. You have to state the top then the bottom colour. The test was done in a light room, but as I made red/green mistakes they would not test me again in darkness.

Personally I had problems with them all - the Baynes was probably the closest and if it had been demonstrated first and could see the light for a few seconds, I might have passed (but sadley thats not to be). The ishihara and Holmes Wright I will never be able to pass.

I did ask about the new tests they are planning, only to be told their test will not be changing in the forseeable future!! They did not say anything about taking tests in another country - or any thing else, but sorry.

I feel that this has shaped the way forward for me as I have an FAA waiver for colour vision, so it does NOT affect me for an FAA medical. My only problem is to do an FAA commercial (or UK one) I would probably have to sell my house, or maybe remortgage and cannot justify that for an FAA licence I will not get work at home with.

[TelBoy]

Thanks for all your support guys, it really is appreciated.

As for the night flying, it is not really a problem as I have an FAA PPL which you are night rated, I also have passed the FAA signal test so do not suffer from colour vision restrictions in N reg aircraft.

I think I am not going to give up just yet - will try other JAA countries in summer holidays.

Just a point with the FAA. I did the light signal test 13 years ago and then it only covered you for upto a class 2 medical (for CPL). To do a class one you had to do a medical flight test at night to demonstrate to an FAA examiner you could tell the runway lights, other aircraft nav lights, rotating beakon etc. However now the Light signal test is an alternative colour vision test and you get a letter of evidance that you have passed and it is good for ANY class medical. It is also NOT a SODA waiver that employers discriminate against. This is what I have - kewel eh:ok:

So even the FAA have relaxed their colour vision requirements (I think they will also allow 7 mistakes on ishihara) so come on JAA.

Any how - thanks for everyones support and I will not give up.

[airwjo]

hi folks

first of all thank you all for the interesting posts were very helpfull.

now - i just came back from switzerland dübendorf did the spectrolux lantern test there and PASSED :ok:
for all reading this forum: i failed the beynes test in germany, they told me to go to uk or switzerland and they were right. the test is conducted by the swiss air force, they are very very friendly there. the assistant took lots of time to explain me the test and not to be so nervous, talked with me about it and showed me one example. the test itself i found easy: there are three colors: red, green and white. they will come in pairs and one color maybe a little bit shadded but should be no problem. you have to do 12 pairs in 2 rounds with no mistake and it´s conducted in daylight.
as i said they are very friendly and professional - the test costs 25 euro.

for people who fly to zurich: the way to dübendorf is easy: go from arrival to the busstation and take the bus 759 to dübendorf railway station where you have to walk a couple of minutes.

good luck to all :)

[2close]

airwjo,

That doesn't sound like a Spectrolux Test but rather more like a Holmes-Wright.

The Spectrolux involves looking through an eye-piece at the two halves of a coloured disc and you have to turn a knob until the two halves match each other. This is reknowned as being the gold standard of colour vision testing and is ridiculously difficult to pass within JAA criteria - I have been very reliably informed that a very high percentage of people classified by the JAA as colour normal fail to meet the JAA criteria for the Spectrolux.

However, it does sound as if the Swiss are conducting the H-W test very fairly (but you'll probably find now that the UK CAA will refuse to accept their results once they've read these pages)!!!

[gijoe]

2,
I think you're getting the Nagel and the Spectrolux mixed up.
You have described the Nagel in detail and you are right in that it is considered to be the gold standard.
My experience of the Spectrolux is that it is very similar to the H-W.
G

[airwjo]

You are right, gijoe 2 wrote about the nagel anomaloscope.
In fact spetrolux and holmes wright are very similiar
and 2close i don´t think the caa will refuse the results :}
I didn´t write about the whole test, think about it
cheers

[2close]

Guys,

You are absolutely correct.

I obviously don't know my Nagel from my Spectrolux (although most people reckon I don't know my a*** from my elbow!).:confused:

Apologies for any confusion.

2close

[763Nick]

A friend of mine recently went for the colour vision assesment down in Gatwick. She unfortunately and rather unsuprisingly failed the exam. As I am currently a doctor (wanting to become a pilot), on her behalf I then sent a letter to Mr Adrian Chorley who seems to be the senior Opthalmic AME in Gatwick, regarding the use of a product known as Chromagen Lenses. These lenses obviously cannot cure CVD though they do help people manage the condition, even to the point that I conducted the Ishihara Plate Test on my friend and she passed the test with no errors. I conveyed this to Mr Chorley asking the question, "could Chromagen Lenses be used with the colour vision assesment ?"

Mr Chorley replied saying "Chromagen Lenses are not accepted in terms of the Colour Vision Assesment, as they cannot adequately correct for CVD"

While I agree that they may not in all circustances correct CVD to the same degree as my friends Ishihara results, however in my view that is surely what the Ishihara test is there to determine. As the Ishihara Plate test is the De Facto standard for CVD detection if a person using the lenses is able to pass the test with no mistakes how is Mr Chorley able to say that a person wearing chromagen lenses is not able to distinguish colours the same as person not wearing the lenses as they both attain the same results on the test.

Thoughts and comments appreciated :)

[763Nick]

I agree totally with you 2close, that the CAA has to take a cautious approach in regards to CVD, but, the point I was trying to make is that if a person using the lenses is able to pass the CVD tests just the same as another person that does not require any Colour Vision correction, how can they say that they see colours any different than normal colour vision individuals, as the Ishihara plate test is in place to detect CVD issues, and if a pass is gained using the lenses then they obviously see colours the same, whether this is corrected or not I believe should not be relevant as lenses/ glasses to correct distance vision are accepted.

The only issue I can find is if the lenses were to become damaged, however this is just as much an issue for distance vision correction devices and so the answer is simple........carry a spare pair.

As for the issue of existing colours in daylight and night (PFD/ caution/ warning lights etc.) these lenses are not "off the shelf" products they are tailored to suit the needs of the individuals and so only correct the colours which the individuals have difficulty with.

Nick

[2close]

Unfortunately, Nick, I think the CAA would argue that the lenses only prove an individual can pass an Ishihara Test and that the lenses may also affect a person's ability to discern other 'critical' colours inside and outside the cockpit (although the CAA's own report of July 2006 identified the only critical lighting as being parking berth lights and PAPI lights).

You must also remember that the CAA do not conduct the Ishihara Test in accordance with the manufacturers instructions in the first place so I couldn't see them permitting anything that would benefit the examinee. Apart from that, the CAA policies and procedures would involve a study that would take about 5 years before allowing such a change.

As a doctor, you know better than anyone else the risks involved in adapting prescribed medical procedures to suit your own needs, especially in such a manner as to elicit the results you desire. I know for a fact what the medico-legal profession think about this as I have held talks with solicitors in that area of the legal profession and the phrases 'treading on thin ice' and 'asking for trouble' spring to mind.

2close

[gijoe]

Early in the research programme I suggested that these contacts were looked at and the company kindly gave me a pair to try out....or should I say one to put in my dominant left eye because that is how they work.

I then went to City uni again and sat all of the tests that I had already down with them in order that a 'before and after' comparison of results could be down.

I passed all of the Ishihara cards but got some of the simple lantern test wrong. The lens sent everything a bit awry and I don't think they are answer in this case.

Anyway, as 2close has said many times, it is not a question of passing the tests it is the matter of making the tests realistic and representative.

G

[colourblindgeek]

Like so many of you, i've been to Gatwick about 3 years ago now and failed all the tests going, despite getting a lot of the Ishihara's right (just not enough). I paid my money and know where I stand.
In June this year, I paid even more money, this time to City University, to run through all the tests available, including a CAD one in its early stages of development and the D15 test, American versions etc..... My diagnosis is mild protan deficient which means I struggle with light greens and whites when there is a red around to confuse the issue. At this point I would like to say how terrific the team at City are. They are the ones working on alternatives to the vintage test procedure currently used by the CAA and I take my hat off to them. It was the best £125 I've ever spent. :D
The PAPI lights simulator was very good. Just a plasma telly but with the PAPI lights at a distance, changing sequence. For me no problem at all (reds and whites dont cause a problem for us Protan deficient types!)

In October at the tender age of 33, I started my PPL and in November at dusk I saw and pointed out every colour on the runway to my instructor. That's right, the PAPIs turning from 3 whites + 1 red to 2 whites + 2 reds. I could easily see the edges of the runway in white, the close threshold in green and the end of the runway in red. My instructor said "I thought you were colourblind". Well according to the tests I am.:ugh: :{

So the question I ask you all is this - does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is? I'd be quite happy to pen a letter to the CAA at Gatwick, but I wouldnt want to take the team from City away from their work. I'm sure that it was supposed to be later in 2007 that a new test procedure would be introduced, but I may be mistaken. Afterall, if City are doing all this research at the request (and funding?) of the CAA then there must be a purpose to it.

While the floor is mine - a big thanks to all of you for keeping this thread alive and well, in particular Blinkz, Gijoe, East Sider, 2Close and Windforce to name but a few:ok:

I guess for now we still remain green with envy of those Commercial pilots. Or is it white with envy..... don't ask me, I'm colourblind.

Keep smiling. Keep talking and get flying.


The question again - Does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is?

[2close]

Hi troops,

Whilst I am 100% certain that my earlier statement is how it was related to me at the time I now have an update (and airwjo will like this!).

Assume you have failed the tests at Gatwick and go overseas to another JAA member state:

a. If you PASS the Spectrolux or Nagel these will be accepted by the UK CAA as evidence of having passed an approved CVD test.

b. If, however, you PASS the H-W or Beynes (having already failed them at Gatwick) this evidence will be subject to review by a UK CAA senior Medical Officer who will make a decision whether or not to accept them.

To me, this latter case sounds very nebulous and open to personal interpretation but looking positively the bottom line is, if you are succesful then your medical will be exchanged like for like and does not rely on provision of a CPL from another member state.

So I retract my earlier statements regarding necessity to hold a JAA CPL.

Hope this clears up any confusion (apart from my own confusion vis-a-vis conflicting information but I think I've mentioned that before!!)

[east_sider]

colourblindgeek you are weclome, we are united in our problem. good luck

My answer to your question - not clear when, there have been news articles in Flight International fairly recently saying a new test would be introduced in 2007, but I've been told verbally by City Uni that they are still working on the development, then the CAA have to decide what to do and introduce it, so they estimated up to three years. Others have heard other, possibly conflicting, info I believe.

Either way its my personal opinion that the new test might not be any better for marginal CVDs, I'd still be trying to pass a lantern somewhere in Europe and get the CAA to accept that, except I've decided not to pursue a commercial career.

Good luck :ok:

[2close]

Tel Boy,

I believe you have to undertake the full medical and not just the lantern tests but I don't know for certain.

East-Sider,

None of my business of course but why have you binned the idea of a commercial career, not because of the CVD issue I hope?

The CAA will not introduce the testing unilaterally - as a member of JAA they can't. When the research is complete, the results will have to be reviewed and reported upon. If the CAA then believes the test will benefit aviation safety (and their argument will have to be convincing) the proposal will have to be put before a JAA Medical Review Board (or whatever it's called). The matter will be put to a vote (all countries being equal) and if accepted the new tests would need to be introduced over a period of time. This would require all AMEs throughout the whole of JAA land being provided with the software and computer equipment and being trained in its use. Furthermore, all AMCs would require the PAPI simulator as the secondary testing equipment. As can be seen this will be a very expensive and time consuming programme and I wouldn't hold my breath on (a) seeing it introduced at all and (b) even if it is, not in the next couple of years.

I have already made enquiries with the FAA via US AOPA and any person already holding an unrestricted FAA medical (e.g. me) will NOT be required to undertake the new test again, IF it is accepted. I feel we should be making formal objections against the introduction of this new test to the FAA via US AOPA (very powerful organisation with a strong voice in the US Senate). The current system in the USA is more than adequate - they apply Ishihara correctly, they have an alternative lantern test and lastly a practical test. There is no need to change anything and I'm sure the US will see through that.

The CAA has funded this research, which has quite nicely resulted in a PhD for someone, and this has been achieved at the fee payers expense. I would have no truck with this if it seriously benefited aviation safety but the simple fact is it does NOTHING to benefit aviation safety. Quite honestly, I think the whole project is nothing more than someone's academic wet dream and I feel somewhat miffed at having to pay, through our over-inflated fees, for a pointless project. I honestly cannot see how this will benefit aviation safety in any way, shape or form.

I know for an absolute fact that there are CVD pilots out there in the RAF (admitted to me face to face by a RAF squadron leader Tornado pilot) and UK commercial aviation who have got through the system and we can safely assume that the same exists in other countries. There are many US and Canadian pilots flying commercially into UK airspace who would not pass the JAA standards. So with all these dangerous pilots out there, has anyone noticed planes falling out of the sky because of CVD pilots? No. Why? Because there have not been any CVD related aviation accidents in the history of aviation.

Many may disagree but I am being completely honest when I state that I believe the reason the CAA is pushing for the introduction of this test is that they can then set the Pass-Fail benchmark and no-one can argue against it whereas the Ishihara Pass-Fail criteria have been blatantly manipulated to suit their own ends and they know fully well that, in today's climate it is only a question of time before someone puts them in the dock. Saying that, I also think the CAA is a victim of the old regimental tie brigade (the same Ishihara nil errors Pass-Fail criteria is applied by the military). The old CAA was mainly ex-military personnel so it is quite likely that the current criteria is a hand-me-down from the old days.

Time to put the soap box away and do some work.

Have a good weekend, troops.

2close

[TelBoy]

Ww/W First you will need to be able to live and work in Australia if you want to work there. The FAA licence is limited outside the US, but work IS available.

I can't comment on the Austrailian ideas as I do not have any experience of them. The FAA will test you using Ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong) and then lantern. However if you have an FAA medical with colour vision restrictions on you can do the light signal test at any time during flight training. If you pass the light signal test (95% do) then you will get a letter of evidence from the FAA and this will act as your colour vision during any future medical. It is also good for ANY class FAA medical. I do not think you will be able to do the signal test in the UK though. I did mine in the US, but it is worth asking about.

You can get a list of FAA AME from http://ame.cami.jccbi.gov/amelist.asp There are 2 at our freinds place at Gatwick.

The FAA are very approachable in my experience and do genuinley want to help. Why not have a look through their website and mabe give them a call. www.faa.gov (http://www.faa.gov)

All the best mate - don't give up, keep flying

[millonario]

Hi fellow pilots,

I am due to have my first casa classs 1 renewal soon. On my initial class 1 examination I was tested for colour deficiency with the Ishihara plates. I did pass them but I got 2 wrong for some weird reason, since I have never had problems with my colour vision. The DAME told me that I would have failed if I would have gotten one more plate wrong. I was just wondering if they will test me again for colour deficiency on my renewal since I am afraid that I might get more than two wrong and thus fail well in my flight training.

Any information relating to this wil lbe appreciated.

[east_sider]

Thanks guys for the congrats, encouragement and support, it still feels good a few days on! :ok:

2close, to answer your earlier question and TelBoy your point on this page about why I've given up on the commercial route... having failed all the tests here it seems to me my options are:

1. Spend time/money going to other JAA states to take the lantern tests hoping to pass under a different testing protocol, then persuade CAA to accept this result. I have considered this, but given how relatively badly I've failed the lanterns in the UK, both at City and Gatwick, I'm not sure I'd pass anywhere to be honest.

2. Move to FAA land, live, train and seek employment there. I've decided on a personal level this isn't right for me, if I was young free and single I would consider seriously, but I'm in a happy relationship which is as if not more important to me, although my girlfriend is v supportive of my flying generally, this is a serious (5 years or more) lifestyle change I'm not willing to make.

3. Move to Australia, train live and work there for a carrier that only operates in Australian airspace - hardly viable for an Aussie, plus all the above mean its not for me!

Do you guys agree, in all seriousness am I missing any other options?

I've got to be honest with myself about how badly I failed the lanterns. Although my diagnosis from City is only "Moderate Protonamolous" in reality I was a long long way from passing... getting 25-50% of the test wrong. Mind you I reckon I could pass the Beyene if I could have 10 goes at it in a row!! And certainly in my flying so far I've never felt distinguishing colour was a problem for me, not even at night with a safety pilot/instructor.

Any ideas welcome. Keep smiling and flying!

cheers all
ES

[Danielremon]

Hi everyone.
I'm not sure if this should be a new thread. I started reading CVD Threads on here a couple of weeks ago and read one that was 7 years long. If my eyes worked before they certainly don't now. So I read only the last couple pages here so I hope this is the place to gain a feeling of solidarity. If I have missed something if you can point it out I’d be grateful.
Mostly I just want to share the awfully disappointing day I’ve had at a university having my colour tested. I too dream of gaining a CPL. My journey started at the local AME. He was unable to officially test me but said “come on down and you can look at the Ishihara plates. So it was a beautiful sunny day and he stood me in the path of the sunlight and proceeded with the 24 plate set. Despite the pain of my squinting eye lids trying to shield my eyes from the suns radiation bouncing from the page. I managed to fail only 4 plates. He said I should not give up just yet and sent me to the university.
I have just come back. I have never felt so low but reading all your comments still gives me hope.
If you are interested here’s how it went. I did the Ishihara plates again under daylight balanced fluorecent and only got one wrong. Next I did the Farnsworth test where you arrange the coloured buttons. I felt I was on fire and nothing was going to stop me.
Then, it starting to go wrong.
The next test was one that involves matching two semicircular segments of green and red colour. First I had to say which was brighter then match the colour. It was like asking someone else to focus a camera for you. By telling him when to stop he would take the reading. Often he would go passed the point where the colours matched and I would look at the result and think, hang on that’s not where I said stop. So ultimately my adjustment of these colours had to go through one level of communication and an old professors hands who passed the points that I said stop.
Finally I had the lantern test. He left me in a room to become dark adjusted.
In this time alone I took an opportunity to look at the lantern just so I could identify what these machine was calling green red and white. I'd done it earlier in just a darkened room and I could not see any green at all. MY word I’ve never seen white and green look so similar.
At the end even he was a little amazed. He said he had test subjects with worse CVD than I but they still passed the lantern test.
I did not. Science is about getting repeatable results. Ishihara books from 1969 will have faded colours and Lanterns that have never been cleaned or calibrated. Until these test can be conclusive then we should all just keep trying. At the moment I don't know what to do. I am not convinced I am a risk to the world if I flew. I will continue to read here and find out how it can be done. I can only feel that your results get better the more you try and they are by no means conclusive. I paid for this test so I’m not registered as failed unless he sends the CAA the results. So until I go to Gatwick I can’t know for sure. So I will soldier on with my PPL and cross that unknowing bridge when it crops up next.
Good luck all CVD.

