Collective Colour Vision Thread 4

[Bad medicine]

Dear All,
As the last thread has now reached 1000 posts, I am going to start a new one. The site owners have said that these long threads are a significant problem for the system, and are slowing the rest of the site down. The previous thread will remain for posterity, but there will be no new posts on it.
Cheers,

[outofwhack]

I'd like to kick start this new thread by showing everybody the current restrictions imposed on colour vision defective (CVD) pilots by their respective countries aviation authorities. (The table is not quite complete and I suggest people from those countries not filled in make contact via this forum)

Table A: At What Levels Can a CVD Pilot Fly
http://arthurpape.com/CVDrestrictionsByCountry.png
from cvdpa

Note the immense freedom that Australians have where any CVD pilot can fly by day and night and reach first officer status in airlines. All this is achievable without passing any colour vision test. Pass any of the available colour vision tests and ATPL airline captaincy is then available. Pilots who fail the lab tests can choose to have a practical test - a tower light signal test of 6 lights (of red,green or white).

23 years ago Australia had the same super restrictive limitations as the rest of the world currently has but one man changed it all. His name is Dr. Arthur Pape an aviation medical examiner and commercial pilot. In 1989 he coordinated a court case lasting over 35 days which resulted in a decision that deuteropic/deuteranolamous defective colour vision is not a safety issue in aviation. Protans got left out but they are working on that. The costs were mostly self funded and many current Australian CVD airline pilots owe him dearly. Its very telling that these CVD pilots pass all their simulator check rides with identical performance to their colour normal peers. A more perfect test cannot be envisioned yet the results dont support the regulators expectations.

Dr. Arthur Pape has recently launched a world-wide campaign inviting all CVD individuals in all countries to unite. He asks for a small membership fee to access mountains of information. The membership fee goes to fund the legal procedures that will be required in each country to get you the freedoms he has attained in Australia.

I urge you to join the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA).
There has been enough talk and too many people have had their dream career denied to them by unjust regulations.

Its now time to do something about it. Arthur is leading the charge again but on a much bigger scale but he cant do it without your help. So wake up that enthusiasm for flying you had before the regulators squashed it and stand up - you are not unsafe! You are colour deficient, you are hopeless at naming colours but dont let them kid you that it affects safety in aviation.

Please join the CVDPA now and help cause change.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey all, i was checking the requirements out, and still no answer as to the CAD being approved my EASA, i have spoken to to dr or professors that were involved in the making of the cad, and they advised that the test is a clinical test, and not a practical test.. When i advised them that when i did the test, and was advised b the technician to guess the direct of the signal if i didn't see one, in other words i was questioning the 100% accuracy, they were taken back by this, and also the averaging if you scored within 7units, there is no mention of this anywhere that i can find regarding this.

[brissypilot]

Seeing as a new thread has been started, I thought it would be useful to include a link to the 1989 Australian court case to which outofwhack refers.

Re Hugh Jonathan Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84; 10 AAR 242 (7 April 1989) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1989/84.html)

There’s quite a lot of reading, but I highly recommend anyone with an interest takes the time to read and study it as it will give you a good appreciation of what was examined and the thoroughness of what was involved. Witnesses were called including vision experts and professors in optometry, ophthalmology and psychology as well as experienced airline pilots.

To quote a few pertinent paragraphs from the case:

“31. Signal lights are rarely used now because of the reliability of communication between air traffic control and pilots. They are used only where radio communication cannot be maintained. We consider that the possibility that a pilot with defective colour vision may not be able to identify signal lights is not a reason for prohibiting him from flying by night…”

"40. …We are satisfied that, because of the size and brightness of the VASIS lights, changes from one colour to another will be perceived by pilots with defective colour vision as changes both in colour and in intensity. Deutans will almost certainly perceive the red light as such and any other colour as something different. Protans will see the red light as having significantly decreased intensity compared with the other colours. So there is no significant risk of protan or deutan pilots maintaining the incorrect height during their approach to an aerodrome because of inability to make proper use of the VASIS.”

“44. Dr Samuel gave evidence that a person who had never had very precise colour vision was not going to be particularly reliant on the perception of colour. Consequently, such persons were less dependent on chromatic cues than those with normal colour vision. They might depend more on recognising shapes or changes in luminosity. He said that it was impossible to tell on the basis of clinical and laboratory tests what a person would do in the real world. He was unaware of any evidence published that protans or deutans had more difficulty passing flight tests than persons with normal colour vision. That appeared to indicate that, when they were tested on practical tasks, they had no difficulty in performing them and that their failure to pass colour-naming tests did not really have any correlation with how they could fly an aeroplane and perform the tasks required for doing so.”

"75. Having given consideration to all of the very considerable amount of evidence presented during these proceedings and with our knowledge of the evidence which was presented in the proceedings in Re Pape, we have come to the conclusion that a pilot who is a deutan does not, simply because of his defective colour vision, pose a significant and unacceptable risk to the public by flying an aircraft at all or at night or by flying an aircraft equipped with EFIS and EICAS instrumentation.”

"77. As the respondent has requested us to do so, we have stated our views inrelation to pilots who are protans. In summary, we are satisfied that, so far as the instrumentation of aircraft is concerned, a pilot who is a protan will not be at a significant disadvantage compared with a pilot with normal colour vision.”

"78. We recommend that suitable practical tests should be devised so that a protan can be tested individually…”

“79. Finally, while recognising that the Tribunal has no power to review decisions of the Authority to set medical standards under regulation 62, we suggest that protanomals ought not to be totally prevented, as they are at present, from meeting the colour vision standard.”

It's interesting to note that even in paragraph 31 above, that the tribunal agreed way back in 1989 that control tower signal gun lights were all but irrelevant in the modern age. Yet it's ironic, that even today in 2012, CASA are still using this as a"practical" test.

It also specifically mentions in paragraph 44 that laboratory tests (eg. CAD, farnsworth lantern test?) were found to be unreliable and beared no correleation to how a pilot would perform in the real world.

Even twenty three years later, ICAO’s own Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine states in section 11.8.29 “The problem with colour vision standards for pilots and air traffic controllers is that there is very little information which shows the real, practical implications of colour vision defects on aviation safety.”

The only “practical” way to assess a person’s CVD and its effect on aviation safety is to do so in an aircraft or simulator. This is already being done in Australia, with hundreds (if not thousands!) of CVD pilots now working at the highest levels of the industry including as airline captains. We pass our regular check rides to exactly the same standard as colour normals!

This would never have occurred if it wasn’t for Arthur Pape’s persistence and dedication to the cause. Through CVDPA, we can begin to coordinate legal challenges around the world so that others can enjoy the same freedoms as us in Australia. It can only be achieved though through us all uniting and showing our support.

[Scottish.CPL]

In a nut shell

You cant pass enough Ishishara Plates to qualify for a JAA unrestricted medical, the lanterns are ok, but they should be testing at high brightness and not at low brightness, third if you cant pass these, then a practice test, ie flight test, light gun signals.

CAA have spend how much on the CAD, and for what...... an arcade test,

by the way, they are saying that there are two types of cad testing a short screening test, and a long 15 minute test, does anyone have any info on this.

[outofwhack]

I believe the CAD test duration is variable depending on how bad your colour vision is.

.e. if you are not colour normal it presents further sequences to determine your type and severity.

I tried a CAD test when I was in the UK 2 years ago and it went for at least 40minutes and my eyes were extremely tired by the end of it - it was a marathon and no fun at all. Its just another colour vision test - nothing to do with the task of piloting an aircraft.

[Scottish.CPL]

my god, 40 min, to me that's not fair, they should have a set program for it, the longer you are exposed to that screen the faster the fatigue. but i still laugh that the promote it as 100% accurate and they tell you to guess a direction if unsure lol..

[Monty1977]

hi guys,

Two years ago I did an Ishihara 24 test and passed this test.
Now last week I took this Ishihara 24 test again (but at another AME) and I failed!

My question is: are there different Ishihare 24 tests, or are all Ishihara test identical?

Thanks!

[Scottish.CPL]

what happened, how many did you get wrong, was a light used??

[outofwhack]

Monty,

All Ishihara 24 plate tests are the same.

The pass/fail all depends on the pass criteria
i.e. how many mistakes are allowed.

I believe the makers of the test specify something like up to 5 mistakes as 'colour normal' and award a pass. Someone correct me.

However, the aviation authorities, in their wisdom, usually reduce that number.
UK CAA - zero mistakes = pass, otherwise fail.
AUS CASA - zero mistakes = pass, otherwise fail.
USA - I think a few mistakes are allowed. Someone correct me.

I suspect the truth is that 'colour normal' is not a specific thing but means 'within a tolerance'. I also suspect that the Ishihara plates can weed people out within that normal tolerance if the allowed number of passes is less than the makers allowed number of mistakes.

Its all bull**** - join the CVDPA.

[Scottish.CPL]

uk, nill errors
faa 7 errors or more fail,

the ishihara pass, in the normal world for 24 plates allows 13/15 for considered normal, as per instructions, there is a shorter version 14 plates, but from the same book, the person testing should present them in a random order to prevent memorizing

monty, did you have the plates presented in the box with a light source, or was it through a view finder, that is sometimes what the faa use, it only has 7-8 plates and no erros..

[2close]

I don't target you in particular. I target all individuals on this thread who waste their time talking about change but do nothing else about it. Study what one person achieved in Australia to allow all CVDs to fly professionally by day and night - and do the same in your own country - he is even offering his vast experience in briefing your countries lawyers! That's the kind of wake up message I bring you.

We have proof CVDs are safe pilots- 23 years of it!
I failed every test in UK and have been flying commercially in Australia for many years. Arthur is back and offering to resolve these CVD restrictions in every country but you have to do more than post on a forum to make it happen! Yes wake up! If I could I would give you all a good shake

I would like to correct OOW on previous comments.

In the UK, we DID go down the legal route a few years back.

I managed to get enough of us together to contribute some cash each to consult with legal counsel in London who specialises in cases of this nature.

Our solicitor arranged a telephone conference and myself and one other member of our group attended the London office in person and met with the Barrister.