[2close]

Danielremon,

Yes, the examinee should adjust the controls on the Anomaloscope NOT the examiner.

With one error on Ishihara you PASSED the test according to the manufacturer - up to 2 errors is a pass. However, the CAA (and all other JAA countries) will FAIL you, their criteria being NIL errors.

Every single doctor, optometrist and solicitor I have talked to has stated that it is not acceptable to alter the criteria in this manner to make it more difficult for people to pass.

To quote a doctor involved in the aviation industry I spoke to only last Tuesday when discussing the JAA's manipulation of Ishihara - "If I manipulated a medical test to get the results I wanted I would be sacked and probably sued".

Interesting point about calibration. Considering the age of the equipment and non-availability of spares, etc. I would be very keen to learn when the equipment was last calibrated or subjected to any form of maintenance. What guarantee is there that the equipment meets the required levels of luminance?

The examiner cannot send the results to the CAA unless you gave him explicit permission to do so.

BTW, welcome to the madhouse!

[Danielremon]

Ah yes mad it is. I am totally amazed that I failed the lantern. I am arranging my PPL Training in the US at longbeach. So I will do my test there and see if it comes up with different results!

Does any one know anyone who has challenge the CAA on the Criteria.
I've read a theory that CVD come from the need to have improved night vision. apparently this indicated in the fact that races nearer the equator have less CVDs than those further toward the poles.
I'm not a rich man but I'd love to fight either the way the testing is done or the fact that no proof can be found that CVD people cause more accidents than others even in other modes of transport.

But my one big worry is where this selective behavior will stop. they'll bring in psycometric testing next. when they know more about the genome I wonder if they'll bring that in. because if someone has potental to suffer heart problems it would be deemed preventable possible accident.
IN FACT WHY DID WE FIGHT AGAINST EUGENICS.:*
sorry I'm ranting it still a recent wound.

[TelBoy]

Danielremon,

As far as your CAA medical goes you can do the colour vision tests at the CAA at Gatwick. The colour vision test on its own costs £28. First you will do the ihihara. If you do not pass ALL of the plates you will be given an eyesight test by reading a chart and then dark adapted. Next is the Bayne test. This is taken in darkness at 5 metres. You will see a light for about 1 second and have to identify the colours red, green, white, blue and orange. The light you see is about 3mm in diamiter. If you fail any of these you will then go to the Holmes Wright test. This is two lights, one above the other. The lights can be red, green or white. The lights stay on for about 3 seconds, but I find it VERY dificult as the lights are only a pin prick at 6 metres and they alter the hew. If you pass any of these it counts towards ANY class of medical. If you fail them all (like so many of us in this forum) you will only be able to fly by day VFR with no public transport.

As for the FAA, they are a LOT more liberal. If you fail the ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong I think) and get a restricted medical, you can then apply to do a light signal test. This is at an airport and the tower signal gun is fired at you when you are with an FAA examiner at about 1000 and 1500 yards. If you identify red, white and green ok then you get a letter of evidance that acts as your colour vision test in any future medical and restrictions on your current medical are lifted. Many of us here have failed the CAA tests, but have passed in the US and have unrestricted FAA medicals.

As both the CAA (and in fact all JAA states) are ICAO it is stupid that the CAA do not recognise the FAA tests. The FAA are the largest aviation authority in the world and have 16500 CVD pilots that have passed alternative and PRACTICAL tests. 2000 of these have ATP licences and 5000 Comercial - and their planes are NOT falling out the sky, which is proof that their system works and the JAA is discriminating without reason.

Any how I hope this helps a bit, but do read ALL the threads in this forum. I know it is a bit of a drag, but there is good info to be had - and hey if you pass the colour vision tests and go for ATP you are in for a LOT of reading.

All the best mate - keep flying and keep fighting these stupid rules.

[Danielremon]

Thanks telboy.
I can't give my dream up. I am reading this thread from the begining and it's fascinating. Though my partner is going mad at the fact I've been reading this all day. WOW what a read.
Does anyone know what Ishihara test is used at Gatwick. Is it the same one all the optitians use. i.e 24 plates 1969 version. Has it ever even changed for that matter.
Can someone tell me.
If I pass all 24 plates. will I be tested further or will I of passed? My fear is being tested on the faded fansworth lantern test like that at the uni.
I had got 4 wrong on my first Ishi test in sunlight with an optician, I got 1 wrong on my second at a university under balanced day light. Now I took my time, so is there a time limit on guessing? It seems to me that I'm getting better.
Colour perseption is extremely complex.
My thoughts are that there are so many factors that can affect colour.
Eye's and there system for seeing(the brain)are highly adaptive.Like all senses it is responsive to change in stimulation.
this is why we don't see colour changes from tungsten to daylight over a period of time when camera's make us aware of this fact. This becomes more apparent when you wear coloured specs and then remove them. Our vision takes a moment to correct it's balance and is left with an opposite colour cast. So there must be all sorts of variables, so although our genes will never change. Surely our situations do. But when thinking about dark readying for 15 minutes I wondered where this would leave our colour balance. I almost past my Ishihara test but failed the farnsworth Lantern.
Weird. So if I can nail the Ishihara. Will I be OK.

[TelBoy]

Danielremon,

I think Gatwick use the first 15 plates of the 24 plate edition. You must pass all 15. Once you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick they will not test you again. It is a part of your initial medical, which is more stringent than renewals. The CAA see colour vision as never altering so if you pass they will not retest you and likewise if you fail they will not retest you. However to be fair to them I did get a retest as they added the baynes test since my first try (still failed).

The CAA do NOT use the Farnsworth lantern, that was just something the uni use.

You get about 3 seconds to answer on each plate. The rules say something like “no hesitation” so don’t umm and err over them.

I do agree with you at how complex colour vision is and lets face it “colour normal” people (who make the rules) can only guess at what we can really comprehend in real life. Hence the FAA more relaxed system and the Australians having NO colour vision requirements for CPL (limited to Oz airspace though) and they do NOT have accidents due to CVD!! – I rest my case on that one.

Again to set your mind at rest. If you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick, you will NEVER have to take them again. You can book just the colour vision assessment for £28, so I would say give it a go.

Good luck to you mate.

[2close]

Troops,

In my never-ending battle to have this ridiculously discriminatory ruling overturned within civil aviation I have been trying to think of other employment groups where colour vision may be considered as equally important as in aviation. This led me to Maritime & Coastguard Agency.

The following are excerpts from the MCA Manual of Medicine.

4.1 Vision testing

Background

4.1.1 All seafarers are required to meet the internationally agreed eyesight standards as specified in the medical and eyesight standards (MSN 1765(M), Annex B, Appendix 1) (copy at Appendix 1). These include a basic standard for unaided vision to ensure a degree of capability in emergency situations, should glasses be missing. The standards are framed to provide maximum flexibility in their interpretation compatible with ensuring the health of the individual seafarer and maintaining the safety of ships at sea.

4.1.2 Both good visual acuity and unimpaired colour vision are essential for those undertaking lookout duties. This includes all deck officers and ratings. Lookout duties are those involving actually looking out to sea, (to check for hazards, other vessels etc) and should not be confused with ‘watchkeeping’ which is simply a nautical term for being on duty. Engineering staff generally do not carry out lookout duties and are therefore required to meet somewhat less stringent eyesight standards. However, they will need to be capable of correctly recognising colour coding on cables, pipes and display screens.

4.1.4 Since good vision is central to lookout duties and hence to ship safety, it is essential that vision testing is carried out to a high standard, which ensures consistent results. Discrepancies between repeat tests which result in restriction and consequential loss of work, for instance where previously undetected colour defects are found, can have a disastrous effect on a seafarer’s career. It is therefore essential that conditions such as lighting balance and level are suitable and that any delegation of the testing is to someone who is fully trained in procedures and aware of the need to be alert for any deception. Test results brought by the seafarer should not be used as a substitute for testing at the examination. Borderline results should always be rechecked and all results recorded.

Colour vision

4.1.7 The AD must also ensure that the seafarer meets the colour vision standards. To comply with international guidelines, testing for all seafarers should be done with the standard Ishihara plates and should be carried out at every medical examination unless the AD has his own record of a previous medical where the test has been passed within the previous four years. Illumination should be good north facing daylight or with daylight fluorescent lighting. Incandescent lighting is unsuitable because of its colour balance. The criteria for a pass is three or less misreadings on the 24 plate test. It is essential that seafarers applying for certificates of competency as deck or dual career (merchant/fishing) officers have full colour vision.

Here is the link to the full document:

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-seafarer_information/mcga-dqs_st_shs_seafarer_information-medical/mcga-dqs_st_shs_approved_docs_list-2/mcga-dqs_st_shs_approved_docs_manual-ch-4.htm#dops-approved_docs_manual-ch-4-Anchor4.1

Not only does the professional seafaring industry apply Ishihara correctly they have even gone one step further and relaxed the criteria by permitting three errors as opposed to the two stipulated in Ishihara.

The ice gets thinner.........

[2close]

Sorry davidd,

I believe you have to go through the whole test again.

Curiosity raises its head here - did you pass the Ishihara test at your Class 2 medical? If so, why worry about the Class 1 medical? If not, who did your lantern test - as I understand it lantern test results for Class 2 have to be validated by the CAA AMS for the issue of an unrestricted Class 2?

[Shunter]

Hello people,

I've posted a couple of times before, but basically I'm having the same experience most of you are. Failed Ishihara, failed Gatwick (H/W & Beynes, just 1 wrong each), been to City Uni for the full works etc etc... and been diagnosed as a very mild deuteranope.

I've also tried out the Chromagen lenses. Could I then pass Ishihara? Easily. Did the PAPI's look any different from 4 miles? Did they chuff. Same colour they always are.

Anyway, you could say I have quite an accurate picture of what my problem is, and from having studied the specs of the various lanterns it would appear that I haven't had the opportunity to try the one I'm most likely to pass, the Spectrolux.

Is there one of these in the UK? If not, could anyone tell me where there might be one that's reasonable accessible?

PS. Also have an unrestricted FAA medical, but want the JAA license!!

[Neo_RS14]

Hi Telboy,

I appreciate your info there, it was very helpful. Definitly not going to be as 'trigger-happy' on the CAA medicals...I was thinking of doing the CAA colour vision tests for the £28, regardless of my City results...just to shoot for the slim chance I might just pass one of the lantern tests....gotta be worth a try!:}

Yeah I'm with you on that, I'm sure there's got to be some work floating about for the FAA ATPL holders, as you say the middle east seems to be a fertile spot for pilot employment these days, and the Manx classification looks very intriguing. I would love to go learn in the States, I can imagine it being an excellent experience, gotta love the weather they get in the more southern states, I am a bit of a Floridaholic too.

Yes I definitly will get involved in flying now, without a doubt, and the sooner the better...When I know what type of CVD I'm dealing with, I'll re-assess and go from there.

The woman at the uni did mention they can do the Holmes-Wright test for me, but the Beynes is back at Gatwick....I wonder if there HW is the same as the one at Gatwick, I know there's two types of HW, A + B....hmmm:confused:

[davidd]

QUOTE 2close
Sorry davidd,
I believe you have to go through the whole test again.
Curiosity raises its head here - did you pass the Ishihara test at your Class 2 medical? If so, why worry about the Class 1 medical? If not, who did your lantern test - as I understand it lantern test results for Class 2 have to be validated by the CAA AMS for the issue of an unrestricted Class 2?

I passed the ishihara for my class2 just seems crazy having to shell out cash to take it again!
Just like everything else in Aviation I guess Expensive!

[2close]

Hi davidd,

The eye examination for the Class 1 is far more involved than that for the Class 2 and lasts about 45 minutes - it is the most involved part of the whole medical.

The colour vision part will probably take you about 30 seconds so don't worry about getting VFM.


Hi Neo_RS14 and welcome to the funny farm,

Both City Uni and CAA use the same lantern test (HW Type B I believe, Type A being used for maritime testing) and I am certain that the CAA will accept a pass at City Uni so if you do succeed make sure you get some documentary evidence.

If the CAA refuse to accept the results let us know because I will certainly be asking questions as to why the CAA is funding a project with fee-payers money and are then refusing to accept the results of tests conducted during that project.

[Blues&twos]

SebastianRys - Have emailed you, although probably not much useful advice.....I'm surprised at how much better I feel just speaking to (well, emailing) two other people with the same condition. I've never met or spoken to anyone else with k/c before!

If you remember, let me kow how you get on.

:ok:

[audimatt]

Hi Guys

Iv been cheering myself up by realising im not the only colour unsafe pilot.
I was hoping I could pass the lantern, looking at lights all the way to gatwick.
I didnt realise how small the lights were going to be, or how close together, and being clolor blind they merge into one.

I still want to be an instructor, and maybe go further if one day the city uni brings the new tests out (fingers crossed)

Does anyone know the whats needed to be an instructor?

I wish anyone going for the lantern good luck.

The guy at Gatwick is really nice and helpfull and goes through the lights as many times as you want, and couldnt be more helpfull.


Keep trying guys

For me, its back to the Traumahawks :mad:

[audimatt]

Hey

Ill have to check out where's best to do an instuctors rating, I think i might try liverpool, i know a few people who liked it there.

What i wanted to say is, if you go for the lantern and take your time and concentrate youll be fine, at the end of the day you cant revise or practice. You can either see them or you cant, dont worry about it
I think i rushed it a little.
Just bear in mind if you get a red/green combo wrong, then its an instant fail, so if you think it might be white, but it could be red green, say RED GREEN! Its a much safer bet.

Im looking forward to instructing, as whatever path i was going to take, id probably end up hour building that way anyway.

Thanks for advice, i am quite looney as you say.

Im going to bed, flying at 9 tommorrow, happy days, at the end of the day , i can still see, and i can still fly. Its not the end of the world:D

Another quick ? for 2CLOSE, can i be a paid first officer, as long as the captain has a full medical, and night vision (so to speak)

[Blues&twos]

Papang - welcome to the club! A small, exclusive and somewhat shortsighted group. In fact, with that in mind....

Here is a link to a good explanation of corneal crosslinking with riboflavin(C3-R)

[http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/images/pdf/C3-RforKC.pdf (http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/images/pdf/C3-RforKC.pdf)

:}

The reports seem to be very good in terms of halting k/c progression and in some cases reversing the effects to some extent. I wish it had been around 25 years ago when I had my treatment - corneal grafting. It went extremely well and I have 6/6 vision.

Anyway, SebastianRys and Jolly Roger should be in a better position to let you know about the treatment as they have (or will have) undergone the procedure, whereas I haven't.

[2close]

Neo,

I am a tad confused. You state you whizzed through the Ishihara plates. That infers that you went through them without any problems - if that is the case, get yourself down to Gatwick and have the Ishihara test because if you pass that then you will not be tested on the lanterns.

If I have misunderstood you, I would still go down to Gatwick, have the full test, ask the optometrist to test you on all plates and tell you how many you got wrong. Keep this information to hand - it may come in useful later. These lantern machines are very old, they are seldom maintained properly and some may very well be better than others - you never know, you might just pass the ones at Gatwick.

BTW, don't worry about the anomaloscope. Many people fail to meet the standards set for the aviation world.

[TelBoy]

Neo,

I know what you mean with the determination, as it seems there is no hope. But just look at it this way. Even if we had “normal” colour vision then it is still a long hard slog to get to fATP level and then the problems of getting a job!! So CVD is just another problem to overcome in the larger picture.

As for the CAA testing, I agree with you. It is out of date and discriminatory and is not needed in today’s aviation. The Air Navigation Order only states colour vision to discern aviation colours (or similar wording – cannot remember the exact). This is where the FAA use the Light Signal Test – real aviation colours from a real control tower! There are 16500 CVD pilots in the USA 2000 have ATP and 5000 CPL so they WILL be in our skies all the time and are NOT causing any problems. Yes Millions of hours each year from professional CVD pilots with no problems. Congratulations FAA you have it right. Also CPL in Australia NO colour vision requirements for flying in Oz airspace – again NO problems.

The CAA is testing for “normal” colour vision with tests that colour normals will find hard and I feel the new tests when and if they come will be no better for us. Action is needed against the CAA, but in a controlled way. I have my own ideas, but will keep them to myself for the time as it’s going to take me a while to get to where I need to be for that!!

As for the tests. I would say go back to the optician and get a pair of correction glasses and prepare yourself for the tests at Gatwick and give them a try – give yourself the best try, sleep etc. To do the lantern tests you will have to do an eye chart first because of the distances from the lanterns (5 and 6 metres), but it is really very easy.

You are not alone and we all know how you are feeling, but people in our situation DO succeed and so can we.

Again all the best, keep your spirits up and keep flying.