The conclusion of our one hour meeting was a decision that we had a case for Judicial Review, and that there was justification for claims for damages against the UK CAA based on several areas including Disability Discrimination, Sex Discrimination and even Genetic Discrimination. The advice was that a Class Action should be brought by several plaintiffs, using one case as the lead and the others as joined actionees (that may not be the correct legal jargonese but you know what I mean).

We were also advised that the case was likely to cost anywhere between £60,000 - £ 100,000, maybe more, depending on the degree to which the action was contested, and that there was no guarantee of success.

This was a major stumbling block.

Added to this was the fact that the impending change from JAA to EASA was in the wind and no-one knew what was going to happen.

What we did know was that, if we had the financial resources and took on the UK CAA and won, which was highly unlikely in the time frame before EASA became the regulatory authority, that victory could be very short lived as EASA could simply introduce new legislation which would negate any prior decision of the UK Courts. This would mean starting again.

Also, in a letter received from a very senior person at the CAA, it was stated in no uncertain terms that they would defend their position vigorously and throw every available resource at it. In my opinion, this was nothing less than a muted bully-boy tactic, with the thinly veiled 'threat' of "We've got far more money than you so you can't beat us".

Therefore, even if we had the resources it made far more sense to wait until EASA took over, to avoid repetition of effort, and the project was shelved temporarily.

So, we have tried to take on the powers that be, head on. Some have even gone to the point of applying and gaining legal review under UK CAA legislation, which proved to be nothing less than an absolute whitewash with the case being heard by CAA Executive Directors, who can hardly be classed as impartial. The only argument that the UK CAA put forward against the Appellant in that case was the safety issue of landing large transport aircraft, using PAPI as landing guidance - citing the US FEDEX Tallahassee case as evidence. The Appellant's previous military history (RAF and Army CP3 - Colour Safe), Night Qualification and Night Instructor rating (from an unrestricted Class 2 medical), safe flight (Day & Night) record and the accident statistics obtained from the USA, Canada, Australia and UK were all dismissed out of hand. The CAA doctor present even went so far as to state that the accident statistics were incorrect, even though these were obtained directly from each relevant aviation authority or investigation branch and were presented without adjustment. That is the level of arrogance that you deal with over here.

The next step after that was the UK Courts with once again the costs involved.

Unfortunately, taking on these big players in the UK or EU Courts is hopeless unless you have very deep pockets.

Apart from that, they will not listen to any arguments, however reasonable. They are only interested in the sound of their own voices, however irrational.

So you see, we have tried to negotiate, we have tried appeals and we have consulted legal advice; unfortunately, with no positive results.

What is the next step?

Personally, I have no idea but I am open to serious, credible suggestions.

[brissypilot]

Unfortunately, taking on these big players in the UK or EU Courts is hopeless unless you have very deep pockets.

2close,

You are quite correct - this fight is almost impossible to win without very deep pockets. Personally, myself and three other very experienced Aussie pilots in the last six months have spent over $40,000 on legal costs. We are all protanopes working in airlines as First Officers, however are unable to obtain commands as our medicals are restricted only allowing us to exercise priveleges up to CPL level (and not to ATPL level). Apparently we're safe to fly from the RHS, but not from the LHS, despite the fact that we all pass exactly the same aircraft and simulator checks as Captains.

The authorities love putting forward arguments like the PAPI & the Tallahassee accident. They fail to recognise though that in this instance there were two other colour normal pilots on board who also were unaware that the aircraft was below the approach path. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the PAPI itself was a contributing factor, rather than the fault of any of the pilots. As a protanope, I fly PAPI's every day (& night...) without any issue whatsoever.

The good news is that our legal advice is very positive about our chances of winning, the bad news is that the costs are expected to be another $100,000!

Two years ago I did an Ishihara 24 test and passed this test.
Now last week I took this Ishihara 24 test again (but at another AME) and I failed!

Monty1977, Scottish.CPL,

Tests like the Isihara plate test or the CAD prove absolutely nothing aside from the fact that we suffer from CVD.... which we already know anyway! I don't know about you, but I've never opened up an Isihara booklet while I've been flying, nor have I ever seen anything that resembles a CAD. They are simply colour vision tests which have no relevance on our ability to fly an aircraft safely. While ever we continue to debate tests such as these, we are not dealing with the root issue...

Battling any authority, whether it's CASA, the FAA or the European authorities is not going to be an easy task. That's exactly why CVDPA was formed though so that we can all unite and face this monumental challenge together. With between 8-10% of all males suffering from CVD, there must be many thousands of pilots worldwide who are being discriminated against in some form or another. If just 500 hundred of those pilots contributed $1000 each, then we'd have raised $500k! Certainly enough to fund some significant legal challenges...

Let's start all working together through CVDPA so that we can begin this long journey and see these changes through!

[outofwhack]

2close - thanks for the info. I knew there had been some challenge but hadnt heard any detail of it - is Arthur pape familiar with your case? I know he would be very interested to hear the details (as would I).

brissy pilot - I donated $1000 a few weeks back (signed up for life) but frankly we dont need everyone to do donate that much. 5000 pilots at $120 (1 yr membership) each would generate $600k which would be sufficient. Everyone should join up for as long as they can.

The difficulty is in reaching all persons concerned. I think many of us cancel our plans and try to forget about the restrictions. I did. I am inspired by people like BrissyPilot who has got all the way to first officer on turbo props knowing the regulatory trouble that lies ahead. Its only because of Arthurs wins in court that BrissyPilot is allowed to fly at night. In every other country we cant fly at night so nobody would employ us.

Dr. Arthur Pape has launched this association to help unite us. With his reputation, medical standing and track record he's the best person to trust with the funds. I have met with Arthur and know that he is ready to support international challenges but they have to be done in the right way.

There is heaps of free information on the CVDPA website and everyone should take a read and subscribe (all subscriptions are added to the fighting fund). Once you are subscribed there are mountains of privileged information to be viewed as well as a private forum. The forum is getting busy. We have ozzy airline captains with CVD who cant get into foreign airlines and wannabees all contributing.

[Ww/W]

I got sick of reading these threads, thank god people have stopped telling each other how they've failed this test and will be driving to Hungary to take that test. As we know, the tests are nonsense. This is the first time I've been back in probably 18 months - 2 years. I'm glad to see a more organised approach to things!

I took the CAA CAD back in November, and it's utter horse sh*t. It's more relevant to playing Pac-Man than it is to flying an aircraft.

I've just written a letter to the CAA CMO asking them to explain exactly what duties I cannot safely perform in a cockpit environment. I closed the letter by saying that any failure to answer this question would amount to the CAA not actually having a clue. This failure would in turn lead me to question the Authorities right to pass judgement on my fitness.

2close, what was your basis for legal action? The fact that the rules are "unfair"?

Anyway, I'm back, so I'll try to keep abreast of whats going on here. I will be donating to the CVDPA as it's a brilliant resource. :D

[Scottish.CPL]

hey, well i hear you, and to contribute this, when i failed the plates at gatwick, i was told that my failure was based on a standard and not on practicle use, the medical officer was at that time the head of medical dept, i scored 13/15 on their plates which were faded, because i retook the test a university eye clinic and passed 15/15, but caa would not even concider this, the lantern was done and according to jaa med manual needs to be done at high brightness, and optometrist tested at low??? i found this out later, but when i tried to argue the case the new CMO, the idiot said that he contested this, OMG....

as you say , CAD is packman pimped up, again they say 100% accurace, my ars*

[pponte]

The only thing they have at the moment is money. It has been more that proved that they're applying an unfair policy. Let's get more people to subscribe and support cvdpa so that we raise enough money to bring this down.
Thank you all for your comments, we'll manage it together!

[outofwhack]

Has everyone seen the new advert banner for the CVDPA on pprune?

[brissypilot]

Has everyone seen the new advert banner for the CVDPA on pprune?

Looks great! For those that haven't seen the ad, it appears at the bottom of the screen periodically every few minutes. If it's not there, refresh your screen a few times and you should eventually see it.

Anyway, I'm back, so I'll try to keep abreast of whats going on here. I will be donating to the CVDPA as it's a brilliant resource. :D

Welcome back Ww/W! I definitely agree that it's great to see a more organised approach. Lets all do the same and throw our support behind CVDPA. Having personally spoken with Arthur Pape and seeing how hard he's working behind the scenes on a number of CVD issues, I know how extremely dedicated and committed he is to helping us all out, but he still needs more support to make it a reality!

[gothe]

Hi guys, i was researching on internet and randomly found this forum.I would like to ask you something about ishihara's versions.Because a very short span of time ago i went to doctor for a routine eye check and made few mistakes (4 or 5) but i know i m not colour blind or deficient because 2 years ago i did ishihara too and made only 1 mistake.I told that to doctor this situation and asked for the type of test.As I heard from doctor it was ishihara 38 plate.And I know that I was tested on 24 plate 2 years ago and made only 1 mistake. I was really suprised that why it had happened?Can anyone tell me what is the difference between 2 version?Arent the plates same in both 24 and 38?I mean arent the plates of 24 choosen from 38? By the way I m not a pilot or not trying to become.Thanks for the interests:)

[Scottish.CPL]

yes you are correct, the 38 plate edition is the full test, the first 15 plates are used from that version, so both versions are of the same test, in the' normal world if you can read at least 13 of 15 plates then you are classed as colour vision normal ie you can make 2 misreads or mistakes, unlike the world of aviation.

[gothe]

thanks for the reply ScottishCPL,you mean both (24 and 38)are exactly same including the same numbers,same plates? I still dont understand why I made mistakes on 38 edition even though I had passed the other version.

[outofwhack]

Guys,

Who has thought of joining the CVDPA but not done it yet?

We need your support. Things are happening! [and not just in Australia]

[dobbin1]

I have been browsing EASA Part Med. Sad, I know.

I notice that there is to be an easier test for CVD for the LAPL medical:-

"AMC15 MED.B.095 Colour vision
Applicants for a night rating should correctly identify 9 of the first 15 plates of the 24-plate edition of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates or should be colour safe."

Can someone explain to me why it is safe for an LAPL with mild CVD to fly at night, yet unsafe for a PPL or CPL with the same level of deficiency?

And since an EASA PPL/CPL has the LAPL privileges embedded, does this mean I could obtain a 9/15 pass on the Ishihara plates at my local AME and then get a night rating which can only be used when I am exercising LAPL privileges on my CPL?

[Arrowhead]

Under the JAA system, colour vision was not required to be retested on revalidation.

According to EASA, AMC1 MED B.075, "colour vision should be tested on clinical indication".

Can anyone tell me what this really means?

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Can anybody link me the new EASA normatives, please?
I have tried to find them in the last two days with no succesful results.

[Scottish.CPL]

the easa medical requirments have not been published, and the LAPL requirments are the same.. unless anyone can advise.. :ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

arrowhead, its only if you or the medical officer have any concerns about the state of your vision, for example if you go on a medication that causes possible visual issue, ie change of colour of the eye ball ie jaundice, then they might ask to retest to check no damage to the fovea, which contains your colour vision rods/cone. :ok: i hope that help abit

[long final]

Thanks Windforce,

Question I have is are we now operating under those documents (as of April) or as of 17th September??

[long final]

Thanks for the info, very useful.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey dobbin

Im suspecting that the reason for the 9/15 for ishihara is based on the following

The LAPL medical is done via an approved AME doctor, who just like the NPPL medical is declaring that you are fit and healthy and no pathology, ie the doctor is taking responsibility away from CAA/JAA, and therefore a person only meeting the 9/15 will get a night rating through the guidance of the GP.

the CAA/JAA will not recommend the pass of 9/15 and place the 15/15 pass becuase they are not willing to accept a colour deficient pilot to hold a class one medical, even in one scores 13/15 the pass on the test, they still will not allow it. :{

I suspect that this will be positive and negative, but on the 17 September, people holding a class on medical with VDL limitations will no long hold valid medicals,

hope this might be helpfull

[dobbin1]

Surely they cannot invalidate my recently renewed class one just because September 17 arrives!

I will be visiting the CAA on September 18th or soon thereafter, clutching my JAR (by then deemed to be EASA) Class 1 (with the CVD limitations on it, which are not allowed on an EASA class 1) and demanding to replace my JAR CPL with a lifetime EASA CPL.

Will they deny me my hard earned CPL and demote me to PPL? I suppose I will find out soon enough, but if it happens, I will not accept that injustice lightly.

The whole situation is laughable.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey dobbin1

the situation for most is that if they hold a class 1 with colour vision limitation, ie if you have failed all the colour vision tests, but where granted class 1 for flight instructor then ok, what im hearing is that easa class 1 are ok provided you are colour safe, but if you are not colour safe ie to jaa / caa standards :confused: then your class 1 could be reduced to class 2, don't take this as the gospel,

i have friends in this situation where they are concerned they will loose their cpl privileges to instruct, ie loss of lively hood,

[dobbin1]

Thanks for the update Windforce, albeit speculation.

I am actually in the fortunate position of holding a JAR CPL with no restrictions on it (they are all now on the medical) so it think I am in this situation:-
4) if your CPL states JAR-FCL1/2, (ie not a national UK) your licence is deemed to be an EASA licence even for CVDs, fact. I have also letters from the CAA confirming this - ie they will not downgrade or take away anything;


So hopefully I will receive a grandfathered CPL. I then assume that my next EASA medical will downgrade me to class 2, restricting my privileges to PPL. As you say, this is not the end of the world as paid instructing is now allowed under PPL privileges and I can still call myself a CPL, with the paperwork to prove it.
so no change or major loss of privileges there;

Can an EASA PPL (or CPL restricted to PPL privileges) instruct for the issue of a CPL? This pays a lot better than PPL instructing, so it is potentially a big factor.

It should be possible since there does not seem to be any requirement in CAP 804 to have a CPL to instruct for the CPL - the privilege to do that is built into the FI certificate :- "(d) a CPL in the appropriate aircraft category, provided that the FI has completed at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot on that aircraft category, including at least 200 hours of flight instruction;" However, this goes against the "normal" requirement to hold at least the licence you are instructing for. It would be strange for a PPL who has never done the CPL flight training or test to instruct for CPL issue.

CVD pilots with current JAA (restricted) class one and a JAA CPL will get an EASA CPL and could very likely get an unrestrcted EASA class one medical, thus allowing them to continue to work. This could happen either 'directly' - especially for very marginal deficient CVDs - or through a medical flight test.
I can't believe they will issue unrestricted Class one certificates to anyone who has failed the lantern tests and deemed as "colour unsafe". They have never showed any inclination to accept a practical test in lieu of the silly colour vision tests, despite the mountain of evidence from Australia and the USA that CVD pilots perform just as well as colour normal pilots in normal flying operations, sim tests etc.

I'll put my hat on the menu if they do:)

[champair79]

My Class 2 is coming up for renewal at the early part of next year (5 years have flown by!). I have no restrictions on it and have my night qualification. When I did my colour blindness test with the AME, he said I may be slightly colour deficient as I got 1 or 2 wrong or it took me a while to see the patterns. However, he was sure I wasn't colour UNSAFE - hence why he issued my class 2 with no restrictions.

Say I applied for my class 1 and failed the colour vision tests.....would they also take away my night qualification priviledges for my PPL which are based on my class 2 unrestricted?

I'd like to say I was confident of getting my class 1 - but reading these 'no tolerance' stories on here scares me a bit! :sad:

[johnobr]

Hi all,

Like Windforce says, join CVDPA and let's deal with the real issue - that the standards are nothing but discrimination & that CVD does not affect the 'safe performance of duties' as a pilot. I'm a protanope & have been able to enjoy a fulfilling career here in Australia at all levels day & night from GA instructing & charter through to airline flying. I can tell you from my own experience that the CVD standards have nothing to do with safety. We are currently mid-way through another court challenge here & our legal advice supports that fact.

Arthur (& indeed all members of CVDPA) want to help out overseas & mount further legal challenges so that everyone can enjoy the same freedoms as us Aussie's do. This can only be done though by everyone getting on board & supporting the cause.

We can keep talking forever, but at the end of the day we need to be united together so we can bring about action!

[Scottish.CPL]

champair79, thank you for sharing this, this bothers me and may also others,

you applied for a class 2 medical, you make errors on ishihara and you were given an unresitrcted medical, im sorry but thats not only not legal, but dangerous towards your AME,

'When I did my colour blindness test with the AME, he said I may be slightly colour deficient as I got 1 or 2 wrong or it took me a while to see the patterns. However, he was sure I wasn't colour UNSAFE - hence why he issued my class 2 with no restrictions'

your ame must restrict you if you cannot pass ishihara to JAA standards, your ame would need to submit to caa the results of your medical, and if he or she has placed inaccurate information, they may place themselves in danger of having their ame status questioned. :=

Im sorry for being blunt and to the point, but you can clearly see the points being made...

[champair79]

Scottish.CPL,

Maybe I should have made myself a bit clearer. I did pass the tests to JAA standards. I believe the JAA allow 1 or 2 erros in the 24 plate test? I was under the impression that the UK CAA were the ones who didn't allow any errors whatsoever? On all the plates I could see the patterns. Some of them I found harder than others but I still managed to get all the numbers/patterns in the end.

My point was not that should I have passed/failed my class 2 - but rather what would happen if I didn't pass the colour vision tests whilst undergoing examination for my class 1 medical. Would they then automatically remove my night qualification on my PPL? Sounds a ridiculous situation to be in but it got me wondering.

As for my AME, I just want to clarify that I believe he did nothing wrong. In my initial post, I made it sound like he just passed me regardless of my success with the plates - that certainly wasn't the case! He seemed confident that if I were to go for my class 1, I should be ok. It's just me that's panicking a bit with the CAA's zero tolerance approach!

[Scottish.CPL]

ah right, ok, lol

yeah it was the way it was read, thanks for clearing that up

[Scottish.CPL]

if you go to LGW and fail the plates, lantern, or the crappy CAD test then yes you will loose your night rating, and will not be given a class 1, remaining on your class 2 with restriction..

the issue is that the lighting for the plates are under constant review, because the lighting needs to be northern daylight, and it sometimes hard to simulate, so that's something to watch for.

[dobbin1]

....but he could fly at night on a LAPL, because that seems to only need a 9/15 pass. You could not make this stuff up!

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah that is very true, :ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

just a thought, as you will all know, the lanterns that are used, holmes-wright and so on, the JAA medical books states that the any lantern my be retested after 6 months, now i was denied this, reason, typical stupid one memorizing the sequence, well i have access to a university that has a holmes wright lantern, and was looking at a retest, i know LGW has the holmes, and the bynes lantern.....

any thoughts on this people

thanks

[Scottish.CPL]

would never want to see that cad test again, the lantern mabye, when i did the bayne im sure i passed it, but the un-named practitioner said i didn't, and when i did the lantern, he tested me at low brightness, and should have been at high,

The reason i don't want the cad, was that i got a letter from Gatwick when i challenged them, and there chief medical officer said that i could retest on the cad... but wait for this, that they would have to take the previous results and average them out, do a retest on cad is not a retest... :D

[Scottish.CPL]

yep got a letter advising me of this, one guy on here, did the cad, and got under 7units, but needed to do the test again to try and get a pass, during the retest he hit 5units and under 6 units, ie a pass, but because they said they needed to average this he still failed, needless to say he was not impressed, and i cannot find anything regard the procedures for the cad, and to be honest i was pi**sing myself laughing when they promote the cad as 100% accurate, how can that be when the technician to tested me , clearly stated, if you cannot detect a signal that have a guess, how the hell is that accurate.....