[TelBoy]

2 metres from the lantern. Where is this AME?. Is it a FULL JAA state???
There might be a Q outside this AME door :)

[2close]

Hi katsogr and welcome to our band of fellow freedom fighters,

I really do not want to pi55 on your fire but I may as well be brutally honest here so you don't build your hopes up too much.

2 metres does not meet JAR protocols and therefore would not be accepted for Class 1 certification. In order to fail the HW test at 2 metres you need to be virtually blind.

Also, under JAR FCL 3 an AME is not permitted to carry out a Class 1 Initial Medical examination; this must be carried out at a national Aeromedical Centre (AMC).

Given both of the above, I'm sorry but I would not put too much faith in the test that was conducted by your AME as you would probably have to undertake the colour vision tests again.

You may be very lucky and on attending your AMC for your Class 1 medical they may accept the intital test that the AME carried out without too many questions, in which case well done. But if anyone asks, I would extend that distance to more like 6 metres.

It is interesting you mention that she was an experienced FAA AME because 2 metres (or 8 feet) is the distance at which the FAA Farnsworth Lantern Test is conducted. I think she may have her wires crossed.

If you do get through (and I sincerely hope you do) and you get a CPL/IR in Greece, if Greece is a full JAA member state then the licence will definitely be accepted across all other member states with no further testing, medical or otherwise.

Best of luck,

2close

[katsogr]

Thank you very much on your replies,

@ 2close, the AME tested me was working for an AMC (forgot to mention that.JAA aproved also). Meaning I was able to do my entire medical there but i was interested only in doing the lantern test.

I see that you were suprised by the distance, It might be 3 meters I can't tell for sure, but it definetly was not 6m.

I did quite a search before doing that test and from what I have seen everybody are speaking for HW type B. Has anyone seen type B? It's like a flashlight, she was holding it in her hands and she was changing something like objective lenses in front of the lamp to change the pairs of colour. the apertures was one next to the other ( and not above the other like type A) and about 3mm.

The light coming out was very very faint and I'm almost sure that from 6m I wouldn't be able even to discrete the apertures

I havent found any info on type B on the net, so if any of you konw somethink plz share the link.

I think Greece is a full JAA member, I'm 99% sure. All flight academies here are JAA certified.

[2close]

Katogr,

JAR FCL 3 Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine requires the HW Test to be taken at a distance of 6 metres.

HW Type A is used for aviation purposes. Type B is used for maritime purposes and is reputedly more difficult to pass than Type A.

From the studies that I have read, when making comparisons between HW Type A and B and the Farnsworth, as an example, out of 100 CVD test subjects 40% will pass Farnsworth, 17% will pass HW Type A but only 6% will pass Type B (these are approximate figures for illustration only but pretty close to one study in the USA).

Here is another crazy thing.

Use of a more stringent HW Test would imply that the maritime industry has a higher standard of colour vision than the aviation industry. However, the maritime industry (in the UK at least) permits up to three errors on Ishihara as a pass, yet the aviation industry doesn't accept any.

Mad as a chocolate frog!

BTW, Countdown to FI test - T day + 7!!!!!!! Hilfe!!!

2close

[Chucky333]

I am to put it bluntly.......Gutted !!!
Having assumed that because I am colourblind (red/green deficient)
I would never meet the criteria to become a commercial pilot !!!
I failed the Ishihara plate test and this test is the only one I knew of and therefore forgot about the prospect of becoming a pilot.
I am 25 now and think about the career I can't do every day. It disheartens me.
However, I have recently found out that there is a Lantern test available and a lot of people who fail the Ishihara test pass this one, therefore gaining an unrestricted class 1 medical certificate.
If I knew about this test 10 years ago, I could have followed my dream perhaps but I now feel its too late !!!

Should I go for the Lantern test and see what happens? Is it much easier to pass this one?

Any advice is welcome

[Blinkz]

Its not too late, I've only just got my licence and I'm 26. I wouldn't say the lantern is easy, and by no means does *everyone* that fails the plates pass the lantern test, so don't get your hopes up. However yes the lantern tests are easier to pass then the plates, but you still need to have quite a mild CVD.

Good luck!

[2close]

If you have an unrestricted Class One Medical that will be enough.

Some airlines will carry out further medicals but that is nothing to do with licensing, rather from an Occupational Health / HR viewpoint. Some airline pilots are subjected to various environmental factors that may, if not adequately controlled, have a detrimental affect on long term health and the employer has a legal duty to establish a benchmark from which these can be monitored over a period of time. Colour vision is not one of these.

However, you say 'that will be my only setback' so I presume you may have a colour vision deficiency (CVD) that you are aware of.

Not knowing your age, general health or training status it's difficult to offer any advice but if you're not in any rush I would in the first instance get down to your local optometrist and ask them to test you using the 24 Plate Ishihara Test and ask them EXACTLY how many mistakes you made (if any) - get it in writing. If you do fail (Current JAA Pass Criteria = NIL errors) let us know and join our group - Watch This Space!!

[abzyyy]

yep ill definetly join this group... when i say it will be my only setback, i dont mean to be cocky lol. but yes i know im red/green deficient... I just am very confused because i emailed the CAA medical people who said that Its best for me to take a vision test (colour) before I book the appintment, and if i fail that they will refund me 280 quid, and i only pay 30 quid... i was REALLY confused about that so i emailed them agen to clarify... are they sayin theres no alternative tests? or are they saying that taking a vision test beforehand will also include lantern tests etc. Im confident the lantern test wont be too bad...

Anyway... I really wana be a commercial airline pilot and providing i pass the lantern test (along with everything else), then that would mean an unrestricted class one? if so, then airlines should take me. I guess i need some advice really.

[abzyyy]

its a definite no-no then? even if you pass lantern tests and are colour safe?

whats CP4?

[2close]

CP 2 = Nil Errors on Ishihara Test

CP3 = Errors on Ishihara Test but designated Colour Safe after passing approved Lantern Test

CP4 = Errors on Ishihara Test and designated Colour Unsafe after failing approved Lantern Test


If you pass any one of the approved Lantern Tests you will be designated CP3 and you will be given an unrestricted Class One Medical Certificate. The Lantern Tests are not easy to pass and the majority of people who fail Ishihara go on to fail the Lantern Tests. If you are a marginal failure (One or Two errors on Ishihara) it is unlikely you will pass the Lantern Tests - but not guaranteed.

Here's the RAF Eyesight standards which will explain a little better.

http://www.assoc-optometrists.org/uploaded_files/royal_air_force_-_eyesight_entry_standards.pdf

[TelBoy]

Worth a go, but remember the CAA issues medicals acording to JAR FCL3 which state NO errors on ishihara or No errors on lanterns, Holmes Wright, Spectrolux or Baynes or the anomalascope. The tests have to be done at an AME ie Gatwick in the UK.

However all the ammo you can get is for the best.

Good luck to you.

[colourblindgeek]

Hi Stevieb1

Welcome to the funny farm. :eek: You are among some frustrated friends. We share a similar limitation. I say limitation, because its not a problem, disability or concern. It simply limits our ability to pass outdated and quite frankly irrelevant CVD tests. Why can I see all the colours on a runway (naming each one, where it is and what it does) and not pass an Ishihara test. :ugh:
Why is it can spot the PAPI lights changing from 3 whites and 1 red to "2 and 2" quicker than my instructor? :ugh:
Why can I get an IR rating to allow me to fly in shocking visability and yet I cant fly on a crystal clear night? :ugh:
Why can CVD pilot fly into Heathrow in an American Airlines 777 yet I will never fly out of Heathrow in a British Airways 747? :ugh:

Right..... off my soapbox.

And relax....:)

I went to Gatport Airwick about 4 years ago and did the Ishihara and lantern tests. Failed all.:{:{
City is a bit different. They make you do the following (FYI I have included my results)

Ishihara 38 plate test - Fail (mild cvd noted)
CAD Test - Mild protan colour deficiency
Farnsworth D15 test (passed)
City University Test (passed)
American Optical Company (HRR) Plates (Fail 19 out of 20)
Nagel Anomaloscope (Matching range 50-8 Protanomalous Trichromatism)
Holmes-wright lantern (Fail - 1st run 4 errors, 2nd and 3rd run 13 errors)
Diagnosis - Mild Protanomalous Trichromatism

You will see there is no pass/fail on the CAD
They are developing a PAPI light simulator that does the reds and whites on a runway. I was OK with this as the reds and whites arent a problem.
Interestingly they tried me on a revised PAPI simulator that shows all 4 lights in the same colour - a White, off white, yellow, red, blue, and green. I scored full marks.
The downside is that I feel that the CAA are no closer to introducing this new test.

To answer your question, I thought the City stuff was more comprehensive as at least they can give you an accurate idea of your limitation.

Well while this all goes on, the only thing to do is to get on with getting a PPL and enjoying flying.:D

My 2 best experiences are 1.) seeing a 737 pass below my Cessna 150 as it approached Luton:eek:; 2.) a real engine failure above Cranfield resulting in a Fire Engine escort down the runway.:ok:

Love it.

Thanks to all on this forum for keeping this fantastic thread going.

BTW 2close.... you are teasing us with that comment "watch this space"

Mark

[colourblindgeek]

Please be assured of my support if required. PM me if you think there is anything obvious that I could do to help.
Would certainly love to add my name to that list of Telboys
1) 2Close
2) TelBoy
3) Neo_RS14
4) Windforce
5) Shunter
6) east_sider
7) Ads212
8) gijoe
9) colourblindgeek (aka Mark!)
10)

[kevinreidy1]

Hi there;
Anyone know where I can get a beynes lantern test done in Germany.
i.e address or phone number. Need to organise one asap.

[Blinkz]

I assume you mean the colourvision lantern test. I don't have address or number but if you google it you should be able to find it. but DLR in cologne have one.

[L.V. APP]

Hey,


here you are JAR-FCl 3 (Medical) and chapter 13 (Ophthalmology) documents. Also Lantern test simulator acording protocol. Must be download before, for correct use.



SORRY, try now:

http://es.geocities.com/color_vision_dvc/


good luck.
low visibily Aproach.

[outofwhack]

There are lots of people wasting a lot of time and money trying to pass one of a battery of tests designed to weed out those with any CVD. The 'problem is the test' and not the practicality of flying.

Here's my proposal to the UK CAA as a streamlined and much fairer methodology. Still a bit discriminatory but it sa start.

I'd like to see all the Farnsworths/HolmesWright/Nagels/Spectrolux lanterns taken to the dump where they belong. Their time as 'good little earners' for you medical guys should come to an end.

As primary testing use Ishihara plates which is fine as a go/nogo test to determine if someone has a deficiency.
Issue restrictions of no scheduled charter to those failing Ishihara and allow the restrictions to be lifted if the person can name the coloured lights shone from the control tower (once in 24 years of flying I had a light shined at me - my radio was broke - it was day VFR I could see the runway was clear anyway).

We are lucky in Australia/NZ that even if you fail the colour tests badly (like me) you can still do everything except fly scheduled airlines which leaves all the other more interesting stuff. I could try the tower lights and if pass try for the airlines but I am too old now to bother (45). I wasted too much time in the UK trying to make headway in their system.
15 years back I was simply dissallowed commercial full stop. Thats nice!
I hear now I can have commercial but no charter (unscheduled or scheduled)

NZ is much the same way as Oz but they still wont let you fly at night for some strange reason.

I'd love to see a matrix of country versus what you can do with a moderate/severe CVD. I can fill in the Oz/NZ part but not sure of UK.
Might help some real keen people prepared to migrate tosolve the problem. I did.


OOW CPL(A) CPL(H)

[2close]

Hi Todalda and welcome to this forum,

Whilst I fully appreciate your philosophy I feel there is a little more to it than meets the eye.

What people are complaining about is an unfair system perpetuated by the JAA which is using outmoded methods of testing and rules that are based on assumptions rather than proven fact to place an outright ban on CVD pilots flying commercial air transport, whilst many other developed nations with exceptional safety standards and records use far less restricted methodology for testing and permit CVD pilots to fly commercially in certain circumstances. Unless of course the JAA member states would like to openly accuse those other countries of not operating safely, in which case why do they allow their pilots to operate in their airspace?

Like you, it is probably too late for any changes to make any difference for me and even if the rules changed overnight it is highly unlikely I would obtain an airline (even regional) job at my time of life, not that I would want one. However, I am firmly of the opinion that the authorities have no provable case that CVD pilots pose any greater risk to flight safety than any other pilot and that they rely entirely on spurious academic rationale to fortify their weak argument.

It is my belief that the CAA and other JAA national authorities is actively discriminating against a group of individuals without any justifiable cause.

If the authorities could prove their case using valid, real life practical examples, instead of constantly shifting the goalposts to argue their academic case, I am certain that the guys who presently feel very miffed would accept that it is in the interests of flight safety that they are not permitted to operate commercially. However, I really cannot see how the authorities could achieve this, based partly on the mechanisms in place in other countries but especially as the opposite has already been proven in the higher Courts of Law, using technical as well as social argument.

I agree to a certain extent with Outofwhack but in the first instance the Ishihara Test needs to be applied correctly, i.e. as per the test manufacturer's instructions and (so far as the UK is concerned) in accordance with the guidance published by the Health & Safety Executive, both of which clearly state that the pass criterion is no more than TWO errors and not NIL errors as applied by the JAA. I also have it on very learned authority that an organisation cannot manipulate a prescribed medical procedure to satisfy its own protocols without leaving itself wide open to legal challenge, which is exactly what the JAA has done.

Personally, I've had radio failure twice and joined circuits safely and made perfectly safe landings, without the tower even attempting to signal me. The one occasion where I did ask a controller to shine the light to me (for testing purposes) I was unable to see the light, even on final, because the light was not visible through the control tower windows - the controller had to go out on to the verandah whereby I was then able to identify the colours; lucky there was a verandah. How is the system supposed to work when you have controlled airfields with control towers with sloping tinted windows that do not open. There is a flaw in regulation there alone - the pilots must be able to recognise the light signals but to the best of my knowledge there is no legal design requirement for the control tower to be able to display the light signals. There is also no legal requirement for an aircraft to carry a signal light but there is a legal requirement for the pilot to know what signals to send to the ground.......derrr, hello, MacFly!!!!

TTFN

2close

[L.V. APP]

Hey,


The lantern simulator was only for understand the real condition.


The distance and the zize is in chapter 13 :

10.4 Tests of colour vision.
"The Holmes-Wright lantern [test] has an aperture size of [1,6] mm, corresponding to a visual angle of [0,9] minutes of arc."

Soon, 0.9 minutes = 1.6mm (H-W test), then 3 minutes of arc = 5.3 mm (Beyne test).

That´s my experience and the simulator is only a new tool for ckeck your own possibilities.

Enjoy.
Low Visibility Approach.

[TelBoy]

Does anyone know where you can do a spectrolux test, maybe in Holland or Germany??

Also interested in Nagel if anyone can give me an idea where they do that.

[stevieb1]

City Uni (www.city.ac.uk/avrc (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc)) will do the Nagel Anomolascope, they definately don't have the Spectrolux though.

[Scottish.CPL]

I feel the same with regards to the colour vision testing in the UK, I was able to get 13 plates out of the ishihara which is the criteria of a pass in the RAF, but JAA say 15 out of 15 so they are telling me that the armed forces have a lower standard

And the holmes wright lantern is a joke, I am hoping to have the nagel anomalscope done soon, for anyone interested the official pass on that test is under 4 units, JAA states that you need to get 4 unites or under to be classed as normal. I have details if interested.

I have an FAA medical unresitriced
and I had a medcial examiner at Gatwick state to me that he even feels that the standards for some of the test are to high, but it is the legal system, and parliment.

Email if you want information.:D

[Scottish.CPL]

i know that there is an nagel anomalscope up north here and the Caledinian university eye clinic, how back is your colour vision.

[spindoctor83]

Hi telboy,

at first sorry for my miserable english.
There´s an AMC in Dübendorf near Zürich/Switzerland, where you can do the Spectrolux-Test. Some experience is in that thread, I think "studi" wrote about the test.
I´ll do Spectrolux too in september because I failed Beynes and Holmes-Wright. I found H-w easier than Beynes because the light flashes (beynes) are too short for me. At H-W I had trouble with white and green.
Spectrolux is very similar to H-W, the difference is two intensities of white instead one at H-W.
I´m pretty sure that I would fail Spectrolux, but I would use all options to become Med 1. Another hope is the papi-simulator at city-Uni, but I´d read here that it would take years, to establish that test to a JAR-FCL lantern test.
I could give you the adress an phone number of the AMC in Dübendorf if you like.

regards

Peter

[stevieb1]

Telboy, did you find an AME in JAA land with a Spectrolux Lantern?

If it's only Dubendorf in Switzerland, any idea whether the CAA will accept say a written report confirming a pass there?

[TelBoy]

Stevieb1,

It seems that the spectrolux is only available in Switzerland as it is Swiss made. The place in Dubendorf is the Swiss AMC. The CAA "should" accept it as it is in the JAR's.

Good luck mate.

[AdamLT]

hi all

im new to the site and joined after reading all the posts about colour vision deficiency. i once took the test at junior shcool (some 12 years ago) and was told i was 'colour blind'. wanting to pursue my career as an airline pilot, i have done much reserach about condition.
i have done online tests with the ishihara 24 and 38 plates and i can see the majority of the plates but the trace plates cause a few problems. i have read on the CAA web site that if you fail these you have to take approved lantern tests. i have heard so many different varients of this, including the farnsworth lantern, holmes-wright lantern, giles-archer and many more.
i have heard many student pilot's failing these due to nerves and not knowing what to expect in the exam. i don't want to fail in the same situation. i feel confident i'll pass the lantern tests but who knows till the day.
i have heard of the Applied Vision Research Centre (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/) in London and see they do similar tests to that of the CAA. would it be worth going there to see what goes on??
i was wondering what advice, if any, you could offer.

cheers for your time

ad

[stevieb1]

Thanks mate, I suspect it will be similar to the H-W; but worth a punt nonetheless.