[outofwhack]

The third case, with the support of both the applicant and the CAA, was conducted as a comprehensive review of all the evidence pertaining to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard. By agreement, the evidence submitted in the earlier case on the role of colour coding of navigation lights was not repeated, but was transposed into the substance of this hearing. Between the two cases, the total number of days devoted to the submission of oral and written evidence was approximately forty. Not a single instance of the use of colour in civil aviation was ignored. The evidence was comprehensive and was subjected to intense and critical analysis. The Tribunal performed its function with meticulous impartiality and thoroughness. It performed what amounts to the most thorough and comprehensive examination of the issue ever conducted anywhere on the globe to that point in time and since.
*
The result was a resounding rejection of the proposition that defective colour perception poses any threat to the safety of air navigation
*
Summary
The evidence heard at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal was comprehensive and focused on detailed analysis of what pilots do and how they do it and what, if any, role colour played in the process. It was the first time in the history of aviation the „problem“ of the colour perception standard had been so meticulously put to independent scrutiny.

[brissypilot]

it would be very intersting to show the 3 cases not only within Australia but up to ICAO and EASA levels...

This in fact should've already been done by Australia's own CASA - from the CVDPA website:

"Of interest is the fact that on the final day of submissions, all parties agreed that the hearing had been thorough, unbiased and exhaustive. The Authority’s legal team indicated to the Chairman of the Tribunal that whatever the outcome, the Authority intended to promote the result on the international stage; such was their satisfaction with the encounter."

As we know, the appeal was successful and CVD's in Australia were declared safe... but guess what - the authorities have never promoted the outcome internationally as they promised they would.

It is has been left to the minority with people such as Arthur Pape who still twenty three years later are fighting to get our message out there on the international stage. Even today he continues to work hard and presents at various Aeromedical Conferences around the world and spends his spare time writing articles for aviation medicine journals. He deserves all of our support through CVDPA if we are to win this battle. The massive task ahead of us is too big for any one person - so join up and get involved and lets do this together!

[barne_as]

Ive been reading through this post for a while now, and am a little confused, maybe I missed something earlier on:

- Can you instruct PPL students without holding a CPL?,

I.e. A PPL holder, with FI qualification and class 2 medical can instruct and get paid?

[2close]

I have to correct you there Windforce (in the nicest way of course :ok:)

It is a very common misconception that 17th September is the date that EASA regulations come into force in the UK.

That is not the case.

EASA Part-FCL and EASA Part-MED are in place now and have been since the 8th April.

The ony thing postponed to 17th September is the issue of new EASA Part-FCL licences and the new VFR Night privileges.

CAP 804 has replaced LASORS, although it is without doubt the most atrociously written document ever to come out of Gatwick. You are better off referring to the EU Regulation and the Acceptable Means of Compliance documents than trying to navigate through CAP 804 which excels at filling you with unnecessary information whilst omitting the real need-to-know stuff.

Yes, under EU Regulation 1178/2011, Annex I, Sub-Part C, Section II, FCL.205.A, a PPL can be paid for flight instruction for the LAPL or PPL.

SECTION 2

Specific requirements for the PPL aeroplanes — PPL(A)

FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges

(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:

(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);

(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;

(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.



Back to the subject in hand:

Annex IV, Sub-Part B, Section , MED.B.075 states:

MED.B.075 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

(b) Examination

(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.

(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.

(c) In the case of Class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit. Applicants for a Class 1 medical certificate shall be referred to the licensing authority.

(d) In the case of Class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception of colours, his/her flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.

Part-MED AMC further clarifies this:

Class 1 Medical

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision

(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

(1) 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

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

NOWHERE does it state that the CAD is acceptable or that it may be used in lieu of the Anomaloscope, Spectrolux, Beynes or H-W. However, it does states that "Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by". The important word here is 'should' which in EU legal parlance simply means a recommendation - it is not absolute and alternatives may be considered. Therefore, if the extremely suspect CAD is acceptable then so should other tests.


Incidentally, out of curiosity I took an anomalscope at a different location to City University and was given different, far clearer instructions on what to do and passed it. However, in the same way that the CAA would not accept my H-W pass results from the UK military forces or Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital, the CAA will not accept anything not conducted by themselves or City University. It does not state that in the EU Regulations so I sense another legal challenge coming on!!

Also, folks, please stop referring to the JAA and JARs - it is misleading - so far as FCL and MED go it is dead, deceased, defunkt, it has shuffled off its mortal coil and gone to join the bleedin' choir invisibule!! :)

[2close]

The CAA's lanterns have not been serviced as they cannot find anyone able to do it.

The lamp in the Ishihara daylight simulating lamp had been used for about 20 years past its manufacturer recommended life. They put a new one in about 5 years back but that is probably still the same one.

The equipment is out of date and decrepit and not fit for purpose. A serious challenge in the civil courts would easily see them kicked into touch, however, it is the cost of fighting the case that makes it prohibitive.

The powers that be know this and play on it.

:mad:

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah i have been subject to dodgy equipment, the light is important in the ishihara, and the maintenance of the lanterns for sure, a dirty white can look green haha, ive seen that to, i also had a renewal at Gatwick for my faa, and struggled on a few plates cause they never had the light, and the optometrist never even said anything, go figure on that one..

[Scottish.CPL]

hey guys, well if the CAD is not approved does that not mean then that anyone that passed this, will now have there restriction back, i mean if i found out that someone had passed the cad and now the test is not approved, ie not valid i would be annoyed that people would be given colour safe status when they are not???

im waiting to the LAPL medical to become available after 17 September and go on from there..

[2close]

Hi Windforce,

It appears from correspondence received from a fellow training provider this morning that the information we were provided vis-a-vis the commencement date is incorrect and that you were correct in the first place, i.e Part FCL commences wef 17/09. I need to speak to my boss about this.

As for the Class 1 deviations, yes, I have now lost my Class 1 medical and CPL, my job, my livelihood and my family are now struggling to make ends meet, not that the CAA could care the slightest whatsoever, although I am selling body parts on e-bay if anyone is interested in a severely battered liver.

No, I haven't actually lost my job although I could very well have.

It is an absolute disgrace and certain individuals should be experiencing many sleepless nights as they hang their heads in shame.

:mad:

But I bet they sleep easy.....

[2close]

Yes, Windforce,

I held a JAA CPL, ME, IR, FI (inlcuding NIGHT and Instrument) and also a PPL with an UNRESTRICTED Class 2 medical, issued on the basis of an unrestricted CAA Class 3 medical having passed a Holmes-Wright lantern in 1992.

I now hold a PPL, IR & FI.

I also passed the H-W test for HM forces, both the RAF in 1977 and the Army in 1982. However, the RAF had lost the records and the Army documentation only states CP 3 without mentioning the test - saying that, the ONLY lantern acceptable to HM Forces is the H-W. Nevertheless the CAA refuses to accept anything that they haven't done themselves.

I also passed the Farnsworth for the FAA.

Great innit!!

:)

[outofwhack]

Hi Guys,

The 4 Australian airline first officers now have their date set for their appeal court hearing 'to let them use their ATPL and sit in the left seat'. Its set for mid October 2012. If we win this - the last remaining remnants of the aviation colour perception standard should be removed from the Australian regulations.

All countries can benefit from this! Think - A country devoid of ALL colour vision regulations flying airliners into your country! That will help your fight in your country!

Ofcourse, we already have Australian colour defective captains flying 747s and Airbusi into your country - the CVD pilots that can pass the tower signal light test - a test using real signal colours and not those with wavelengths on the lines of colour confusion on a CIE chart that ALL the clinical test use. This case fights for pilots that fail even the last ditch tower signal light test - because it is known that there have been no accidents caused by poor colour vision worldwide and, as examined by a protracted court case in 1989, that defective colour vision does not detract from the safety of civil aviation.

If you havent already - join the CVDPA (Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association). Your subscription is your donation to the fighting fund. The website is in two parts: The public side with some great info and the members side with private forum and access to heaps of interesting info, reports, letters etc.

Before the case starts browse the massive amount of information collected by and contributed to by Dr. Arthur Pape who won those cases in 1989 and is now active again in our fight.

I met with Arthur recently and he says he is, as ever, willing to advise groups and individuals in all countries but contact is preferred via the website.

It is very apparent that Arthur wont rest until the standard is removed - getting there has been his life's work. He still loves getting calls from pilots he has helped.

Right now he is preparing a presentation to an aviation conference in New Zealand next week. His travel is sponsored by a group of CVD pilots/parents. The press are going to be there too. There will be a video of the preso on the website once Arthur returns from his travels.

We are all in this together - too much money has been spent on stupid tests - legal is the only way that works.

Personally - I want the next battleground to be Europe (UK included) so I can come home (sigh).

[gijoe]

I am nothing but confused be this little lot of fun.

So my question is...is the CAD going to get heave-ho in Sep 12?

[Scottish.CPL]

well, i say it doesn't because its go no relevance to aviation vision physiology, and if they say its not approved, then i would say that the caa have been running a test, dare i say this but, illegally... you think of the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that have done cad, only to find they have received a night rating, or started a cpl, or frozen atpl course, only to find there medical to be revoked. just my personal view, people, but a to the point one...

[gijoe]

Well... I think I may just write a letter to the CAA to ask their opinion.

The response will be published here.

[Scottish.CPL]

i doubt they will tell you mate, could you imagine the panic and legal implication for that, but if you get a response, then please share lol..

[gijoe]

Will do.

I am one of the lucky ones = IMC, Night etc but fall foul of the new rules.

Oh how I will enjoy the watching the CAA squirm...

[dobbin1]

Will do.

I am one of the lucky ones = IMC, Night etc but fall foul of the new rules.

Oh how I will enjoy the watching the CAA squirm...

In what way do you fall foul?

[outofwhack]

:oh::confused::rolleyes:

[Scottish.CPL]

What's up mate ?

[outofwhack]

Just sad to see so many careers denied for an invalid reason - nothing changed in the last 30 years in Europe - hope European courts might provide a mechanism for us to turn things around.

[Scottish.CPL]

a question, ive just checked the caa website and under list of charges, they have two charges for cad test, on for

Colour Vision assessment – Full CAD Test 125.00
Colour Vision Screen (CAD) test only 41.00

right so whats the difference, the date for these charges was
(From 1
st
APRIL 2012)

I would kindly invite the optometrist from caa, as he will know the difference, because i payed the full fee, was told nothing about a screen test only..

i want answers to this one, and by the way the rumor im hearing is that cad is NOT easa approved and people that have passed may not be subject to grandfather rights, and the approved test will be lanterns...

I have emailed caa for answers for cad, and as usual no answer.

[pponte]

A serious challenge in the civil courts would easily see them kicked into touch, however, it is the cost of fighting the case that makes it prohibitive.

Hi there.
Given EASA is here to stay and it should be considered one entity for all countries who have joined, they should be based in only one country I suppose.
The question is how can we take them to court, should we use EU court or the country EASA is based in?

Thanks

I've just started my PPL, I've got a restricted class 2 in Europe and an unrestricted class I in Brazil.

[constellaton]

Hello everyone ,

I currently hold a Australian class 1 medical without any restrictions. I did a signal test years ago and was handed a unrestricted medical.

Recently I have been requested by an international airline to get a FAA medical. They specifically want me to do the OCVT and MFT.

I have contacted few doctors here in Sydney who are authorized to do a FAA medical but have no idea where i would be able to OCVT and MFT.

So I m wondering if anyone is able to advise if I would be able to take these tests in Australia or i am only able to do them in U.S.


And if someone can give me some
Information as to what is involved in these tests.

Thanks.

[Scottish.CPL]

ocvt is an occupation colour vision test, basically its a real world ability test to discriminate colour tasks, like reading maps and pointing out different areas like airspace that have colour rings, victor and jet airways.. also telling the difference of shades, ie the hight of hills in mountain areas

mft is the practicle flying element, telling the difference on an airspeed indication, random colour based questions, colour of taxi ways lights, runway and so forth,

i think this type of testing is what we need in europe, because its fair..

[outofwhack]

I agree with Scottish.CPL except for the last 4 words ..... "because it's fair".

IMHO the OCVT and MFT would be "fair" only if they tested whether we can perform the required task of safely flying an aircraft and do not ask us to name the colours. We don't always get that right.

After all - naming colours is not a task a pilot has to perform [except in medical tests].

Does anyone here actually think you need good colour vision to fly an airplane?

[Scottish.CPL]

I stand corrected haha,

[Bealzebub]

Does anyone here actually think you need good colour vision to fly an airplane?

Yes, I do.

[Scottish.CPL]

to fly a night, an airman must be able to distinguish colors used in aviation, for safe operation..

there is not one test available that can give an accurate conclusion, ishihara is based on fake color combined, the lanterns are ok, but issues over them being maintained, the cad is just a completely academic test, the anomalscope is a test designed to confuse normals into failing... and yes i can explain all of this?

[outofwhack]

Bealzebub,

Which particular aspect of flying do you say needs good colour vision?

[Scottish.CPL]

night flying needs good perception of colour, red and green plus white lights, i know that when flew at night in the US seeing and knowing if a aircraft will pass me from left or right, or if im behind is helpful, all navigation light have the same intensity so should not pose a problem, runway lights are dimmed at lower intensity just to save the light bulbs lol...

[Bealzebub]

outofwhack,

Just taking one example from my own experience of the last fortnight.

Taxiing out at a major international airport at night. Driving rain and a whole host of work in progress. The usual myriad of taxiway lighting, runway edge lighting, LVP lighting, works in progress, roadway lighting, vehicles and signage lighting. Straining to disguinguish the subtlety of aircraft tail lights of preceding aircraft in this visible spectrum. Difficult at the best of times, but hampered by the distortions of rain and spray.

Add to this mix, crossing active runways with the same impairments to the normal colour spectrum with other distractions (noisy wipers) ATC, visual lookouts for active runway traffic etc.

The subtlety of the colour spectrum is difficult enough under such conditions with the advantage of strong colour perception.

This example is without the aircraft ever leaving the ground (flying,) yet it is an integral and common part of the operation.

"flying" isn't simply VASI's, tower light guns and stop bars. It is the whole range of dynamics for which visual colour acuity plays an important part, and particular when conditions are less than ideal.

There are a great many posts on this thread that cry "foul" because the test lighting conditions were less than optimum or ideal. In this environment those conditions can be found almost every day in relative extremis.

As you spearhead a campaign, I doubt that my answer will carry much sway, but you asked and I answered.

[outofwhack]

Bealzebub,

Thanks for the detailed response. I assume you are a pilot.
QUESTION FOR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION: Imagine you approach an airport where every green light has been replaced with a white light? Same goes for green lights/displays in the cockpit - they are now white. No other colour is affected. What real effect does this have? Is it safe?

No need to consider wingtip lights because every pilot knows that flashing strobe beacons are seen way before wingtip lights can be seen and relative bearing changes indicate whether they will pass left or right of you.

[Bealzebub]

If you are asking: "Is degradation safe?" The answer is no! If you are asking: " Is temporary degradation safe enough?" Then the answer is maybe. More precisely is the compromise acceptable?

In your example:
Imagine you approach an airport where every green light has been replaced with a white light? Same goes for green lights/displays in the cockpit - they are now white. No other colour is affected. What real effect does this have? Is it safe?
The temporary degradation may be acceptable if other safety factors provide a compensatory element.

In the real world example I gave you, removing the safety discrimination of the green taxiway lighting and substituting it with white now gives you the same colour factor for the taxiway lighting, the runway lighting and the tail lights of the aircraft in front (whose rotating beacon and the safety colour you are now relying on) might not themselves be serviceable.

You could make the same argument for having two pilots. Is it safe to operate with just one? No! Is it an acceptable compromise to operate with one when the other becomes incapacitated? Yes. The compromise is acceptable (and indeed vital) under those conditions of degradation.

Visual acuity is an important tool. Is it acceptable to permit deviance from the highest standard? Obviously it is, since such deviances are commonplace with the standards set at correctable limits. Colour deficiencies do not appear to be correctable at this time, and it would therefore require a compromise to make such deficiencies acceptable. Some countries already do this, and many don't. Is that safe?

Those countries that have accepted the compromise think so. That neither compels other countries to follow suit, nor does it prove that a deviance from the standard is anything other than a compromise.

[outofwhack]

I am not asking if degradation is safe. Obviously it's less safe.

I am asking if removal of the colour green really makes any significant degradation at all.

You hit the nail on the head - degradation may be acceptable if other factors provide a compensatory element.

I believe that it makes such a tiny degradation that the affect on safety is negligible since there are so many other factors helping a pilot taxy at night like aircraft headlights and difference in texture between grass and pavement. I believe the reliance on colour is quite exaggerated - even your good self said you rely on the safety colour of the rotating beacon. I say it would not matter what colour was used.

I think that even a pilot with complete monochromacy 'vision like black and white Tv territory' would have no issue with avoiding rear-ending another aircraft on the taxiway. Do you really rely on the rotating beacon being red? If the red lens of the rotating beacon had fallen off could you mistake the taxying aircraft for something else and would you hit it? My own aircraft has a rotating red beacon and the lens is held on with a single bolt without a wire lock! Collision avoidance is not by recognition of colour it's by relative bearing - ask any pilot. Sure aviation uses lots of colours but in a very adhoc way.


Nobody really knows what another sees and many colour deficient pilots think they can see the colours. They are simply wrong. Any colour vision test shows that. Why do they think they can? Its because in the actual physical task of piloting they know they perform no differently than colour normal pilots. 99% of colour deficient pilots confuse white and green and have no problem recognizing red. I believe in modern aviation confusing white for green is not an issue.

Additionally there is simply no evidence that supports the idea that colour deficient pilots are unsafe.

Of course that's possibly because they have been eradicated to extinction in aviation by unjustly discriminative regulations. But not for pilots licensed in Australia where colour deficient pilots fly side by side with colour normals at all levels including international airline flying for the last 23 years. Yes! Colour deficient pilots fly 747s and A380s into Heathrow and elsewhere repeatedly and by day and night. Tell them they are unsafe!

More info at the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association website (CVDPA)

[Bealzebub]

Yes, the removal of the colour green would be a degradation. It is one colour that is widespread in aviation. For example if you fail the colour green on CRT tubes the resulting screen displays become much more difficult to read and require careful discrimination of the resulting colours hues and shades available. This is acceptable on a temporary basis, but not as a normalization of that deviance.

I think you misunderstood the point about the rotating beacon. I was making the point that it cannot be relied upon to override the ability to make subtle discrimination of the colours used when taxiing under the circumstances I described. You brought it up as an example, and my response was that it could not be relied upon as evidence to provide for a normalization of deviance in the circumstances you described. It might be fine for light aircraft at a rural airfield. Not necessarily the case for a large busy airport with poor weather conditions.

Additionally there is simply no evidence that supports the idea that colour deficient pilots are unsafe.

Of course that's possibly because they have been eradicated to extinction in aviation by unjustly discriminative regulations. But not for pilots licensed in Australia where colour deficient pilots fly side by side with colour normals at all levels including international airline flying for the last 23 years. Yes! Colour deficient pilots fly 747s and A380s into Heathrow and elsewhere repeatedly and by day and night. Tell them they are unsafe

The fundamental problem here is who is "unsafe?" If you ask car drivers the same question, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would tolerate such a notion, much less be told by somebody else that they are. Yet clearly many are. If a degradation is less safe (and we agree that it is,) then the question becomes what degree of degradation is acceptable, and in what circumstances?

Collision avoidance is not by recognition of colour it's by relative bearing - ask any pilot. Sure aviation uses lots of colours but in a very adhoc way.
Really? Collision where? Under what circumstances? Collisions on the ground may well be caused by the poor ability to discriminate lighting. In the air the relative bearing is determined by the use of colour. Colour and the subtlety thereof, is used as an aid in establishing glideslope and safety areas on the ground. There are so many examples that arguing the relative merits of them all, simply detracts from the question as to whether an inability to discriminate between them all, is an acceptable compromise in standards. That colours are used in "a very adhoc way" rather suggests the need for the maintenance of a high discriminatory ability in the user rather than a lower one.