It's a shame it has to be Zurich. As far as I know, apart from the lantern there's :mad: all reason to go there!

Maybe some glacier skiing this time of year??

[Shunter]

Since it is 1 of the 4 accepted lantern tests, and the passing of any 1 of the 4 tests is considered acceptable, they have to accept it. They might argue the toss, but at the end of the day they are obligated to accept that you have passed an approved JAR colour vision test.

I'm planning on visiting there myself in the near future.

[TelBoy]

Hi AdamLT

Welcome to the mad house. The only real way to see if you can pass the tests is to actually do them. You can do just the colour vision tests at the CAA in Gatwick at £28 cost. If you pass you can go and do the full class 1 medical (on another day) and happy days. If you fail they will class you CP4 colour unsafe. You can still get a class 1 medical, but will be limited to air work such as instruction during the day - no public transport!! However the CAA only do the Baynes and Holmes Wright tests if you fail ishihara. There are anothe 2 tests acceptable to the JAA which are the Nagel Anomalascope and the Spectrolux. These you will have to go abroad for, but if you pass the CAA will remove your restriction and class you as CP3 colour safe.

The City Uni does not give the exact tests the CAA do, so I would say get to Gatwick and give them a go - you only have £28 to loose.

All the best mate

[Neo_RS14]

Need Money, well done on passing the lanterns mate!:ok:

AdamLT, I'd be incline to agree with east_sider here. Don't be so quick to take the tests at gatwick....as failing them see's you getting logged as colour unsafe...and this will make things harder for you. There are plenty of lantern tests out there without leaving Europe. Do them. If you are as passionate as you say you are about your dream, you will do these tests. And hopefully, pass one.

Good luck.

[Need money]

Neo_RS14: Passed the Ishihara (having failed Ishihara at junior school).

AdamLT: For the price of the City tests - the Ishihara 24 plate book is available on line at a reputable book retailer. Do the exact test the CAA will do as many times as you want in order to build up your confidence.

[2close]

Nothing about introduction of new tests in CAA web pages.

In any case, that would mean a change of policy and that needs to go before the JAA Medical Sub-Committee and votes taken.

The CAA would like to introduce it asap, I am sure, as they can then set the pass/fail parameters and they would no longer be guilty of manipulation of a prescribed medical procedure as they currently are with Ishihara (Speak to any solicitor who is up to speed on medico-legal matters and they will soon let you know how 'naughty' this is and how open the CAA and any other JAA national authority is to litigation!).

[AdamLT]

hi all

many, many thanks for your advice. i have just been to have my eyes tested (they are extremely healthy in terms of muscles, etc.) and did a little CVD test witht he Ishihara. i could see the majority of the plates, but failed a couple. she said i had a very small deficiency. she advised me to get in touch with the Institute of Optometry in London (elephant & castle to be exact). they do a full CVD investigation for £50. so it looks like ill go to this first rather than being 'stupid' at going straight to the CAA.

for more information on the IOO, head to Institute of optometry, optometry courses (http://www.ioo.org.uk).

my question here is....

if you go here (IOO) and pay for the full report (sounds likes it more thorough that at the CAA) would the CAA take note of this report and therefore no need to do a CVD investigation at Gatwick??

Many thanks for your time again :)

ad

[Bealzebub]

Hi Adam, The simple answer is No. They may take note of your test, but they will require you to pass their lantern test. You might as well do this first and save yourself £22 in the process.

[TelBoy]

AdamLT

The tests a the Elephant & Castle will not give you any idea what to expect at Gatwick, unless they have the Baynes or Holmes Wright. It will give you a good idea on where your colour vision problems are however.

The JAA lantern tests are aimed to exclude CVD's. They know our weaknesses and that is where the lanterns test are set at. The CAA/JAA want "normal" colour vision so they search to exclude us CVD's, unlike other places like the USA whos tests are designed to include those that are capable of distinguishing aviation colours as defined in the Air Navigation Order from the ICAO.

100% for your determination mate - keep going and never give up. I don't want to put the mockers on the tests at the Elephant, you will learn about your CVD and knowledge is power, but don't expect it to be a trial run for Gatwick.

Dr Ian Perry I think has the Holmes Wright and is a AME Tel 01264889659 I think he is near Andover in Hampshire. However don't expect the CAA to accept his results, but good for a test and if you pass with him and fail at Gatwick it is more ammo for you, the CAA don't do any maintanance on their equipment :=

[inverted123]

Hi Guy's(Girl's),I am from Australia,and about 8 Years ago underwent colour testing for a "Class 1 Medical",Commercial Standard,I to Failed the ishihara test,i was sent to the college of optometry in Melbourne and was further tested on the Farnsworth lantern and a couple of others,I was given a pass and issued with NO Medical restrictions on my licence due to colour blindness and hold an Australian CPL and Instructor rating,I have since came across "Colour Corrective lenses"which allow you to pass the Ishihara plate test,(I do Own 2 Pair Now),these corrective lenses are great and i wear them flying all the time.

[inverted123]

Sorry people I did not mean to imply that I used these corrective lenses to pass the ishihara colour test,These glasses do allow you to read the ishihara colour test,I would like to point out that these are not just a red filter they do change the wave-lengths of the colour spectrume,they have only been out for approx 3 Years,these are not Cheap costing approx.$1200.00 to $1500.00 AUS. Now these Lenses are Supposed to be "A CORRECTIVE LENSE",well if you can pass the test wearing these lenses Well what is the Problem?,As long as you are wearing them while you are executing your duties!!If most people are like me I do not have any problems seeing colour's without these glasses I just cannot read some pages in the Ishihara book,My problem is that these lenses are very expensive!!In most cases TWICE as much as vision corrective lenses and you can use these to pass any vision correction test,So WHY are we not allowed to use these "colour corrective lenses?",(Maybe there might be some Law suites in the future),Maybe we are just getting ripped of by the companies who make these corrective lense taking advantage of our "Colour Defiency".We need a chance!!

[Doctor Smurf]

Hello all!
I know I am colour deficient, but I have booked a CAA Class 1 Lantern Test at Gatwick to find out how severe it is as regards a medical.
Is there anything I can do to help raise my chances when I do take it, or anything I should know about the way they conduct the test?
Perhaps more importantly, what career options would face me with a fail on colour vision? I know I have good “standard” vision so in that respect its fine, and I already hold an endorsed Gliding Medical. I presume ATPL would be pointless?
Many thanks to you all for your advice!
Daniel

[TelBoy]

Dr Smurf,

First good luck with the tests at Gatwick. They will first do the ishihara test under a lamp. You are allowed 0 failures and must answer without hesitation. If you fail that then you will do the Baynes lantern test. This is a lantern where you sit 5 metres away. It has 5 colours, Red, Green, White, Blue and Orange. The lights are about 3mm in diameter and are only shown for one second you must name them all without error. If you fail that then you will do the Holmes Wright Lantern. This you sit 6 metres away and there are two very small lights in it (about 1mm diameter) the colours are Red, Green and white. You are shown a random selection and have to name the top and then botton colour - eg Red over Green. Again you are not allowed any errors, but if you make a non critical mistake eg name green as white then they will do the test again in the dark, but with a very much reduced hue. Thre is a lot about the tests in this section so I won't go further.

Should you fail these tests at Gatwick they will class you CP4 colour unsafe. You can still get a class 1 medical and CPL, but its limited to no public transport and no night. You can however instruct and do glider towing etc, provided you do not have paying passengers or freight.

There are another two CV tests that the JAA and thus the CAA should accept. These are the spectrolux test in Switzerland and the anomalascope. Be warned about the anomalascope, it is the daddy of CV testing (apparentley) and a lot of colour normals cannot pass to JAA standards.

Hope this sheds some light mate and good luck.

[flyaustria]

Another chance.
I´ve had the lantern test in alpbach/austria. It was a beynes test. :ok: I can only say, try it.

[audimatt]

HI GUYS

Its been a little while since I have posted anything on this thread, although I have been lookin in every so often, and some very interesting stuff has been brought up.

Sorry to evryone who has recently failed the lantern tests, and everything that brings with it. I too failed them earlier this year, and had to come to terms with not getting a full CPL, or at least not in the near future. Iv started to look into how things stand in Austrailia, when I say started I mean started yesterday ( iv been very busy revising for my PPL exams) :ugh:
Things look much more promising over there :)......

Anyway, what I was going to say was...... Im offering my support in the attack against the CAA and there silly silly rules. As everyone else says, the papi lights are very clear and easy to follow in real life, why cant the just take us in a plane, and get us to point out lights, its a pratical test, and better than that daft machine at gatwck.

Good luck everyone..... :D


MATT

[AdamLT]

Hi all

I have just been reading through the CAA Paper 2006/04 – Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew, Part 2, and see that the report indicates that the CAA themselves even think the CV requirements may be too stringent. So….my question here is, for all those who have failed the CV tests at the CAA and classed as CP4 (colour unsafe), have the right to uphold this CP4 rating and grant other suitable CV tests like the FAA have? I mean, if you have failed the lantern tests it should be acceptable by the CAA to use a field signal test.
This sort of question may have been answered before but I was just curious when I was reading through the report.

[thrustidle74]

Hi guys,

I haven't logged on to pprune for a long time...as far as I can see this thread is up to speed like the old days.
I've passed H-W twice since I started my career. First time in Gatwick in 1997 which I found very easy and second time in Amsterdam KLM Medical Clinic in 2005 when my new employer asked me to retake the exam and unfortunately I found the one in Amsterdam very very difficult.I barely passed.When I went to Amsterdam I was very cofident cause I passed it before.But I think either the calibration of the equipments are not the same or the brightness they are using are different,when the opthometrist asked me what color are you seeing now? in Amsterdam,I went I don't see any lights so I can't tell you the color...the lights were so dim and reflected from a mirror.They were very helpful and let me settle in for a while infront of the lights...then I started the test and passed but by the time the test was finished I was soaked in sweat.
Anyways I'm taking the color vision assessment in City Uni in October,just for my self confidence,I'll be on a layover in London,I'll write you guys about the result and what it looks like compared to Gatwick and Amsterdam.
I believe everyone can find a lantern that he can pass somewhere in Europe.I don't belive all the lanterns are calibrated to the same standard.
Keep trying and never give up.

Good luck to you all

[Shunter]

Adam, as you've probably read, the situation with JAA is as follows:

1. Ishihara Test, pass this and all is fine. Otherwise...

2. Choice of 4 further tests:
Holmes Wright Lantern
Beynes Lantern
Nagal Anomoloscope
Spectrolux Lantern
Pass any one of those, all is fine. Otherwise, you're :mad:. There are no further step you can take, no relevant real life tests as there are in USA and Oz.

Before taking my JAA medical, I did the Ishihara test at an opticians. I got 2 plates wrong, which is a pass according to the manufacturers instructions. JAA abuse this test, administering it in breach of said instructions and will not accept ANY failures. If a doctor was to administer medical testing in that fashion they would be struck off.

I then visited Gatwick to do the lantern tests. They only have the Beynes and Holmes Wright. I failed the Beynes. I then took the Holmes Wright, but what the sneaky :mad: don't tell you is that they adjust the shade of the colours. I didn't know this so despite thinking, "The last colour was green, this is lighter than that. It looks more green than white, but it's not the same colour as the previous green, so it MUST be white" - wrong, fail. Gatwick do not have the nagal or spectrolux. Helpful huh?

I visited City Uni and did a huge battery of tests as part of the CAA study (whose aims are to replace the current irrelevant testing regime with another similarly irrelevant testing regime). I was described as extremely mild, and they were very surprised I had not passed. I had a go at the Nagal whilst I was there and reached the JAA standard. This was not accepted by the CAA as it was not administered by an AME. Ho-hum.

In a fortnight I will fly to Zurich to take the Spectrolux lantern test (closest place!). I will duly report back as appropriate.

In the meantime as an IMC rated pilot I can fly in zero visibility, yet I'm apparently not capable of flying at night because I cannot pass a bunch of ancient and utterly irrelevant tests which are completely unrepresentative of the colour vision requirements in aviation today.

[katsogr]

second time in Amsterdam KLM Medical Clinic in 2005 when my new employer asked me to retake the exam and unfortunately I found the one in Amsterdam very very difficult.I barely passed.When I went to Amsterdam I was very cofident cause I passed it before


This is shocking. if every time you change empolyer he asks you to retake a lantern test then what? And as Thrustidle74 said, he found the second one harder for a reason.

On a following post, Thrustidle you said, that the employer who asked you to retake the test was outside europe though on the first one you said it was KLM.Could you specify this once more please?


I believe everyone can find a lantern that he can pass somewhere in Europe.I don't belive all the lanterns are calibrated to the same standard.
Keep trying and never give up


I believe that is true, DO NOT give up trying

PS I'm sure that many more people are watching this thread closely, but only a few of them post here , so let's keep it up and running.

[katsogr]

Hi mate,
There is not any mistake restriction in taking the other tests (lantern tests). even if you did only one mistake you would have to do a lantern test.
Try reading past posts, there are many thing you will learn about this kind of problem.

Good luck and don't give up!

[TelBoy]

bypilot,

The JAA do not allow any mistakes 0 mistakes at either ishihara or the Baynes, Holmes Wright or Spectrolux lanterns. The Anomalascope is VERY hard and even a lot of colour normal pilots will not be able to pass to JAA standards.

The Tower Light Signal test is for FAA (USA) Transport Canada (Canadian) and CASA (Australia). It is NOT accepted by the JAA and nor are their medicals or licences.

In short if you want a JAA licence you need ZERO errors at either ishihara, Baynes, Holmes Wright, Spectrolux or a pass at JAA standards on the Anomalascope.

A word of advice. Try to get an "unofficial" test done before taking the real thing as if your country is like the UK, you will only have one chance. and the lantern tests are not easy!

All the best to you and your future career and never give up trying.

[Shunter]

guys y are u making a big deal out of it?

You passed the lantern test. Congratulations. The reason this thread exists is that most of us didn't. Does this mean we are unsafe to fly? No. Does this in fact mean anything? Yes - It means we failed a farcical, utterly irrelevant test bearing absolutely no reflection to the real life requirements of a pilot in terms of colour vision. It is farcical to the extent that it is failed by substantial numbers of people with perfect colour vision.

So if you want to know why we're making such a big deal out of it, spend a couple of days reading this thread (and its original).

[Shunter]

Gentlemen. For me this is a beautiful day. I join you from Starbucks in Zurich city centre having just caught the train from Dubendorf where I successfully passed the Spectrolux lantern test.

Having taken every other test available, this really was the last chance saloon under the current ludicrously irrelevant JAA testing and evaluation regime. Despite the sweaty palms I was put at ease and went through the test with zero mistakes.

Whilst obviously I am now happy, I am also angry, disillusioned and disappointed that I had to go this far to reach my goal. The money I have had to expend on flights, trains, hotels, test fees amounts to a full ATPL groundschool package!! Not to mention the time off work to go to Gatwick, to go to City Uni... the list goes on.

If anything this has made me more resolute than ever to pursue an agenda of change and modernisation in terms of colour vision testing.

Best regards,
Shunter (CP3 - Colour Safe, finally!)

[Shunter]

Many thanks for all the supportive PM's. I found the experience much less intimidating than Gatwick, that's for sure. It's a pity it's the only place within the JAA states that has a Spectrolux (that I know of). It seems shame that when you specify 4 acceptable tests, they are only selectively available.

I've had some requests for logistical details, so here we go...

I flew from Manchester direct to Zurich with Swiss Air. Plenty of other air links from loads of other UK airports.
The Aeromed centre is in Dubendorf, a few miles from Zurich. A taxi there from the airport will cost you about 50F (£20!) which is a little on the steep side since it's only a 10 minute drive.
The trains are excellent and you can get from the airport, via Zurich Central, to Dubendorf for about 15F (£6). The Aeromed centre is 2 minutes walk from Dubendorf train station. Leave station, turn left down Bettlistrasse, round the bend and it's on your right.
If you want to do what I did - fly in one day, stay over, then arrive fresh for the test in the morning - there are a couple of decent hotels in the area. If you stay at the Wellnesshotel and make use of the spa area, don't bother with your swim shorts; you'll end up just as red-faced as you would if you went naked in the average UK spa, everyone (that's men & women) is into the naked thing and you get some right dodgy looks if you stroll in with your bermudas on like I did :=

Links:
Hotel (15min walk to Aeromed centre, good restaurant) - http://www.channels.nl/66395b.html
Aeromed Centre - http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/amc.html
They don't all speak English there, so you may need to do as I did and call back when there's an English-speaker there.

If anyone has any more questions, feel free.

Shunter

[Shunter]

You sit on a chair, a specific distance from the lantern. It's in a room with plenty of natural daylight, but I didn't find that a problem. The lantern flashes colours at you (2 at a time), and you repeat the colours back to the test supervisor. No mistakes are allowed.

That's about it really. Nothing you can specifically do to prepare for it except get a good night's sleep and arrive alert and relaxed. That's precisely what I didn't do at Gatwick. I rolled off a flight from MAN into the baking sunshine, dehydrated and bleary from a wedding the day before. Who knows, perhaps if I'd planned and prepared a little better I would have passed at Gatwick.