If there is going to be a normalization of deviance, and there already is in so many respects, then there are clearly going to be compromises to whatever degree. Such compromises already exist. For example many authorities permit the use of hypertension medication. Many of those same authorities have no stipulations as to the combinations of crew taking such medications. Is it safe therefore to have both pilots operating with controlled circulatory deficiences? Many would argue, yes! Some would argue, no! Similarly some authorities will not permit it in pilots certified within their own jurisdication, even though such pilots may regularly operate into their airports.

Visual acuity in the colour spectrum is obviously necessary and desirable. Any upheld standard in the ability to discriminate between not only colour, but the subtlety of colour, is in my experience essential. I can therefore see why there is a standard set at the level that it is. If an authority chooses to relax the standard (for example, for one pilot on a two man crew,) then the degradation becomes the acceptable standard by way of compromise.

There are many other examples of countries with different standards (including standards of safety) that have pilots "flying 747's and A380's into Heathrow and elsewhere." There are examples of countries with higher standards. However that simply relects the compromise that any one authority is prepared to allow within the scope available to them.

Different countries, and in turn different authorities, set different standards in so many areas. Some will permit no deviance from the highest standards. Is that wrong? Perhaps in the eyes of those cannot meet those standards. Is it discriminatory? Yes, it is intended to be. However the discrimination is used to ensure the standard is met at the level required.

You hit the nail on the head - degradation may be acceptable if other factors provide a compensatory element. However, there may not always be those compensatory factors, and should such a degradation be acceptable on a permanent basis rather than a temporary one?

[Scottish.CPL]

This is one hell of a conversation lol !

[outofwhack]

One can say there are two types of discrimination. 'Just' and 'unjust'.

An example of just discrimination is stopping a person with a serious cardiac problem from being in command of a fast vehicle carrying other people if they could drop dead at any time and therefore cause injury to others.

An example of unjust discrimination is denying a person an entire career path based on a load of assumptions about what they can and can't see when they can prove repeatedly to their peers that they can perform the task as capably as any other person and further, there is zero evidence of their condition ever causing an accident or incident ever! Other suitable examples of unjust discrimination that come to mind would be racism and sexism.

If someone with a disability can perform all the required tasks as well as someone without the disability they should not be barred from doing it!

[brissypilot]

Hi Bealzebub,

I think we all agree that no one wants to see a degradation in safety. The issue that I've got is that none of the aviation colour vision tests actually test whether we can safely perform our duties as pilots. All the tests throughout the world are basically colour naming tests which are designed to be difficult for colour defectives to pass. Most of the tests are conducted in laboratories and are not reflective of the environments that pilots operate in.

Visual perception is a hugely complex area and a decision on whether a pilot can operate safely needs to be based on evidence. Aviation authorities throughout the world assume that because we can't name a colour that makes us unsafe. These decisions are typically made by beaurocrats who have normal colour vision and have no idea what us colour defectives see or how we've learnt to adapt throughout our entire lives.

I fly for an airline in Australia and regularly fly into busy international airports at night and often with weather conditions such as those you describe. I do operate EFIS equipped aircraft. I do fly approaches using PAPI. I am regularly assessed in both the simulator and on line checks in the aircraft itself and have always passed without any issues whatsoever (and have done so over my last 15 years of flying experience). However, when it comes to colour vision tests, I fail them miserably!

There are many other examples of professional pilots just like me in Australia. Therefore the link between an individual's ability to name colours and being able to fly complex aircraft in complex environments is tenuous at best. The fact that I can have a rewarding airline career here in Australia, yet if I was to go to Europe or even across the Tasman to New Zealand and would be restricted from even flying a C172 at night surely highlights that there is a major problem with the standards and the assumptions on which they are based.

The reality is that there is simply no evidence to prove that we are any less safe than our colour normal peers. As outofwhack points out, it is nothing more than 'unjust' discrimination.

[outofwhack]

BP that's great evidence!

BTW today Dr. Arthur Pape of the CVDPA is presenting a paper to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) conference in Melbourne about the 3 Australian CVD (protanope) airline pilots and the final Australian AAT court case set to start mid October to eradicate the last vestiges of unjust discrimination left in our system that still hinders the protanopes.


"2012 ICASM Congress | 60th International Congress of Aviation & Space Medicine"

[Scottish.CPL]

well ive just checked the caa website and they have now got the Lapl requirements on, and more important the colour vision requirments, 9/15 plates.. for the time being it is a good impact, I will be applying for lapl and for a night raing, its rather funny that the medical form is more or less identical to the FAA form. Caa have also placed the instructions for all the colour vsion testing processes..

I also found out that the caa are charging to two fee's for the cad test, one for a screen only test, and the full fee for full testing, i asked caa what this was for, and the screen is a 30 second test on several targets on the critical scale, if one fails to achieve the pass score, then the full cad is done,

I was not given this will be asking them to retest me, personally i dont want to go back to lgw, as the times i have been regarding colour vision, always has a negative, and city university is a pain on the traveling as well, but we will see..:rolleyes:

[dobbin1]

How can it make any sense that a LAPL is safe to fly at night with a 9/15 pass while a PPL or CPL is unsafe at the same standard? You could not make this up:ugh:

LAPL privileges are embedded in the PPL and CPL. So if I go to an AME and scrape a 9/15 pass on the plates I can do a night rating, but only use it within the LAPL privileges. Doh!

[Scottish.CPL]

ano mate, but its better that nothing at the moment :rolleyes:, have you taken the cad test? just out on curiosity dobbin1..

the caa have also amended the vfr night regulations, i bet you that whats happening is that now lapl has reduced cp standards, caa or easa are preparing for an increase in night ratings, the standards for the vrf at night is the same as the icao, ie like the faa, also the medical form for gp's is the same format as faa form,

cp standards for the faa and lapl are getting closer, lapl is still stricter at 9 plates but faa is still 7 or more errors on the 24 plate, did you happen to see my last message regarding cad?

[dobbin1]

I have not yet taken the CAD. I was under the impression that it was not approved for EASA anyway.

I failed 13 out of 15 plates at Gatwick so I think even LAPL night flying is out for me.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi, yeah the cad is still valid for now, maybe work taking it a city first, or gatwick direct, i know that gatwick don't do the lanterns now..

when you say you fail the plates, do you mis-read the plates, or dont see anything?

in my experience the plates at gatwick are faded, cause ive taken then at local opticians, and at university clinic and passed, as the plates were nice and bright?

[dobbin1]

I went to the CAA today and converted my JAR CPL into an EASA CPL, using my restricted JAR class 1 medical. So now I have an EASA CPL, at least until my JAR medical runs out.

When it does I will not be able to get an EASA class 1, because the EASA rules prohibit the addition of the CVD restrictions to a class 1. This means that my CPL will revert to PPL privileges. I can continue to instruct for PPL and LAPL, but I will not be able to instruct for CPL. Not a big deal to me personally, because I don't have ambitions in that direction - however it could be a blow to someone like me hoping to move up the instructor ladder to the more lucrative CPL instruction rung.

[Scottish.CPL]

Hi mate, well thanks for advising this, I got some info from CAA regarding certain things. First one was the two charges for CAD, aparently the Cad has to levels, the first is ascreening test which is 41 pounds, and this is the equivelant of the ishihara plates, a sinple screen, supposed to test us on a 30 second screen with a series of primary targets that concentrate of the hardest areas of the colour levels, well i never got this and politly asked for concideration for retest..

I still think there will be more changes needed,

[brissypilot]

Hi all,

Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.

The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."

Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia

It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.

The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.

[ausdoc]

I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).

Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.

There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.

It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).

[brissypilot]

Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited.

Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.

I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.

I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.

I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?

[outofwhack]

but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies)

As a professional engineer [and professional pilot], I would deduce that zero evidence of error in over 15000 flight hours of 3 pilots would provide ample 'scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance' to support the premise that reliable colour discrimination is not required in the task of piloting an aircraft.

Further, those with protanopia, like these 3 pilots, are supposed to have more severe colour deficiency than the vast majority of colour deficient pilots.
I think some aviation doctors and regulators alike are too scared to listen to logic and historical evidence that colour deficient pilots pose no increased risk to aviation safety.

Road transport authorities world-wide gave up banning colour deficient drivers long ago. Why? - because the evidence shows they are able to perform the task of driving as safely as a colour normal.

[Arthur Pape]

Hi folks,
It is a challenging task to make a point that has relevance in just ten minutes. I think the essential matter is that pilots perform their duties safely by assimilating and responding to vast amounts of complex information. It can be demonstrated that the addition of colour to the displays of that information is totally redundant in all instances. In my slides I showed several instrument panels which include colour, and the point I made was that the three pilots that were the subject of the talk had demonstrated repeatedly throughout their careers that they were able to access that information reliably and repeatedly without necessarily having the ability to name the colours present in the display. This is a different proposition from one where they might fail to detect the various zones represented by the different colours, for instance in a weather radar display. It is the information that is important, and that determines behaviour, not the naming of colours. Further, the task of making the judgment that a particular pilot does or does not display the skills and knowledge required to fly safely falls most appropriately in the lap of flying instructors and examiners, not in the office of medicos or optometrists.
Finally, though case presentations involving only three pilots does not constitute conclusive evidence, we have now built a sizable population of colour defective pilots who have no operational restrictions whatsoever, and the size of that population is now assuming a statistically significant group from which valid evidence can be deduced. As Ausdoc may or may not know, there are now other threads out there discussing this matter, and I am heartened by the shift in thinking that is being expressed among aeromedical people on this topic. It is ultimately going to be decided by the courts, and nowhere moreso than in Australia, where our legal system offers independent judicial review. It is going to be ALL ABOUT EVIDENCE, nothing more, nothing less.

[2close]

If we are going to start discussing statistics, remember that a certain European authority unilaterally implemented a new Colour Vision test (and still uses it, despite it not being approved by EASA), from a very small sample study of persons and without any formal clinical testing or safety studies.

Having discussed it with persons involved in full-time medical research studies I feel assured that a sample of the size used would not be acceptable for mainstream medicine and the thought of implementing a medical procedure that was not first subjected to any form of clinical testing or safety risk assessment is absurd.