[Neilo]

G'day people,

I am new on these forums and have recently come across a few threads regarding the old colour vision issue which give me a bit of hope. Now I don't want to bother people as I know this is covered in other threads but I am unable to find any that are clear and concise as to the regulations regarding Australia.

Briefly, I studied aviation for 5 years through high school and was deadset on becoming a pilot-until I failed both the ishihara and lantern tests :(. I was basically told that you can still fly but you will be restricted to day flight VFR conditions.

I am considering doing the lantern test again as I would just like to confirm in my mind that it was under the best conditions. So what are the regs these days with regard to colour vision in Aus. What restrictions will be in place, do these restrictions affect job prospects, flying international etc etc? I have heard about the lightbox test, if I were to pass this will I be restricted in anyway as to licences / Instrument endorsements? I have tried researching this myself but am unable to find any clear definitive answers.


Any help would be appreciated, because if there is some respite these days from this problem I will start my flying again ASAP!

Cheers
Neil

[TelBoy]

Niel,

From what I understand about colour vision in Oz, is that thanks to Dr Pape you have the best chances in the world.

You can be totally colour blind and still get a CPL which will be restricted to Australian airspace and a weight limit of just over 5000kg (I think).

You can do a tower signal test to remove restrictions and go to ATP. The tower signal test is in my mind the easiest test. I have passed the FAA signal test, but have not (yet) passed any JAA lantern tests. The lanterns are aimed at the wavelengths that we confuse, where the signal test is purley practical.

I would suggest contacting the CASA for full details.

Best of luck mate.

[Rogal]

hello
I'm preparing to undertake 1st class medical examination. In Poland we have other aviation medical law (despite, that Poland is JAA member) and in color vision examination only ishihara plates and anomaloscope(as alternative) are aviable for unrestricted 1 class. I hope that I will pass approved (by JAA) lantern tests but I don't know If Polish CAO accept 1 class given by other JAA member country. Anyone know that? I think they must accept beacuse we are in JAA.

Sorry for my horrible English ;)
Piotr

[march1981]

Hi there Shunter,

Just a question about your history really, I took and failed the Class 1 early this year, also losing out to the White/Green on the final lantern test.

Now that you have successfully passed the Spetrolux in Zurich, do the CAA accept this and have you been issued with a full Class 1, no restrictions. Even though you have previously failed the lovely tests at Gatwick? Is the failure on record anywhere? I just want to make sure that if I go down the route you've bravely taken, I don't end up with a CPL and being discrimated against by potential employers because I can't pass the CAA's colour tests. Grrr.

Once you had passed the test in Zurich, you were issued a certificate from them? Then this was forwarded to the CAA at Gatwick, which they accepted and hey presto. You were issued with your CP3. How long did all this take?

Like many on this thread, I think we all feel the same sickness sensation of being denied a dream because we apparently see the world differently! Something I cannot believe.

Many thanks, and well done on passing.

James

[Shunter]

James,

As I'm sure you know, the CAA have only 2 of the JAR-FCL3 approved tests. I failed both of these, and it's well and truly on record as such. They don't have a Nagal and they don't have a Spectrolux. Note that the regs don't specify that these tests are exclusive, but I think you'd have a hard/impossible time trying to introduce an alternative test under the "such as" clause.

The rules simply say passing any of the 4 tests is satisfactory. It doesn't matter which order you take them in, and although I'm told you don't have to have it done by an AME, I would strongly recommend it to make any result watertight.

My experience is that if you fail 3, then pass 1, you're fine. Experiences seem to vary when it comes to retaking tests, although there is no rule that prohibits doing so. I believe in those situations some people have had results accepted and some not. One chap went to the extent of getting his unrestricted JAR Class 1 abroad (Germany?) and the CAA eventually issued him an unrestricted UK medical on the basis of that. Consistency seems to be something in short supply, but the rules are the rules; if you've done it by the book, quote chapter and verse and fight your corner. If it were to go to court, you'd win hands down.

I faxed the result sheet to the CAA and had an unrestricted medical by return of post. Certainly can't grumble as far as that goes!

JAR-FCL 3
SECTION 1
Amendment 5
Appendices-20
01.12.06
Appendix 14 to Subparts B and C
Colour perception
(See JAR–FCL 3.225 and 3.345)
1. The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is to be considered passed if the first 15 plates are identified without error, without uncertainty or hesitation (less than 3 seconds per plate). These plates shall be presented randomly. For lighting conditions see the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine.
2. Those failing the Ishihara test shall be examined either by:
(a) Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the colour match is
trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less, or by
(b) Lantern testing. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with
lanterns acceptable to the AMS such as Holmes Wright, Beynes, or Spectrolux.Best of luck!

[bypilot]

Everybody hello again.I asked many questions in this topic.Thank you for your answers again.But lastly I have a question :) I live in Turkey so I want to be an airline pilot in Turkey.But you know I have a problem for Ishıhara.İnTurkey doctors execute Ishıhara test initially for Class 1 medical certification.I think I can pass Falant or other lantern test(I have never taken a lantern but I want to take it.It is a chance now)Shotly my question is ''what is the alternate colour blindness tests in Turkey''.Is lantern available in Turkey.And how can I learn this?I have asked 2 standart(not an AME or pilot doctor)doctor this but they are not sure.One of them said yes,they have to do this but other doctor said NO!Could a person who has an experience about this subject in Turkey tell me?

I searched but I coudnt find an answer.Nobody know this.Because many of them have passed Ishıhara and they havent a problem.So they dont know.Im waiting for your answers.Many thanks again...

[Shunter]

If Turkey is a JAA state, then it's the same rules as anywhere else.

1. Ishihara

2. If you failed that, you need to pass one of: Holmes-Wright, Beynes, Spectrolux or Nagel.

I have absolutely no idea if any of those are available in Turkey. I had to travel from the UK to Switzerland to take the Spectrolux test. Tracking down these ancient, outdated and irrelevant tests can be somewhat of a laborious task!

[inverted123]

Hi Sam, I to have a mild color defiency,however i had trouble with the ishihara plates so i was sent to do more tests in Melbourne at the college of optometry and past the testing and was given my Class 1 with nil restrictions on my licence up to and including ATPL,holding a CPL, AFI, NVFR ratings,I do know a student doing his CPL at the moment who did not pass the ishihara and he was sent to melb for more testing as well,he did not pass all the tests given, but still he was given a class 1,the only difference was that he had a restriction on his medical "only valid for australian airspace only",so your medical examiner should be able to send you for more testing to see how servere your defiency is, so good luck, let us know how things go. :ok:

[Kubus1]

Hi,
I wrote here before so I thought I would update you.
I have a mild green/red colour deficiency. I fail ishihara plates every time.
Last year I got Class 2 with no restrictions.
Today I received my Class 1, no restrictions, no comments.
All I can say to everyone who has same problem is never to give up. It payed off for me. Starting my IR/ME and CPL course next month.
Good luck:)

[march1981]

That's interesting, so which lantern test did you pass to get the Class 1?

I think its worth noting that the Ishihara test is only a screening test, it doesn't matter if you fail one or all of them, it doesn't relate to the degree of the colour blindness you have.

After testing at City Uni I found all this out, their testing revealed that I have a very mild condition, but... I still can't pass the tests for the class 1. The lanterns! Grrrr. She assured me that they are proposing late 2008 to the CAA their recommendations, and I should keep an eye on the CAA site and their site for updates.

There is still hope.

[A2QFI]

I know it is probably an expensive way to find out but could you pass a medical, required for the issue of a flying licence? I appreciate that passing now would not necessarily mean passing again in ? years time. Why not try and find out free from your GP? More info at http://www.lcrs.co.uk/

[PyroTek]

yeah, i'd go for a medical, if you are eligible for a class one medical, you're all good to fly!
i think you can get your PPL with a class two (i'm speaking in terms of australian medical certs, i'm not sure if it is global)

[The Jolly Roger]

Hi ,

Check your PM's

[qnh78]

Hi,

please check my thread of the same issue. I really hope EASA will ease out these initial requirements.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=304448

Br and happy holidays!
-QNH78

[TelBoy]

Witza, I'm not sure if you are talking FAA or JAA for colour vision testing as it seems you are in the US.

For JAA you can do any one of the following if you fail the ishihara screening test: Baynes, Holmes Wright, Spectrolux or anomalascope. The UK CAA do the Baynes and Holmes Wright (you can have a colour vision assesment for £28) and Zurich do the Spectrolux (about 90 Swiss Francs) The UK CAA accept the Swiss test as a colour vision part of a class 1 medical and so must all JAA states as it in FCL3. Just remember you only get one chance - you cannot retake a colour vision test!

For FAA you have a lot of choices - see the FAA website for details. I took the Tower Light Signal test (red, white and green). When I did it (long time ago) it was from two different points on the airport, one 1000 yards from the tower and at 1500 yards from the tower. You sit with an FAA man who marks your answers. I passed that, but have not yet passed a JAA test:{

Hope this helps - good luck.

[Witza]

Hi,

Thanks for your answer Telboy, i'm in Europe, i live in Portugal and i have already taken (and failed, but i dont know the name of the test...) the lights test. Are you saying that if i take and pass a different type of the approved exams i still wont be given a Class 1? What I had understood was that there were some guys here that had failed one type of exam and then pass a different one, like the Spectrolux, and they were given a Class 1 then....Am i wrong? :(
I'm still hanging to that small hope of passing a different exam....

Thanks for your time :)

Daniel

[TelBoy]

Witza, sorry to hear about you failing the test in Portugal, but if you pass ANY different test eg the Spectrolux in Switzerland then you can get the class 1.

If the test you took in Portugal was two small lights one above the other and either red, white or green it is the Holmes Wright test. You will NOT be able to retake the HW in any other state (unless Portugal are different to the UK) but CAN take any of the other approved tests.

Good luck to you.

[bypilot]

Guys where can I do a Lantern Test in EU.(Except UK and Dubendorf)And I read a sentence about Holmes Wright and in my opinion it is very difficult.Does AME show 30-40 pairs in Holmes Wright to the examiner.Lastly does a person who passed an acceptable Lantern test have to take a lantern test again in the next medical check?

[TelBoy]

If there was only one light that lasts one second with colours Red, White, Green, Blue and Yellow it is the Baynes Lantern.

Probably best get in touch with who you took the test with in Portugal to see what test it was so you do not repeat it.

All the very best for 2008

[kherranz]

Hi everyone!! Here in Spain you can get the Bayne´s Lantern. Everybody says that it´s the easiest of the aviation lanterns...but the administrator are military doc´s and they are very strict man...:ugh:

[Blinkz]

Hey guys,
I was reading through the manual of medicine for the JAA, its available on the JAA website. One thing that caught my eye was that in the colourvision section, after it describes the colourvision lantern protocols it states that lantern tests maybe be retaken after 6 months......

This could be useful for a lot of you who only narrowly failed them? Take a look and see what you think. Link http://www.jaat.eu/licensing/manual_2006/Chapter%2013%20-%20OPHTHALMOLOGY%20Amdt%205.pdf

[TelBoy]

An interesting read. Even the JAA do not have any faith in their own tests - and have published it!!

Yes it does say the lantern tests can be retested after 6 months (page 45) - I will write to the CAA and ask for a retest. Interesting that the 2005 version does NOT say the same. Are the CAA working to the old document??

[2close]

Here's a question.

Given that the protocols for lantern testing have changed, did the UK CAA have a legal obligation to inform previous failures of their right to retest? Obviously they had a moral responsibility but what about the legal responsibility?

Scenario

'A' goes for lantern test in January 2002 with the view to undertaking CPL / IR training straight away but fails lantern test marginally.

In November 2006 rules change but CAA fails to inform A who now holds a CPL / IR / FI and has been working as a FI since 2002 on a salary of about £25K.

12 months later A learns of change, applies for retest, passes the retest under the new protocols and gains an unrestricted medical and subsequently a job with an airline as a trainee FO on a salary of £ 40 K.

Who is responsible for A's loss of earnings during the period that he could have held an unrestricted medical? He was denied the opportunity to do so by the failure of the CAA to inform him of his right to retest so I think there would be good grounds for challenging them for loss of earnings.

Opinions?

[NeoDude]

I did the Baynes at Gatwick Last week. 1 run, no mistakes allowed, each lamp is on for 1 second. Luckily I passed after having failed 1 plate on the ishihara and 1 mistake on the other lantern test (The one with the 2 lights). But I'm putting it down to a lack of concentration and fatigue having been in the CAA medical dept for 8 hours without anything to eat :}

I have previously passed ishihara at both the NATS medical and the BA sponsorship medical.

[2close]

I do agree with you Blinkz.

What infuriates me is the fact that the CAA has known about these changes for all this time yet has failed to either personally notify previous (failed) examinees of their right to retest, which I accept may be an onerous task, especially in this day and age of automated databases (:ugh: yes, I am being sarcastic!) but there is no excuse for not publishing a general statement on either the CAA website or in industry publications. My interpretation is the goalposts have clearly shifted and the CAA had a clear moral and possibly legal duty to inform examinees of this fact.

NeoDude - Well done for passing but the fact is that you DID pass the Ishihara Test with one error. That is within the pass crierion of no more than two errors as stipulated within manufacturer's instructions for completion and assessment See Page 41 of the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (JAA MCAM) - Chapter 13 Ophthalmology.

"Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given by each test."

The number of failed plates serves to classify the subject as normal, defective or ‘doubtful’ according to the specifications of the test.

The 24 plate Ishihara instructions clearly state the following:

"An assessment of the readings of plates 1 to 15 determines the normality or defectiveness of colour vision. If 13 or more plates are read normally the colour vision is regarded as normal. If only 9 or less plates are read normally, the colour vision is regarded as deficient."

Therefore, whilst the JAA MCAM makes no definition of the following terms, which are mentioned in Para 3 of Page 41, relating them to the Ishihara assement standards above they may be interpreted as follows:

Normal - Up to 2 errors

Defective - 6 or more errors

Doubtful - 3 - 5 errors

Therefore, any person making two or less errors must be classified as COLOUR SAFE!

Nowhere in the amendment to the JAA MCAM does it state that only NIL errors is accepted as a pass, which was the previous status quo.

:mad:

[IRpilot2006]

I have an FAA CPL/IR and FAA Class 1.

My original colour vision test was done at CAA Gatwick (Lantern) for the JAA PPL, the PPL is now expired. This letter was also used to get the original FAA PPL.

As I understand, the CV test is only done ONCE ever.

I am going for a JAA CPL/IR and need a CAA Class 1 medical.

What is the risk?

What if the CAA insists I retake the CV test? Can they do this?

If they can, and I fail it, doesn't it void my FAA licence too?

If I am told I have to take it when I am up there with the CAA, and I refuse, does this count like a medical failure (like the failure to take a drinking breath test)?

Basically I don't want to screw up my FAA commercial/instrument privileges which are all standalone, not piggyback.

What is the best way to play this SAFELY? Should I go to another country instead?

Any suggestions much appreciated, thank you.

[Blinkz]

The CAA will still have the lantern test on file and so you won't have to redo that. Once you have passed it thats it. You will have to go to Gatwick again and do the rest of the class 1 medical.

[TelBoy]

As for your FAA medical and licence as a stand alone it will not be affected. I have unrestricted FAA medical because I have passed the tower signal test, but have a restricted CAA class 1 because of failing the lantern tests at Gatwick, it does not affect my FAA privaleges.

I would say call the CAA. I know of a guy who has an unrestricted class 2 medical because of passing a lantern test for the old class 3, but restricted class 1 (for colour vision). He also has a night rating and FI. He can fly at night ok provided he is not being paid - how stupid is that!!

The whole colour vision testing in JAA land is a joke - they even admit so themselves.

I wish you all the best mate and even if it goes pear shape at Gatwick you still have a perfictally good licence from the largest aviation authority on the planet.

[2close]

Read the Colour Vision thread for more info but to keep it simple for you, you have been misadvised as the FALANT Test (Farnsworth Lantern Test) is NOT accepted by JAA.

It is however accepted by the FAA for issue of an American medical certificate - not much use if you're only flying in the UK.

HTH

2close

[sam.lk7]

@TelBoy

FYI, in australia you can not be issued a class 1 medical without succesfully passing a colour vision test. My previous goal was to become a Pilot, but having a CVD and failing the lantern test i cannot. Cabin Crew is another avenue i am exploring and i hope that i can still do it although i have a CVD....

[TelBoy]

Sam,

I think you will find that in Australia that you can fly commercially with CVD. You will be limited to Australian airspace and an aircraft less than 5700kg (I think) but this does allow you some great aviation jobs in your country. In fact you are the envy of us CVD in JAA land.

I actually have a letter from the Australian CAA stating that they allow CVD pilots to act commercially. So unless the situation has changed recentley I suggest you contact the CASA. I also understand they will do the Tower Signal Test to get an unresricted medical. I have done this in the US and passed, but have yet to pass any lantern test in JAA land.

Good luck to you mate. If all fails you might not be a captain of an airliner, but can have a great job as a pilot in a great country.

[sam.lk7]

Colour vision and general vision are different tests, colour vision is assessed with the ishihara test or sometiimes the lantern test :)

[mickdundee]

Been reading everyones comments on colour blindness,interesting reading. I had my class 2 medical 3 days ago and failed the colour blindness test,very disappointed as i really want to make a career from flying. The doctor said i am able to do the lantern test at Gatwick. What i'm not completely sure about is..if i'm colour blind does that totally exclude me from flying commercially or if i pass the lantern test can i still go ahead and do training. Just wondered if anyone else has been in the same boat. Feeling very dispondent by it all....can anyone shine the light at the end of the tunnel and give me hope!!

Looking at the other comments Australia looks like the place to go to.

[Bealzebub]

Mick,

It's a long thread, but if you read it from the beginning there is a lot of information.

My son was in the same situation and had a CV4 restriction placed on his class 2 medical. He went to the CAA medical branch at Gatwick shortly after for the lantern test and passed it.

This happens quite a lot, but obviously not with everybody.

[2close]

One for Mickdundee,

How many errors did you make on the Ishihara Test?

If 2 or less then go back to the AME, tell him to get the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine, Section 13 Ophthalmology off the shelf and dust the cobwebs off it - make sure it is the current version. Once he has read the bit that says that tests should be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions tell him to get those out and read what the pass criterion actually is. You will have passed. Now please issue 1 x unrestricted medical!


Edited to remove flippant comments! Apologies!

[2close]

Sorry Bealzebub,

Firstly I have edited the above flippant comments but as for the rest I cannot agree with you.

People should be challenging the results if the tests are not conducted correctly. One guy I know of PASSED Ishihara but the CAA refused to accept that two errors was a pass and it cost him £ 2,000 to gain a lantern test pass overseas. Is that fair?

You cannot have medical professionals making up their own pass / fail criterion for prescribed medical procedures because the ones that are written by the manufacturers do not agree with their objectives. That is exactly what is going on here.

In any case. they are acting in contravention of their own rules. If you don't believe what I say, read them for yourself.

Legalities aside, there is a medical ethics issue here.

How would you feel if your surgeon said because his boss had told him to he was going to ignore the manufacturer's guidelines with regard to using the bit of kit he was using to open you up, even though his hospital guidelines state that he must follow the manufacturer's instructions? An exaggeration?Maybe but in principle that is exactly what is happening.

What next? The CAA's own interpretation of the ECG machine or Lung Function Test device.

And what about the new CAD test? Who is going to pay for that? All AMEs will be required to have one so is the CAA going to pay for them and increase our charges to cover the costs or will the AMEs pay for them individually and just increase their medical fees? Either way, the end user gets stuck with the bill.

BTW, what correct protocols? Please advise.

May I be so bold as to enquire why you are so eager not to challenge the status quo? Are you an AME?

[TelBoy]

Hi folks,

For those that read the post by Blinkz on page 32 of this thread which refered to the JAA manual of Civil Aviation Medicine which STATED that lantern tests can be retaken after 6 months, I wrote to the CAA and asked for a retest. I give the letter they returned below - word for word

-----------------------
Thank you for your recent letter regarding colour vision standards for class 1 medical certification. It is not UK CAA policy to routinely reassess applicants on lantern tests. If there are specific reasons to do so, one retest may be offered and this would depend on the individual reason for re-examination.

The JAR-FCL 3 medical requirements document to which you refer, has different sections covering ophthalmology. The part to which you refer in your letter is taken from the Manual Section. This offers JAA Member States guidance material, and is not part of the Regulatory Standards. You may also be interested to note that the latest version of the ophthalmology manual does not contain this statement.

The CAA has funded a major research project on colour vision standards for commercial pilots. This research has resulted in a new computer based colour vision test being developed which, when complete, we plan to gain JAR approval for its use. We would suggest that you monitor the CAA website for any news of its implementation. At that time we would be happy to reassess you on this new colour vision test.

In summary, I am unable to offer you reassessment on the lantern test at this time. I am sorry to bring this disappointing news to you.

------------------------------------

Interestingly enough I cannot find an updated version of the manual (anyone else know) and as the CAA can just ignore it, then it rather seems a pointless paper.

The CAA are still going on about the CAD test - humm I say it's a get out of jail card for them.

Still my battle with colour vision and the CAA is not over yet and I could not give a to:mad: about their new computer test - its just another load of bull:mad: Come on CAA what about a practical test.

Any input that anyone has would be interesting!!

[FlyEJF]

Hi everyone,

I was wondering whether i would pass a class 1 medical and know that i have mild colour blindness. I fail around 2 or 3 ishihara plates so I want to take a lantern test before i go down to gatwick and take the full class 1 medical.

Can someone tell me what the best route to taking the test is. Can i do the test at gatwick? or are there other places this test can be taken in the Bedfordshire area?

I know there are slightly different versions of the test so i want to make sure that i am going to take the correct one.

Any info much appreciated

Ed

[Shunter]

You'll have severe difficulty locating any of these ancient lanterns outside Gatwick. I would strongly recommend reading the rather long colour vision thread, as it contains many details on the lantern tests, things you need to know that the CAA won't tell you when you take the test etc...

I, for example also fail a couple of the Ishihara plates. I went on to fail both the lanterns at Gatwick, by a whisker. 2 years later I passed the Spectrolux in Zurich (another approved JAR test) and I'm now unrestricted. It's a very individual thing - some pass easily, some don't. What's universal however is that the tests are all completely irrelevant bollocks. Even the CAA has admitted they are not fit for purpose.

[2close]

FlyEJF,

Dr Ian Perry has (or did have) a Holmes-Wright Type A Lantern Test.

http://www.ianperry.com/drperry.html

Although Dr Perry has a very impressive resume, is obviously a leading expert in the area of aeromedicine and advises the CAA on aeromedical matters, the CAA's optometrist will not accept the results of any H-W test conducted by Dr Perry as he "can not be certain that the tests have been conducted in accordance with JAA protocols". :ugh: :ugh:

Absolutely laughable!!!

[Shunter]

It's about £30 for the lantern tests at Gatwick. I really would advise you to read back through this thread though and take others' experience onboard. The CAA won't tell you for example that whilst the Holmes Wright lantern has three colours (red/green/white), and they are displayed in pairs which you have to identify, that they actually change hue (shade), so you can have a dull white, a light green etc etc...

Therefore, when shown say a dark green and a very light green during the test, you might say "green, white", because logic dictates they are different and you've been told no different.

Knowing exactly what you're about to undertake is the test half passed already... take my word for it, I've been there. Many times :ugh:

[Need money]

Once you have passed the colour test - are they ever retested ?

As a child (ie: about 25 years ago !!) - I was told I was red green deificient, however - I have also recently obtained a JAA Class 1 having passed the Ishihara test - however - I am worried that I may slip up at any point on a renewal. Having committed to expensive training I would hate to have the rug pulled from under me at a later date.

Thoughts ??

[mickdundee]

Thanks to everyone for there comments,my head is hurting from all the information overload!!!:confused: I've decided that i'm not going to let it get me down. I'm going to Gatwick to do the lantern test and IF i don't pass...i'll keep fighting. I want to be a CPL(h) and i'll try my hardest to get there.

Wish me luck!

P.S..Good luck to everyone else in the same boat

[colourblindgeek]

Hawk - I hope your comment was in jest regarding Windforce putting the wording in blue? :rolleyes:

As far as a I know - all of us CVD's will be able to read it just fine.

It is still just ishihara plates and lantern tests that cause us the problems - not runway lights, papi lights, signal gun lights and certainly not light blue/green text on a beige background.

[colourblindgeek]

2Close - that is the funniest reply ever!

You have just made my day! I nearly wet myself!:ok:

[danielm]

Hi Ian,
My name is Daniel and i'm colorblind too. I'm from argentina and unfortunately in my country there's only ishihara plates and a farnsworth lantern with green, red, and yellow colors. could it be this way? different from the other ones?
Anyway, i would like to ask you where is located the City University you mensioned about because i would like to go.
Thank you so much,
Daniel.

[danielm]

Thanks! To be honest I found this strange farnsworth lantern quite difficult. Whatsmore, I think it was taken wrong because was only once run and in daylight conditions. The thing is that in my country there's only this test allowed as an alternative (and it's even a different from the standards!!); I can't request the signal test.

[Cookie88]

Hi guys..jus wan to say that, I have passed the lantern test at my my local AMC. I m really so happy!!.. I was diagnose as Color Blind when i was a student and that really crash all my hopes and limit my career choices.. i wasnt told by any nurses or doctor that there are alternate test that i could take to determine my color perception.

happen to have found this site recently and the information here are so good, that it gave me hope to be a pilot again.. i start read from the 1st thread since year 2000 to now..and immediately book a test at my local AMC

unlike the different lantern test discuss at this thread, i was being tested on the Edridge-Green Lantern and breeze through it without any difficulties. The conductor was surprised that I was so confident with my answers compare to earlier Ishara test.

I now so happy. It is as though I am finally proven innocent after being sentenced for crime that i did not commit..

Thanks you guys for this lovely thread..

CVD No more

[2close]

Well done, Cookie88,

Where are you from then?

What country uses the Edridge-Green Lantern Test? That is a very old bit of kit!

[Shunter]

I was just wondering that myself. You could probably make up an obscure lantern name and noone would know any different. I might steal the card-swipe (red/yellow/green LEDs) from the office door at work and call it the anal-shunter lantern; would probably be just as relevant to demonstrable aviation colour vision testing as any other lantern... :E

[2close]

Shunter,

You're lucky you passed the Spectrolux otherwise you'd never have got into work...good grief, all them colours on one door security system. Seems a bit complicated. Mine's a lot simpler; it's black and brown, called Killer and passes as a psychotic, manic, rabid Doberman with a personality disorder :E

The E-G Test was a 1920 Test so don't be surprised if it's still in use as the be all, end all for some countries :rolleyes:

[TelBoy]

Hi All, I have the following address for a Spectrolux test in Spiez

Augenpraxis Spiez
Thunstrasse 2
3700 Spiez
Switzerland
+41 33 654 70 20

However I have tried emailing them and phoning. The phone just gives a recorded message and I don't speak German. Can anyone help - have they moved, or changed numbers etc??

Thanks in advance.

[sbfly]

Hi Guys,

I have read with great interest this CVD thread and I have a theoretical question....

I notice earlier in this thread (around pg 28). 'NeedMoney' suggests buying the Ishihara test book (to get your confidence up!!) and also mentions that he passed the Ishihara at LGW..... I had an optician suggest to me a while ago, after failing the Ishihara, that could 'learn' the plates.... I also notice earlier in this thread, someone mentions CVD pilots who have 'slipped through the net'...

So, I'm interested in knowing everyone's thoughts on 'learning' the Ishihara before the Class 1 med.

(NB. each plate has a small number printed on it corresponding to the plate number)

[bucks]

Just to update, i received cross linking yesterday morning and i am defineltly glad i have done so. The doctor also performed a small bit of laser surgery on the eye as the corneal thickness was within limits so hopefully that will improve the eyesight a bit, although my primary goal was to stop the progression so anything else will be a bonus.

[Blues&twos]

Great news, Bucks - wish it had been available when I had to get mine treated. ( Following corneal grafting I have 6/6 or 6/5 on a good day corrected with glasses, but I've been told that was more luck than judgement!)

Best of luck with the sight tests!!

[bucks]

Hey QNH78,

The procedure wasnt painful at all.

You start off in the "pre-op" room where they run through what they are about to do and give you some local anesthetic eye drops. Once in the theatre you basically just lie down and relax.

The other eye is covered and you focus the eye which is being worked on at a light and the doc begins to remove to protective layer on the eye.

Drops are added for 30 minutes, then you get of the bed and they check to see if they have penetrated the cornea, then its back onto the bed and more drops are added for another 30 min along with a UV light.

You will have a clear eye cover for the day of the treatment and this must be worn while sleeping for the next week. You also will have to add drops 4 times a day for the next week or two.

My eye was sore and irritating the evening of the procedure but they will give you pain killers etc.. to ease the discomfort.

[gsportcars]

Hi,
I have just joine the site and felt that I had to make my first post in this thread for obvious reasons...... Yes I am colour deficient (duetanomalous) and I am trying to commence training for my ATPL.
My personal experience so far is as follows....

I have known I am CVD for a long time but never thought anything of it until now. After finding out the so called 'standards' required with regards to CVD to pass the class one medical, I decided to get an eye test done.
I did a quick 4 plate online sample of the ishihara which told me what I already knew, that I was colour deficient. I spoke to several opticians to see if I could do a Farnsworth Lantern test but no where used this test. I did get a full eye test carried out anyway including the Ishihara test.
The test that I was administered from a book was the same test that is in this link from earlier in this thread
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/teares/gktvc/vc/lt/colourblindness/cblind.htm#Background

I was diagnosed as a strong duetanope which I was told was "quite severe" He even commented that I could probably only make the different coloured road traffic lights because I would know that the red is at the top and green at the bottom etc etc. Obviously I knew this wasn't the case and I can see the red amber and green with no difficulties at all.
Needless to say I was stunned and felt more miserable than I care to remember. I had always thought I was only mildly colour deficient as it had never caused any issue for me before.

I now know after finding that link above that the test was administered completely wrong. At the time I was only shown the first 15 plates. As the explanations are given in the link I realise that the first 15 plates only determine if you are colour deficient or not and give no indication as to how strong or mild your deficiency is. After completeing all the plates several times on different moniters and with colour normal individuals present to clarify I have "self diagnosed" myself as being only mildly colour deficient. Please have a look at the link and do the test if you don't believe me.

This has infuriated me and I feel like going back to the opticians to shuv his test somewhere 'severely' uncomfortable.

I know I won't pass the ishihara test but I thought there was no chance of me ever passing any other colour test after that ill-diagnosis. Today I am quite a bit more confident.

Another badly administered test that I took was the Giles lantern test. After phoning around for about 3 days looking for the Farnsworth Lantern test (as stated on the JAA medical website), I finally found someone who had it. Before doing this I had to go through the usual standard eye test again and I was also given the city university test which I failed.
So... out came the farnsworth lantern test eventually....It was make or break time or so I thought. I was quitely confident but still had doubts as to how the test worked.
For this reason I asked the examiner two quick questions before we started. First I asked, "the only colours used in this test are green, white and red, right?" quickly followed by, "are there varying colour intensities for each colour or is it simply the one shade of each colour that is used thoughout?"
The collective answer I got before the test commenced was "well lets see then!"

Anyway, none the wiser we started the test. I now know the exact colours that I was shown so I will comment with this in mind.
First up was a green which I answered correctly
second was a paler green, which I also got right
then it was white to which I answered green. The reason for this is that it wasn't a pure white but a dirty off white. After being told a week earlier that I was severely colour blind I had been overcompensating and guessing the colour as green even though I couldn't see any green.
Fourth light was clearly red followed by a brighter red/amber which I answered as red which was correct. after that was a very bright amber. I also answered this as red for the simple reason that I have been told that there is only red, green and white in the farnsworth lantern test and it was definately not green or white. I failed this test too.

The examiner seemed somewhat amazed at my answers which is understandable as of course this wasn't the farnsworth test at all but the Giles Lantern test which also includes yellow.
The only thing I could gather from taking this lantern test was that the examiner seemed to treat me as a novelty and wanted to catch me out on each test for what could only be described as for personal entertainment at my deficiency.
At the end of this I got told that I had little to no hope of passing any other colour vision test and was advised to basically stop wasting my own time and give up.

I am still currently trying to find someone who has a genuine Farnsworth Lantern test for me to try and I will be bringing along the correct method to perform the test and getting the examiner to follow it thouroughly. I am also looking into alternatives if this doesn't work.
Again the ugly situation arises that I am more than confident and have read endless research that CVD does not affect a persons ability to fly safely in any way at all but nevertheless the JAA can't recognise this so the silly tests set out must still be passed.

I have found this thread alone and also Part 1 of the thread a huge help and I am still trawling through the posts in the search for the illusive 'ultimate solution' to this ridiculous standard.
I have to thank everybody who has posted here for their help and advice and also for making me realise how common and widespread this issue is. I no longer feel isolated or as if I am fighting a losing battle and I now have much more confidence, determination and hope that I can see this through. I will post my progress as others have done and will gladly help in any small way I can.
Thanks,
Gav.:ok:

BTW, please excuse the spelling and typos..:=

[Shunter]

Sorry to hear you're having a hard time of it, but I'd be interested to see where you got the lantern information from. The Farnsworth and Giles Archer lanterns are NOT accepted by JAA. The 4 tests accepted are Holmes/Wright, Spectrolux, Beynes and Nagel Anomoloscope.

The Holmes/Wright and Beynes are available at Gatwick, the Nagel at City University, and several Specs are in Switzerland and Germany. There may be others in the UK (there's at least 2 Holmes/Wright lanterns outside the CAA), but they're rare as hens' teeth.

[gsportcars]

Thanks guys, Just spoke to 2close there and now have the correct info to carry on my search as above. Much appreciated.
I had a quick look there to see if I could find the source that said the Farnsworth lantern test was the one they used but couldn't find the web page again.
I will post the progress as it comes and hopefully it arrives with some good news too!!:rolleyes:

[Overdrive]

First of all... Hi everyone. My first post. I joined just recently, but did plenty of scoping of the site first... it seems excellent so far, already enjoyed it, and I think I will even more: I'm glad to've found it!

To quote gsportcars:- "Yes I am colour deficient"... ditto. "I am trying to commence training for my ATPL"... no longer ditto!

I've been there mate, I really have. My story goes like this. I wanted to fly in the RAF from back before I started pulling my wire (so way back). I did the tour to Cranwell thing in the school hols, applied later, was accepted, had a medical. Was told I was colour defective, which I already knew. Was then told I couldn't do flight training, but was offered other options. I spat out my dummy and declined, and that was that. Mistake number one.

When I had a few quid together in my mid twenties, and still in love with the flying scene, I decided to go for my PPL, in a casual, enjoyment kind of way... but in the back of my mind still sort of "hankering". At the medical prior to first solo, I failed the Ishihara test. A Giles-Archer Lantern test followed with the same A.M.E. (mistake number two). At the test I was told I was "probably ok", which I blithely accepted at the time. The results went through the channels to the CAA. In contrast to some things I've read here (in the several posts I've had chance to read in this large thread so far), I had no night or VFR-only restrictions imposed. I was, however, prevented from gaining any higher than a class 3 medical, thereby limiting me to recreational flying. I continued training and gained the PPL.