Then again, there is always the 'God complex'. :=

[2close]

Has anyone informed EASA about this?

The CAD test is not approved and its use for EASA medicals ...... is just in contravention of MED.B.75.C



;) I say again.........."Then again, there is always the 'God complex'.:="

[Scottish.CPL]

for 2close, and windforce,

can you update me, i noticed that there was a caption saying that the cad test is not approved by easa and yet its on the vision requirements for medicals, whats going on...

[dobbin1]

As far as I can work out, the EASA "acceptable means of compliance" for Part Med are listed here:-
http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-015-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20on%20the%20medical%20certification%20of%20p ilots%20and%20medical%20fitness%20of%20cabin%20crew.pdf

No mention of the CAD test anywhere, from which I would deduce that the CAD is not an acceptable means of compliance. No idea what the CAA plan to do.

[ausdoc]

I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test.

[gijoe]

The Tower Gun Test is probably of more worth than the CAD.

The CAD gives you a number readout whereas the light signal may, may, just happen.

[Scottish.CPL]

guys, see if you visit the CAA website, go to medical, there is a new guidance form, and it does show and state the CAD test is used as advanced testing,

I also find it funny that cabin crew need to demonstrate colour safe, same requirments for passing LAPL....

[pponte]

I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test.

Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.

I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.

By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.

We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.

Happy to go to court.. Are you?

[ausdoc]

Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?

You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?

[pponte]

How about playing the ball, not the man

Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize fro targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.

This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base.

[Rasco]

If one would pass the anomaloscope at City Uni. Would that result be valid for a JAR class 1 medical?

[Arthur Pape]

It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.

If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers

[Scottish.CPL]

rasco, yeah provided your score is 4 scale units or less.

[pponte]

If one would pass the anomaloscope at City Uni. Would that result be valid for a JAR class 1 medical?
Rasco, the citi uni is not recognized by CAA as I'm aware. It wasn't for me at least. I had to go to Barcelona to do the "official" one which cost me 800 euros.

Although you might want to remove your restriction, please join CVDPA to remove this nonsense exams for everyone as Arthur mentioned.
It's just another exam, I've tried them all and it only makes us waste time and money loosing our focus on the main thing - work together to change what is known to be wrong.

[Scottish.CPL]

rasco, anomalscope results are valid from any vaild professional body, as easa advises on the website, as long as anomalscope results show a results of 4 scale units or less then you are fine..

[dobbin1]

Why keep talking about these tests?
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.

If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.

Agree entirely with all of this, but surely you mean "green herring":)

[ILS 26R]

Will a pilot with color deficiency will have a problem to fly glass cockpit aircraft.

Thank you

[outofwhack]

ILS How do you know?

[brissypilot]

A pilot with color deficiency will have a problem to fly glass cockpit aircraft.

ILS26R,

I'd like to know your facts to support this statement?

I've got over 5000 hours including many of those spent on EFIS equipped aircraft with no problems whatsoever. There are many other colour defective airline pilots in Australia too with even greater experience levels than myself.

Once again, people assume that colour defectives will have a problem, without any evidence to support it!

[2close]

I think ILS 26R may be asking a question and not making a statement.

I suspect English may not be his/her first language but the question would seem to be whether CVD would have a problem with EFIS displays, the obvious answer to which is 'absolutely not', otherwise the authorities would have to stop CVD pilots flying at all in case they (heaven forbid) find themelves in charge of an aircraft with a G1000 (or similar).

It is a known fact that CVD persons are often better at discriminating subtle changes in colour in a mash of colours than colour normal persons, one I can attest to, having proven it on many occasions.

The issue with CVD tests is their fitness for purpose not the fact that they identify persons with CVD. What should be on test is how the individual's CVD affects his ability to operate a modern aircraft?

The test needs to be specific-to-task and not a simple 'catch and ban' all and sundry.

In this day of advanced, state-of-the-art simulation (and I operate a very advanced 737-800 sim with zero problems) with their high-end graphics, both on the ground and in the air, there is no excuse for not being able to devise a thorough practical CVD test, which could test all aspects of aircraft operation, including taxiing in severe inclement weather through flashing multi-coloured lights.

On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority.

As well as this, over the years I have personally come across many CVD pilots who, through one way or another, have slipped through the net, one of which I know was a RAF Tornado pilot/instructor and another had >15,000 hours on Airbus aircraft on a JAA licence for European operators, much of which was at night. Funnily enough, their aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky or landed on the taxiway at night.

It is a shame that an amnesty for CVD pilots flying for EU airlines could not be brought about with a guarantee of no loss of licence, in order that the authorities could see the prevalence of people who had beaten the test (and it is not difficult) so they could see how little effect it has on actual aircraft operation.

And in anticipation of the comment "yeah, but what about when such and such happens?"..... in response, how about when ATC orders an expedited climb and your FO forgets how to change altitude when you're in the toilet.....or when you forget your spare spectacles and accidentally break your only pair in flight. We cannot cater for every single eventuality, which is why we have risk factors, parameters and tolerances. With the current CVD issue, a probability of failure in excess of acceptable tolerances is being assumed with absolutely no empirical data to substantiate that assumption. Why? Also, stop making the argument against CVD fit the assumed bias - provide evidence. What seems to happen is that, whenever the anti-CVD lobby starts losing a part of their argument they introduce something else to fit the test.

There are wheelchair users flying as commercial pilots and good luck to them - they should be permitted to do so - but when it comes to certain conditions, the authorities are stuck in their ways because that's the way it has always been. :ugh:

I am also fed up with this comment "Why should we reduce our standards to the lowest common denominator?" when it is mentioned that other countries (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada) have far relaxed CVD requirements and their pilots aren't regularly involved in colour related accidents. If that is your argument, then let's mandate that all drivers in the UK be 'Advanced Driver' standard -why should Advanced Drivers accept that other drivers should be of a lower standard? I would wager a good sum of cash that making 'Advanced Driver' the minimum standard for motorways and A class roads, accompanied by biennial testing, would significantly reduce accident statistics. But that would mean introducing legislation on the basis of assumption, which is wrong.

Back to the forum................

:)

[dobbin1]

EASA have published this comment response document about the proposed en-route and modular Instrument Ratings:-
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135

Buried inside is this:-12. The Agency received a reasonable number of comments proposing the review of FCL.610 ‘IR — Prerequisites and crediting’ in order to solve the issue of pilots not being able to obtain a night rating (i.e. due to non-compliance with the colour vision requirements in Part-MED) but wishing to attain the EIR or IR. This issue was further evaluated together with the Review Group. Based on these discussions and the fact that ICAO SARPs do not require a night rating as a prerequisite for the IR, the Agency decided to keep the proposed route to allow a day-EIR without any link to the night rating but to also allow EIR operations by night if the required night rating is held. As a logical consequence of this decision the text in FCL.610(a)(1)(i) for the IR was also amended in order to clarify that a night rating according to FCL.810 is only required if the privileges of the IR will be exercised at night. However, it should be highlighted that current medical requirements for IFR flying in Part-MED will be reviewed in order to verify the impact on medical issues related to this decision.

This is good news I think, although the TK requirements for either of these qualifications remain onerus and are likley to deter all but the most dedicated of PPLs. The UK IMCr (or IR(R) as it is known under EASA) is more attainable and has never required a night qualification. We should continue to lobby for it to be issued after the current cut off date in 2014.

[outofwhack]

So, in a nutshell ....

Pilots with a colour deficiency are not allowed a night rating.
Pilots with a colour deficiency need a night rating to use their IR at night.

Obviously there must be a new meaning to the word 'clarify' that I am not aware of.

[dobbin1]

...at least you may soon be able to get an IR and use it for day flights only.

[Arthur Pape]

2Close made some good points on 24 Oct 2012. I agree with practically every statement, but I am intrigued by the reference to a review proceeding:
"On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority."

Would 2 close be happy to share more details of this review with me privately (or publicly) whatever suits.

The reason is that such procedures need to be scrutinized and exposed whenever possible.
my email is [email protected]

[Scottish.CPL]

hey guys,

I wanted to ask this question, mostly for constructive advise and to advise as well.

I mentioned in a threat that the CAA were charging to fee's for the CAD test! i could not understant why, i spoke to Gatwick and the optometrist, and he advised me that there is two versions of the test, at to difference costs..

the first cost of £ 42 is a short 30 second to 1 min presentation, that tests you on primary targets that the test would task as being l signals, both in strength and brightness, i asked why i was not offered this, and i was not given a specific answer, now the 142 that i paid for was the full 15 min test, which i found long, fatiguing and to be honest sitting for 15 min looking at a tv screen was not a good experience, so i have been offered a retake, another thing is that the result for me was 7.44 r/g.. and according to the technician any result within 6 and 7 could be taken again and averaged out, but that score i got should not be used as it not within retake scale anyway..

also the optometrist, who i advised that the test was being promoted as 100 % accurate, and when i challenged him, he said that in order for the test to continue i would need to guess the signal direction and i could be fortunate to get the correct answer!!!!

should i take this bloody thing again, and to to city rather than caa again!!!

[2close]

In response to Dr Pape's request for further information on the appeal hearing I would be more than happy to share the details with him, which I shall furnish directly via e-mail.

I shall then discuss with him what we can (or should) make public.

:)

[Arthur Pape]

Thanks "2Close". I would appreciate your sending me that on my home email, which is [email protected]

[rohit945]

Hey Guys,

After 4 years of dejection and spending over USD70k on flight training, I finally found this post which has surely instilled some confidence back in me.

I have been a target of CVD in India and it has been very difficult for me to convince the DGCA (Director General of Civil Aviation) and DGMS (Director General of Medical Services) that I am perfectly fit to fly as per FAA Class 1 Medicals.