A little later, in the early 'nineties, now fighting a rekindled desire to go further in flying again, I decided to "get serious"... so much so that in subsequent discussions and investigations, I had more than one optician tell me I knew more about colour blindness than they did (like gsportcars, I'm dueteranomalous; mildly affected). This was pre-internet, and I can't tell you the effort that went into my research and investigations. This included what can only be described as attempted espionage by three-man team at an Aviation House (Gatwick) open day! I also tried out an X-chrom lens. This was a ("hard" re-useable type) contact lens worn in one eye that purported to help with colour problems... and you know what? It did. It basically cured any problem (for me at least) in distinguishing ANY colour of light, any size, any distance, any weather, any viz. It was fantastic.

I had it (at no cost) for three weeks. I've never needed glasses or contacts, but I had no real problems of discomfort etc. The lens has a small coloured area in the centre. It's about half the colour strength of an average pair of shades. If you look through just the wearing eye, you see a pale coloured tinge, but with both eyes open, you don't see this... what you see is as normal , with the exception that anything green (and to a lesser extent, colours with a technical element of green in them, like brown and turquoise) has a sort of metallic/satin-type sheen to it. The colours are unmistakeable. Lights don't "sheen", but are easily and instantly discerned.

I wore the lens like a contact lens wearer would, for most of my waking hours. I had no problems at all, night or day. I'm lucky to have exceptionally good distance vision (colours apart!). Whether that was a factor I don't know. When I mention "CAA" again, you can probably guess: they didn't accept the lens. Apparently concerned about the effect on night vision. I could perceive no effect. Finally, with nowhere left to go, I took the Holmes-Wright lantern test at Aviation House (mistake number three).

I particularly disliked the almost dismissive glee with which I was told I'd failed it (I'm serious). I apparently made "one more mistake than was permitted" (?), but he wouldn't say any more. To compound the almost haphazard way in which the CAA can sometimes operate, there was a period when it looked like this test had superceded and displaced my earlier Giles-Archer test results, which would mean no more night flying etc! When was I told this? After the second test!

Several colour defective guys I know of (me inlcuded) have no problems with tower signal lights. I did a test at Liverpool on a misty late afternoon. These lights are becoming as outmoded as car starting handles anyway. PAPI and VASI lights are no problem, nor are aircraft navigation lights. When renewing my medical (in the UK in '02), I took the FAA colour test with an A.M.E. licensed to do it in England. Flew through it. If you fail this in the US, you can then be tested in the air in an on-the-job situation. Doesn't that make sense?

The mistakes? Number one: The RAF at the time DID allow colour defective pilots, if they passed a Giles-Archer test. I later did, not much after becoming too old to get in the RAF. The medical guy was wrong or misinformed. Lesson? Dig yourself and push (though I was a naive kid then).

Number two: I didn't have to do the lantern test as early as I did for a PPL only. Lesson? Don't do anything to do with medical testing matters until you absolutely have to.

Number three: however late in the day, I should've perhaps waited a little longer to take the test. I should've asked the CAA about the effects on my then current restrictions first, which nearly turned even worse. In other words, don't do anything to do with etc...

Things have moved on a bit, and there's a lot to read in this thread yet, but I can tell you this. Everyone I know that's been tested at Gatwick was tested by Holmes-Wright Lantern. It's manufactured by Keeler (Optical Instruments). I did a quick web search, but no mention of it on their US and UK sites. I couldn't locate another in the UK at the time. It hasn't been produced for over a decade that I know of. It uses only red, green & white. There are filters which darken and diffuse the colours.... these are what will trip you (and need "practice"??). I have found personally (later alas) that I can sometimes identify small coloured lights better by looking to the side of them a little, like when you look at stars at night.

Some aspects of defective colour vision (better shade perception, better night vision for example) render it more a "different" form of vision than a defect per se. However, defined by certain standards, and compared to the bulk of the population, it is indeed a disability. Just not one that matters a carrot in modern aviation I think... but then I would say that.

Thanks for reading my cathartic rant.... I feel much better! Now my next posts can be much more brief. Best of luck to anyone in the colour vision battle....

[Blinkz]

Overdrive,
Do you know that there are now around 4 different lantern tests that are acceptable to the JAA? The Beyene arguably being the easiest to pass. It might be worth considering if you still want a Class 1.

[ST-EX]

Hi everyone,

I failed the lantern tests at Gatwick and am restricted to daytime flights only. I apparently made mistakes seeing the differences between green and whites. I made an appointment to travel to Zurich to sit the Spectrolux test and was booked in for the 21 March. I called them yesterday to confirm before booking my flights, only to be told they no longer do it! I have to go to Spiez to take it(which is in the middle of nowhere and difficult to get to)!
I was wondering if anybody knew where I could take the nagel anomaloscope test? I have tried researching online, but it seems to be very rare. Any help on this front would be very appreciated as I have finished my PPL and really want to go on with ATPL.
Thanks in advance for any replies-this is a great thread and it's great to know there are others in a similar position.

[Shunter]

ST-EX - are you sure? You called the Aeromed Centre at Dubendorf? As far as I know they're still doing it.

City University have a Nagel.

CLSpringer1223 - your friend is lucky, he's in the USA. They have a decidedly sensible approach to colour vision. I'm sure he'll have no problem. If Europe took a similar approach this thread would not exist. If you fail the Ishihara plates (and most people with CVD do), you can go on to take a lantern test. If you fail that you can get what's called a SODA, which certifies demonstrated ability. You stand on an airfield and they shine a couple of lights out of the tower at you... name the colours. One of the chaps on this forum did this exact thing and asked the FAA official if he had ever failed anyone, the answer was no.

[gsportcars]

ST-EX from doing plenty of research and reading through many many posts on this thread I would say that if you failed the lantern test then you will almost definately fail the anomaloscope as it is a much more difficult test. I would say that trying the other possibble lantern tests would be your best bet.

[ST-EX]

Thanks for your replies-I'm pretty sure, they told me over the phone and even put it in writing via email! I have no idea why they would stop doing it, but bottom line is I need to go to Spiez if I want to do the Spectrolux. Thanks for the info on the Nagel-I will leave that as a last resort. Anything's worth a try if there's a slight chance I can fly unrestricted.

[2close]

Nagel is more than the 'Last Chance Saloon' as if you fail any of the others you will definitely fail that.

There are numerous colour 'normal' people out there who fail to meet the JAA pass criterion for the Nagel.

[Overdrive]

Overdrive,
Do you know that there are now around 4 different lantern tests that are acceptable to the JAA? The Beyene arguably being the easiest to pass. It might be worth considering if you still want a Class 1.



Thanks for that Blinkz... but I won't be going the class 1 route in the UK now. I think things have changed a little, it was pre-JAA that I took the test at Gatwick. If there are more favourable lanterns to be tested on, and the result is accepted by the CAA from an outside testing body, then I would suggest anyone do that. If you failed at Gatwick, at the time I did, it was pretty much the end of the line.

I had the impression that I was "tested to destruction", as opposed to realistically. Taking a Holmes-Wright test at Aviation house is, to borrow from the previous post, the "Last Chance Saloon"....

[Overdrive]

CLSpringer1223 - your friend is lucky, he's in the USA. They have a decidedly sensible approach to colour vision. I'm sure he'll have no problem. If Europe took a similar approach this thread would not exist. If you fail the Ishihara plates (and most people with CVD do), you can go on to take a lantern test. If you fail that you can get what's called a SODA, which certifies demonstrated ability. You stand on an airfield and they shine a couple of lights out of the tower at you... name the colours. One of the chaps on this forum did this exact thing and asked the FAA official if he had ever failed anyone, the answer was no.

Myself and three other people I know all failed the Holmes-Wright at Gatwick, and subsequently passed the FAA colour vision test, without needing to do the demonstrated ability practical test. Its parameters are definitely more aligned with real-world vision, IMO.

[2close]

No lantern test is representative of real life situations.

I have yet to see a set of aircraft lights that look anything like lantern test lights, whether that be by day or at night. The same applies to approach lighting systems.

I have 'colour normal' students who have more difficulty in identifying approach lighting than I do but by virture of the fact that they are a better lab rat than I they get unrestricted medicals whereas I.......well, there we go! :mad:

As for the difference between the H-W and the Falant, the apertures on the Falant are larger and are viewed at 8' whereas the H-W's microscopic apertures are viewed at 6 metres.

Whenever will we get practical testing?

[TelBoy]

For all those who are interested in taking the Spectrolux like myself be warned that it is no longer available in Dubendorf and is now only available in Spiez in Switzerland.

I have just managed to contact them and their next available appointment is in August!! so don't make any hurried plans.

I have also contacted the City Uni to see if they could obtain the spectrolux again, as I'm sure that many of you would jump at the chance to take it in the UK. They have told me that it cost them over £6000 to get it for the trials they conducted and would not consider getting it again.

Is anyone interested in requesting the CAA to get one? Maybe if we all write to them they will get fed up replying that we can take their new CAD test when it is available:)

[davidd]

gsportscars > SODA is the only fair way forwards.
Easa will decide i imagine...
On your second comments I wonder given the number of people who almost pass or almost fail ishihara plates what would happen if you passed the ishihara for a class 2 then later in your flying career went to gatwick to do a class 1 and failed the ishi, would they make the Class 2 CP4! How can that happen I hear you ask, well lets not forget the ishihara book is now on at least its 38th edition, i wonder which one gatwick use, I bet most ame's copies are ancient, maybe they are easier, harder, all just adds to the crock of crap that is cp4

[colourblindgeek]

I think Telboy has a very valid point. If Dubendorf no longer do the test, then where has their Spectrolux machine gone? It certainly hasn't gone to Speiz because they both had one at the same time.

I'm happy to write to the CAA asking them to get/buy/steal/beg or borrow the ex-Dubendorf Spectrolux to Gatwick. At the end of the day it is a JAA approved test, so it is difficult not to feel penalized that the only one available in JAA land is in the depths of Switzerland with a waiting list 'till August.

I'll do it tonight!
Mark

[belowradar]

Waited 3 months and recently sat the Spectrolux at Spietz but unfortunately failed

I got quite different results from the tests that I did at City Uni and CAA

There are only 3 colours White Red And Green and the test is administered in a naturally lit room (not in the dark). The lights have different levels of brightness.

I did have some knowledge of the protocol but decided to play fair and see what happened.

I think that my only hope now is for JAA/ EASA to follow the FAA lead and liberalise the rules based on demonstrated real world ability.

Have FAA license and am enjoying my flying at present so not too fussed, but now FAA route is definitely my preferred route (and personally more rewarding and fun !). AME blabbed on about safety reasons for me not flying at night, glass cockpit colours etc, didn't have the heart to tell him that I fly glass and night without any problem in all weathers !!

My advice - Keep on flying and keep on pushing for more up to date rule changes.

If you go to Spietz you can fly from London City to Zurich and get a very nice train to Spietz (which is a very scenic place to stay a night). Definitely worth a punt.

Good luck;)

[TelBoy]

Witza,

Dubendorf no longer do the Spectrolux, you will now have to go to Spiez in Switzerland. Address below.

Augenpraxis Spiez
Thunstrasse 2
3700 Spiez
Switzerland
+41 33 654 70 20

They are VERY difficult to contact by phone - just keep trying and they ignore all emails. When I managed to contact them they did not have an appointment until August! I hope you have better luck.

[TelBoy]

zagno,

I see you are in the USA where colour (color for you:)) vision is not so strictley tested. I have an unrestricted FAA medical, but as yet have not passed the JAA standards and the reality is they will not get any better:(

The JAA class 1 medical is done in two stages. At first you will need to go to your country AMC, for us in the UK this can only be done by the CAA at Gatwick. This is your INITIAL medical and you do get colour vision tested. If you pass your initial then renewals can be done at an AME of which there are many worldwide. For renewals colour vision is NOT tested in JAA land.

The FAA have a different system with no initial and colour vision is tested at EVERY medical. If however you have a pass at the Tower Signal Test or Farnsworth Lantern you will get a letter of evidance from the FAA. You simply show this to the Doctor at your medical and they do not colour vision test you - kewel eh!

You mentioned emirates. They are only asking for an ICAO licence, so an FAA ticket is fine. However that airline have VERY strict entry requirements and might do a company medical which could cause problems.

As you are in the US, you really do not have many problems with CVD. If you have not already got an unrestricted medical, first try the lantern (farnsworth), the FAA do not know you have taken this test, so you can take it as many times as you like!! If you cannot pass that then apply to the FAA for a Tower Signal Test. If you fail that the first time, the FAA will allow a retest, but most pass - I did:). The US has some great flying to be had and CVD should not really bother you there, I only wish I had a green card (or is it a grey card!!).

All best to mate.

[Strobe lights]

Belowradar, first of all sorry to hear about not passing Spectrolux.
What kind of FAA licence and medical class you have?
Did you tell the doctor about it?
Were you diagnosed as moderate or severe deuto or protanomaly at City/CAA??

Good luck.
Strobe

[TelBoy]

Zango,

You still have a SODA for your medical. I have also passed the Tower Signal Test and I did originally have a SODA, but I lost it and when I saked for a replacment they sent me a letter of evidence. This letter just acts as the CV part of your medical, but is NOT attached to your medical in any way and is exactley the same as a pass at ishihara, so no problems with employers and SODA.

Not sure about employment in Middle East, but it seems most are happy with FAA ticket.

All the best and just shows what :mad: this CVD BS is in Europe.

[belowradar]

ZAGNO83

You have an unrestricted class 1 medical certificate

Most operators are happy with that for insurance purposes and won't ask for anything else

If they do have a problem then tell them that US Govt doesn't have an issue and go fly for someone else, only way that we will turnaround this nonsense.

sTROBELIGHTS - I planned not to tell him but he asked so I told him the situation i.e. Spectrolux not in UK but if passed then valid result and game on. Up to you what and how much you tell him but don't worry he was only concerned with wether I passed or not.

[Scottish.CPL]

Hi guys

well in our aviation world, colour vision requirements and pass standards really need attention.

I went to gatwick years ago, and was told that i was cp4 colour unsafe. well it turned out that i scored 13/15 ishihara plates, which i have been told by both an opticial and from the actual test itself that states that the test is considerd passed if the Subject can score 13 plates or more, ok. well JAA states 15/15?????, i also failed the lantern as the lights were so bl**y small and my eye are not like chuck yeagers, and the idiot that tests your eyesight is the most cheeky git becase he wrote an article o the way he tests you eyes and does not follow any of the proceedures like for the lantern, no demonstration lights nor dark adaption. ALLMOST LIKE HE WANTS YOU FAIL.

The armed forces will class you as cp2 colour normal for flying a fast jet, but the people who set the standards say that i cant fly anything commercial. I have a FAA CPL/IR under 300 TT, and a am getting really hacked off with how ever is setting the standards for eyesight, and hope that they sack them and employ someone with sense for when EASA makes its appearence.

For the amount of personal research i should be the one testing colour vision haha because i have become such an expert on this.

JAA was supposed to harmonise standards not make them worse.
Feel free to comment as the latter is all true and updated.

Cheers.:ok:

[Shunter]

The ridiculous thing is that whilst JAA specify 4 acceptable forms of CVD screening above Ishihara (administered to their butchered, ethic-slaughtering standards), there is not 1 single location, in any JAA state in which all 4 of these tests are present and correct in the same place. These stupid lanterns are about as easy to find as a limited-edition pink-vinyl 12" picture-disc of Agadoo signed by Alan Barton whilst he was on holiday in Skegness when the cloud cover was BKN026 and the wind was 370/10.

My case is a prime illustration of this bollocks. Failed Ishihara according to the CAA (Career Annihilation Authority) even though my 2 fails constituted a pass to everyone else with letters after their name. Failed both the lanterns at Gatwick (that mirror carry-on is the epitomy of stupidity). Being a stubborn little tuat I carted myself over to Zurich and, despite the last-chance-saloon, hyperventilation, clenching sphincter and knocking knees during the test passed the Spectrolux.

Getting a CP3 stamp doesn't make me a lot happier about it to be honest. It cost me a bloody fortune going here, there and everywhere in my quest. I was told categorically 15 years ago, aged 16, that I could never be a pilot, then as the years slowly passed the bull**** was gradually debunked and I got my PPL/IMC, then eventually night rating after passing the Speccy. Do I fly much at night? Do I hell, but that's not the point.

I've now long since passed the point in my life where I could feasibly pursue an airline career. I've got a mortgage to pay that simply isn't compatible with a RH seat job. The best I can hope for is some part-time instructing and being able to bend an IR to its limits whilst touring with the Mrs.

So, to conclude my Sunday-night rant (sponsored by the outstanding Le Riche Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2003):

1. The current testing regime is inaccurate, unreliable and discriminatory.
2. Are people going to sue the living daylights out of the regulatory authorities for their proposterously ill-conceived decades of stupidity? Almost certainly. Simply when, not if.
3. Will we get an apology for the diabolical treatment we have received because of our disabilities? Yeah right, but a nice thought. The word SAFETY will be rolled out on a huge carnival float in big, bright, flashing lights and everyone will cuddle up to the CAA knowing they did the right thing.

There, I feel better now.

[Overdrive]

...and the idiot that tests your eyesight is the most cheeky git becase he wrote an article o the way he tests you eyes and does not follow any of the proceedures like for the lantern, no demonstration lights nor dark adaption. ALLMOST LIKE HE WANTS YOU FAIL.




That sounds like the guy that tested me...

(Valpolicella)

[2close]

Here we go guys; new stuff in the CAA Medical Pages.

REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008

Points of note -

In definitions there does not appear a definition of 'Aerial Work' under which caveat some of us are instructing on restricted Class 1 medicals that prevent us from flying Public Transport aircraft (now known as Commercial Air Transport aircraft).

Instead we have in Article 3 a definition of:

‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator;

'Any operation of an aircraft' would, on the face of it, appear to cover flight instruction!

Then we have Annex III

4. Medical fitness

4.a. M e d i c a l c r i t e r i a

4.a.1. All pilots must periodically demonstrate medical fitness to satisfactorily execute their functions, taking into account the type of activity. Compliance must be shown by appropriate assessment based on aero-medical best
practice, taking into account the type of activity and the possible mental and physical degradation due to age.

Medical fitness, comprising physical and mental fitness, means not suffering from any disease or disability, which makes the pilot unable:

(i) to execute the tasks necessary to operate an aircraft; or

(ii) to perform assigned duties at any time; or

(iii) to perceive correctly his/her environment.

4.a.2. Where medical fitness cannot be fully demonstrated, mitigation measures that provide equivalent flight safety may be implemented.


That last one is VERY interesting. Now we need to see the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material documents. I've checked the EASA website and there isn't anything in there yet!

NOTE!! The Draft Implementing Rules will be published for consultation during 2008. Keep your eyes open for these and make sure you make your comments.

[2close]

Daniel,

These are contentious issues.

The first part of your question is easy. You are tested using the 24 plate version of the Ishihara Pseudo-Isochromatic plates, using Plate No. 1 as a demonstration (not considering dyslexia or illiteracy, the colour contrast is so great you can correctly identify it even suffering with mono-chromaticism). Thereafter, Plates Nos. 2 - 15 are used for screening.

The Ishihara instructions clearly state that up to 2 errors still constitutes a pass. Any more than 2 errors and the examinee has failed.

JARs and the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine clearly state that all tests should be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

JAA member states apply a NIL errors policy, in clear contradiction of the manufacturer's instructions and their own regulations.

Following a 'failure' on Ishihara you will be tested on the Beynes and Holmes-Wright Type A Lantern Tests.

What is interesting is that the UK CAA's own published document:

PAPER 2006/04
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew - Part 1
The Use of Colour Signals and the Assessment of Colour Vision Requirements in Aviation

Page 54 of this document refers to Ishihara Testing on 471 'normal subjects', out of whom 182 made either 1 or 2 errors but are still classified as 'colour normal'. That is a staggering 38.6% of subjects making up to 2 errors (and 45% of subjects making up to 6 errors) whom the CAA itself classisifies as normal. I wonder what criteria was applied to these subjects to classify them as 'normal'?

The second part of your question is also contentious.

JAR FCL 3.225 states that colour vision testing is only required at the Initial medical and once passed should only be retested at Revalidation or Renewal on clinicial grounds. So, no further testing is required.

Additionally, assuming you've jumped through the hoops to meet the requirements for unrestricted Class 2 medical certification do you need to be retested at your Class 1 medical? The answer could possibly be 'Yes' as this is an Initial medical for Class 1 certification. However, it could be equally argued that CVD is very rarely progressive and therefore, having passed the requirements once at Class 2 certification and not thereafter displaying clinical signs of degradation there is no requirement for further testing at Initial Class 1 certification.

These are EU regulations and therefore open to a degree of interpretation - it is up to the individual to challenge the situation should it arise and to trust it to an independent judicial process to make the decision whether the medical department has acted correctly.

HTH

2close

[davidd]

It is also a possibility that if Daniel were a Class 2 Holder and subsequently failed the Ishihara for his class one they may choose to effectively revoke the class two or stamp it CP4 !

[2close]

Daniel's profile says he hails from Venezuela so I'll make the assumption that he doesn't hold a JAA Class 2 but if he did why on earth would they revoke it?

I have held an unrestricted CAA Class 3 / JAA Class 2 / FAA Class 2 since 1992 and even though my aged, failing eyesight failed the lantern tests in 2005 (What coloured lights?? Oh, you mean that blurred mass over there!) no suggestion has ever been made that my Class 2 privileges would be revoked - in fact, exactly the opposite as they have confirmed in writing on more than one occasion that I hold unrestricted Class 2 and restricted Class 1 and since failing the Class 1 CVD tests have granted me a Night Qualification and Night Instructor privileges that I may use on my PPL.

So whilst I admit the system is crap and needs drastic re-evaluation and amendment I don't think that the CAA medical department always acts unreasonably......

..........just 95% of the time!! :E :E :E

[2close]

All Plates 1 - 15 will be tested at the Initial.

Pass that and that's the end of it - no more testing at Renewals.

[2close]

Daniel,

I will try to explain this to you but there is a certain degree of the 'unknown' involved.

There are NO deviations permitted on Class 1 medicals for colour vision deficiency (CVD) in JAA member states. The VCL (Daytime only) deviations is permitted only for Class 2 medicals to permit PPLs to fly by day only.

However, the UK CAA has overturned that JAA ruling and issues its own CVD deviations for Class 1 medicals, these being VCL (Daytime only) and NPT (No Public Transport).

At present, with a NPT/VCL restricted Class 1 medical you can hold a UK issued CPL which permits you to undertake daytime remunerated work, known as 'Aerial Work'. This includes Flight Instruction, Glider Towing, Banner Towing, Crop Spraying and Parachutist flying. You CANNOT fly commercial air transport aircraft carrying fare paying passengers or freight, not even a Cessna 150 from Wycombe to Blackbushe (not very far!) and you cannot undertake any Aerial Work at night.

This is only applicable in the UK and is not permitted in any other JAA member state.

Now for the crunch. In September 2009, EASA takes over FCL 3 Medical regulation and NO EASA member states will be able to opt out of any regulations set by EASA. They are EU law and that is that - end of argument. All medical issues have to be decided by an EASA Medical Sub-Committee and it is feared that the present concessions to UK CVD pilots will disappear with EASA. The UK has only one vote on that sub-committee, the same as all other countries which are all against CVD CPL holders.

The question has been asked of the CAA but regrettably the answer is very non-commital which, reading between the lines, is not very encouraging.

So, in a nutshell, at present you can do aerial work on a CAA issued CPL but in the UK only. After EASA takes over the chances are that the concession will go. It may stay but........:ugh:

[2close]

As far as the majority of EASA states would be concerned it would be business as usual. The only country affected is the UK.

Hence, the question has been posed at the CAA CMO, who is chair of the EASA medical sub-committee. The reply, paraphrased, is that "it is felt that the UK will be able to retain its discretion but this can't be guaranteed". I remain very sceptical at the reply.

But the UK will in all probability not be able to stand alone on this one, should all other member states decide to get rid of the UK's rights to issue Class 1's with deviations. The fact is that EASA regulations are EU law, applicable to ALL member states. Unlike EU Directives which provide requirements for EU member states which in turn make their own national legislation in the form of regulations based on the Directives, but which often interpret the Directives in their own way, EASA is an EU Higher Executive Authority which makes the actual regulations applicable across all EU member states.

It appears (not confirmed) from the recent EU Regulation 216/2008 that there will be no such thing as aerial work under EASA. There will be Commercial Air Transport and Private Transport (my phrases not the official ones). I sincerely hope that this will not be the case and await the consultation phase with baited breath so I can polish the soapbox and get my twopence worth in!!!

There is a group of us fighting this, which, for legal reasons I cannot go into on these pages, but the more support we can get the better.

2close

2close

[inverted123]

Hi Daniel, Yes Australia does accept CVD Pilots, I am Mild Deutan not passing the Ishihara test but sent to the college of optometry for a lantern test and arrangement tests and passed, I was given a unrestricted Class 1 medical through to ATPL. Good Luck :ok:

[2close]

And don't forget, for you guys young enough to still take advantage, the UK Royal Air Force now accepts CVDs onto its pilot training programme, and you can qualify as a 'winged' RAF pilot!!

Now that the military has moved the goalposts in such a dramatic fashion, maybe the civil air transport world will follow suit! :confused:

Don't hold your breath!!! The previous paragraphs were tinged with a hint of sarcasm.

What I really love is the wording of the disclaimer in the RAF's Minimum Visual Standards Document.


"The following are the minimum visual standards for acceptance for service in the Royal Air Force. These standards are subject to alteration without notice and no responsibility for consequences arising as a result of these changes can be accepted by the Ministry of Defence. The decision as to the individual’s fitness is the prerogative of the Medical Board which examines him/her.

CP2 = No errors are made using Ishihara plates in daylight or artificial light of equivalent quality. Tests carried out under normal tungsten of fluorescent lighting are not acceptable except where the ADLAKE lamp (or other easel lamp which provides daylight-equivalent illumination).

Pilot RAF - Minimum = CP2
"

Doesn't it make you laugh. You can just picture them all around the table down at Boss RAF's office in one of those Far Side style cartoons - "Look, he's going to be our boss soon and he wants to fly planes so maybe we'd best bend the rules....ok, ok, totally break them into millions of bits....and then we'll all get our pensions. Right then, whose fault is it? OK, we'll put a disclaimer in the standards and then it's the doc's fault.....sorry, doc! Nothing to do with the MOD, matey, you have a word with the Medics!! I love it (Mel Brooks style voice)"

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely chuffed for HRH and genuinely wish him all the best. I really wish they would let him fly operationally and get his front line experience, like his brother and uncle.

But let's face facts, there is more than just a smidging of hypocrisy here on the part of the MOD, err........sorry, the AMEs!! :rolleyes:

[danielm]

Hi!
I read in a post that you have an unrestricted class 1 certificate taking a lantern test; do you know the name of the test? how was it taken?
Thank you very much,
Daniel.

[2close]

Danielm from Argentina,

Any relation to our other Daniel from Venezuela? Is this a wah or are there millions of Daniels in South America?;)

In any case, Daniel(s), firstly you need to let us know which system you're looking at, JAA, FAA, Canada, Australia or wherever.

The reason for this is that different systems use different tests with very little, if any, cross cooperation across borders. There are those which look at the issue of CVD in a practical manner and there are others which are determined, come hell or high water, to maintain an academic (non-practical) approach.

So, a wee bit more information and we can bring you up to speed.

Cheers,

2close

[inverted123]

Yes Daniel the lantern was the "Farnsworth Lantern",hope this helps. Steve

[2close]

Hi troops,

I have seen quite a few NEW names on this thread recently.
(Oops, sorry, edited for moron typing!)

As it is possible that not everyone is aware of what's going on, there are moves afoot to issue legal proceedings in the UK and EU.

It is your decision whether you wish to join this growing group but I can guarantee you that doing nothing will simply allow the authorities to do what they like.

As Windforce points out, EASA's removal of the CVD priveleges for restricted Class 1 medicals has the potential to take the livelihoods away from a significant number of Flight Instructors who are working on UK issued restricted Class 1 medicals.

If you wish to be involved, please PM me and I will provide you with further details.

Cheers,

2close

[2close]

Windforce,

You can do the Nagel at City University and they'll give you an official reportt for £75.00, which I believe the CAA will accept. Mind you, the Nagel is probably the most difficult test to pass by far.

Well, it would be a bit rich if the CAA refused to accept a report from its own contracted research organisation!!

But, nothing would surprise me any more!!

Best of luck,

2close

[2close]

Are you serious? :ugh: :ugh:

the CAA told me also that they can't accept a test from cityuni as they are not AME

Do you by any chance have this in writing? If so, could you please contact me via PM to arrange to send me a copy. If not, could you please get it in writing.

The requirements of JAR FCL 3.215 (b) are simple:

(b) An ophthalmological examination [by an ophthalmologist or a vision care specialist acceptable to the AMS (All abnormal and doubtful cases shall be referred to an ophthalmologist acceptable to the AMS)] is required at the initial examination [ ]and shall include:......etc.

If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt your word, the authority is saying that the vision care EXPERTS at City University Applied Visual Research Centre, who just happened to carry out the research for the CAA's CAD project, are not acceptable to the CAA for the purposes of conducting the very same tests that they have based that research on. Interesting!

That being the case, the authority seems to be placing doubt on the credibility of the research project itself (apart from several flaws that may already appear to exist in the research - oh well, another question to add to the list for the NPA. Public money obviously well spent!:rolleyes:)

[2close]

Yes, the CAA Medical Department do read these pages. Indisputable fact. And they know exactly who I am.

The guy at the CAA is an Optometrist and studied at Cardiff University to gain his degree.

Whilst I am totally against the JAA's ridiculous, antiquated and irrelevant rules I don't see how we can criticise individuals for doing their job by applying those rules. It's not the people we need to fight, it's the system. However angry we feel, making personal comments at individuals will only serve to turn them against us and refuse to work with us.

In response to Audimatt, you're not reading anything about the fight any longer because the legal wheels are turning and only those who have joined the legal action are being informed as to progress. That's not because we are trying to be elitist or are dismissal of anyone not joining us but simply because we cannot discuss the legal points on a public forum and also keeping everyone in the loop who is not involved may be a breach of privacy.

There is no doubt that if we are successful everyone will find out what has happened. Regrettably, until then we cannot say anything so you'll have to "watch this space". Sorry.

2close

[2close]

You can join in with their reseach programme free of charge but if you want formal examination and a report it will set you back £ 75.00.

[airwolf1091]

Hi Windforce,

Do you know for sure if the test in switzerland will remove the restriction back here. I mean i would hate to see anybody spend ridiculous amounts of money like i did just for the CAA to turn around and say "sorry" we no longer accept this either..............
If so though it might be a life line to us all:)

Cheers

Airwolf1091

[Shunter]

If you are referring to the Spectrolux, yes they will. It is specified as one of 4 acceptable lanterns. They have to accept it.

I failed all the tests at Gatwick, went to Zurich, passed the Spectrolux. Faxed the results to the CAA and had a clean medical by return of post.

I've heard reports that the Aeromed Centre at Dubendorf where I went no longer have a Spectrolux which is a shame. There is another available at a different location, which is slightly less accessible. If you flick back a few pages you should find details of it.

[2close]

Hi troops,

Further to my post ref Regulation 216/2008 I have today received from the CAA a Trainingcom notice outlining the process for the introduction of the EASA Implementing Rules for the various parts of the new operational requirements.

Part - FCL and Part - Medical are due to go out for consultation at the end of May with the consultation phase due to close in mid-November.

If you visit the EASA website at EASA (http://www.easa.europa.eu) it provides details of how you can have your say.

Don't waste your chance.

2close

[AMEandPPL]

I have a colour vision problem

What type of problem ? Colour deficiency has to be further divided for certification purposes. At an initial SPL class 2 medical most AME's will simply issue the certificate with the "daytime, VFR, only" limitation on it.
But someone who cannot read through all the ISHIHARA plates can only be said to be "colour deficient". They need further testing ( with an approved lantern - plenty more about those in other PPrune threads ! ) to decide if they are SAFE or UNSAFE. If safe, then an unrestricted class 1 IS possible !

Colour deficiency is NOT amenable to any surgical correction whatsoever, though understandard visual acuities just might be.

FAA standards in the US are generally slightly more lenient than ours. Whether that is a good or bad thing from an air safety point of view is an ENTIRELY different subject . . . . . . ! !

[TelBoy]

§ 67.103 Eye.

Eye standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.
(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If age 50 or older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at both 16 inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses.
(c) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties.
(d) Normal fields of vision.
(e) No acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or adnexa that interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may reasonably be expected to progress to that degree, or that may reasonably be expected to be aggravated by flying.
(f) Bifoveal fixation and vergence-phoria relationship sufficient to prevent a break in fusion under conditions that may reasonably be expected to occur in performing airman duties. Tests for the factors named in this paragraph are not required except for persons found to have more than 1 prism diopter of hyperphoria, 6 prism diopters of esophoria, or 6 prism diopters of exophoria. If any of these values are exceeded, the Federal Air Surgeon may require the person to be examined by a qualified eye specialist to determine if there is bifoveal fixation and an adequate vergence-phoria relationship. However, if otherwise eligible, the person is issued a medical certificate pending the results of the examination.

As for the colour vision

You have more options than JAA land. The Farnsworth lantern would be worth taking, but if all else fails the FAA will authorise a Tower Signal Test. This is taken on an airfield with an FAA tower and if you can identify the colour signals at 1000 and again at 1500 yards they issue a letter of evidance

[brakpanner]

I am colour deficient, as i can get through SOME OF THE ISIHARA pages, i have not had a lantern test - (Think i may try that ) Do you know where i can have one done?

[brakpanner]

Thanks, Will i know there and then ? If i also fail the lantern test is there ANY other way to go about getting a class 1 ?

[AMEandPPL]

Will i know there and then ?

Yes, as far as I know the decision is pretty much instantaneous.

Failing lantern test is more of a problem. There is a huge thread about it on PPrune, with lots of other folks' ideas and experiences. Suggest you read through that one first.

Good luck !

[Phenom100]

Hi Bucks,

Congrats on the great news,

I found out last month that i too are in the club, but its one club i would rather not be a member of.

I have always had great vision but noticed back in Feb things were not quite right, I had my class 1 renewal in November and passed with flying colours, so they are degrading very quickly, is this normal?

I have just completed my ATPLS and about to start CPL, IR in the next month or so. I am very much so interested in the CR3 procedure you have had, is it approved by Gatwick? is their a period you can NOT fly after having the procedure? Any info you have would be greatly appreciated,

Where did you have the surgery?

[invertedspin10]

Do the CAA automatically fail you a class 1 becuase you have Kerataconus. surely every case is different and they look at the visual standards with/without correction. Does anyone have any first hand experience of being denied a medical because of Kerataconus?