I failed the DGCA Class 1 medicals in 2007 and then appealed against the decision citing successful completion of flight training from USA, provided I prove to them that there is no defect from the All India Institute of Medical sciences, AIIMS (which is considered to be the top Govt medical facility in the country), and by gods grace I managed to pass the test and also take an expert opinion from an eye doctor in Mumbai who told me that I have a mild color blindness but he didn't see any major issue as I only missed out on 2 plates and also passed the lantern test without any trouble. After submitting the above reports I was given an appeal at Airforce station Bangalore where I was put through Ishihara and Latern test both in visually dim rooms and the latern test was conducted under dark room conditions at a distance of over 10 feet and the frequency of switching colors was after every second and I was expected to give the right answer without delay, which found dumb.. I was put through white green and red color identification test and the judgement was passed within 10 seconds that I am permanently color blind.

Since we are given only one appeal and the appeal I got was stamped permanently unfit due to CVD my career as a pilot ended there. However I am confident that I have no such problem and can carry out my duty as a pilot with equal proficiency and responsibility as any other pilot.
I am not sure if anyone from India is facing such a problem but they are then I suggest we collectively submit reports from successful cases to DGCA and Ministry of Civil Aviation to reconsider our cases and grant us Class 1 medicals.

If there is any help you can provide me with then I would surely appreciate it.

Thank you

Rohit

[outofwhack]

Rohit,

I suggest you join the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA). You will learn a lot from them.

Google them to find their website.


OOW

[pponte]

Rohit,

if you read the full thread, the only way to go forward is to prove them wrong. Unfortunately letters to Aviation Authorities won't do the job, we'll have to take them to courts. Join and subscribe to CVDPA so that this can be fought together at an international level.

[matt1991]

Hi everyone!

Just had the CAD test today at Gatwick, and unfortunately failed (big blow to my dreams of being an airline pilot!). However, I failed with a score of 12.68 (Was borderline on the 1st test so did it 3 times in total and the results were averaged) which is only 0.68 away from the threshold (protan).
I was told that as I was so close to threshold it may be worth my while resitting it and it may bring my average down. Anyone got any advice as to whether it's worth it?

[Scottish.CPL]

Who advised you on the retest, how much did they charge you, there is two versions of cad.!!

[matt1991]

I paid £125 for the test. My session included the plates (which i failed...i knew i would), then they did the quick CAD, failed that...so i went on to do the full 15 minute CAD. I got borderline on that one so did 2 more, and they took the average of that, so i think i did both versions. (The quick one, and then the full one)

For the first part (up until the end of 1st full 15 minute CAD) I had a bloke, i forget his name...and then a lady took over.
After taking a while to get my results (she was going in and out of different rooms whilst i sat in the waiting room..presumably talking to other staff?), she eventually called me back and told me I'd failed.
She said she wouldn't advise me to redo it if I had failed it by a mile. She said that if i was to take it again they would average it over all the tests i have taken and it would possibly pull me below the 12 limit (equally...I could do worse haha). She was a lovely lady, but i'm just abit confused as to why retaking would help me. Surely averaging over all the tests does infact make it alot more difficult to pull it down below the 12 threshold...
Money making tactics or a hint that i may pass next time, god knows!?
All i know is that if i do decide to go again i'm going to take alot more breaks, i didn't and that was probably my downfall...by the 3rd one my eyes were tired, i should have stopped for a few minutes but i just wanted to get it over with!

[matt1991]

Hi again, after ringing up CAA today I was told that the only accepted colour vision test is the CAD. However on their website Colour Vision Guidance | Medical | Personal Licences and Training (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=13879) it says you can do other tests as well. These tests are available at London City Uni and I asked whether results from there can be used as acceptable evidence (I was told I could). However, I once again asked about other tests (lantern, nagel anomaoscopy etc) and I was told that the only test was the CAD, despite me saying that it says on their website that other tests can be taken.
Confused! Are these other tests still accepted for a class 1?
Thanks!

[outofwhack]

Matt,
I think you would be doing yourself a favour if you got licenced in another European country where CAD is not accepted. You could try the Spectrolux lantern which is accepted in Europe.

Not that i think its the right thing to do. The right thing to do is join the CVDPA and support a legal challenge.

[Scottish.CPL]

matt

to answer that question, the cad was designed to replace the holmes wright lantern, as it was old and was not being produced so parts were not available, as they are to be serviced ie, bulbs need replaced and colour filters need to be clean.. i believe the byne lantern is still available, to be honest all the test equipment is still available, but probably in storage at gatwick, you not going to destroy equipment which cost allot, even though it not being used. any other results that you get ie from city university for cad is still valid, after all they designed it for the CAA!!

the spectrolux is still available but in switzerland, you can google the test name and find the location and address for it..

[matt1991]

Thanks for your replies outofwhack and Scottish.CPL!
I'm going down to London City Uni tomorrow for several colour tests; i'm hoping for the best! It's beginning to become quite costly going to and from London (I live in Manchester, UK) - so let's hope its worthwhile!
I'll let you know what the outcome is; hopefully I'll pass one of the approved tests! :)

[Scottish.CPL]

I breathe caution in the wind, if you get this before you go to city,

check the number of error on the ishihara plates out of 15, second they will do the anomalscope with you, this test has its flaws, you will be told you need to match the red portion to the yellow portion, and the same with the red, they till tell you, you need to match it, this is not true and i have been screwed over with this, in theory a colour normal cannot match any combinations, this is why peeople find it hard to pass, i was told i must make a match, and you don't, i could not match exactly on any of them and they took a reading, 4 scale units is possible to gain but you are not told how to use it correctly.

second the lantern holmes wright, they should test at high intensity, not low, JAA protocall states testing at high, CAA do not follow this and screwed me over on that,

the cad, well you have already seen and done this,

best of luck, but be ready to accept some tests are easier, and some are harder.. :ok:

[2close]

I am currently looking into Disability Discrimination Law in European countries and it seems that some are more compliant with the European Directive on Disability Discrimination than others.

Whilst CVD may not be recognised as a disability in the UK Courts (and I stress it has not been fully tested within the area of employment - the Strathclyde Police case seems to have gone quiet) it would undoubtedly fall within the definition of a disability in other countries. Therefore, it could be advisable to undertake your Class 1 Medical in one of those countries, keeping open the option that it may be possible to take the national aviation authority to Court on grounds of disability discrimination, should they refuse to issue a Class 1 medical purely on CVD grounds.

My resources are limited therefore I don't expect my research to be completed in the immediately foreseeable future, however, maybe the CVDPA could look further into this.

:)

[matt1991]

So i'm back from City Uni - scored 10.9 on the CAD test first time. However, I'm thinking that the CAA will probably want to average that score with the others I got at CAA Gatwick (ringing up tomorrow to find out). That in itself is plain stupid as technically if I had not done the test before, this would have been an outright pass! Yellow-blue on the CAD was better than average apparently. Also, the fact I scored differently surely shows the test isn't 100% accurate/sensitive....hmmm!
Nagel anomoloscope - I was told that if I couldn't find a match to get it as close as possible but make sure I make the point that imo they don't match perfectly. (I did this on basically every one)

Don't know the results of the other tests I did yet; I shall let you know when I get them!

[Scottish.CPL]

That's what I've always said the cad is a arcade game and yes gatwick will average the result, if they don't they are breaking the guidelines but they are known as rule breakers. All i can say is welcome to the battle of proving you are colour normal or safe, I'm green weak and I scored 7.44 and the pass is 6 scale units or less so 1.44 over the limit did city offer you the fast cad or the long version , if you get 4 units on the nagal then you are good to go.

[matt1991]

Well I'm hoping they'll give me some lee-way! I need this pass haha! Hopefully they'll be kind to me when I ring up...
They did the 9 minute version and I passed it first time (got borderline at CAA and had to repeat it so they could calculate an average).
Not sure about my results on the Nagel yet - I have no inkling how well I did either.
I can understand how you must feel; it's really frustrating and for you probably more-so as the lower threshold for green makes it even harder to reduce it by averaging.

[Scottish.CPL]

well what ever happens i wish you luck, but you will get expereice with the BS that the CAA/JAA impose, one one had you would have been better going the city and getting that result, and then giving it to gatwick, but thats how it went..

The other main issue we all seem to share is the unfairness of the pass for ishihara, 13/15 is a pass on the test, but caa want the full 15/15, this constitutes the standards of the RAF, one doctor at gatwick said to me we need to be fail, and i laughed and said dont talk :mad: you work and represent an organisation that does not believe in being fare.

my problem was the cad test for me was the long 15 min one and i was tired and red eyed after it, and to be honest i was making mistakes and a few targets i new i pressed the wrong direction but could clearly see them..

[dobbin1]

The other main issue we all seem to share is the unfairness of the pass for ishihara, 13/15 is a pass on the test, but caa want the full 15/15, .....

Unless you want a night rating as a LAPL, in which case it seems you are safe with a 9/13 pass. Doh!

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah dobbin1,

The thing is though, LAPL is controlled by EASA regulations, but the cad is not easa approved, i see they have it on the caa website as an alternative, but its not approved by EASA.

I still believe that the reason for the lower pass on the ishihara is because it tying in with the ICAO standards that are lower than the test its self, let not forget that EASA is not ICAO compliant. The colour vision test that are used are based on brightness, and not recignition, ie a light gun test is a bright red.green.white..

your LAPL medical is based on GP desision to fly, and not by CAA, this is the reason that caa issued an amendment gardening night vrf regualtions, becuase suspect that the amount of LAPL night application will increase..

whose of you like myself that are deemed cp2 by acheiveing 13/15 plates, but are colour normal, but deemed colour unsafe.. utter sh**

[matt1991]

Just got my results from City Uni :
Ishihara 38-Plate test - (25 numerical designs used) Score 3 out of 25 correct
CAD (Colour Assessment & Diagnosis Test) Classification: Protan deficiency Colour Vision Thresholds:Red-Green: 10.93 X “normal” mean threshold* Yellow-Blue: 0.98 X “normal” mean threshold*
Farnsworth D15 Test Pass
American Optical Company (H.R.R) Plates (2nd Edition) Score 18 out of 20 correct
City University Test, 2nd Edition Score 10 out of 10 correct
Nagel Anomaloscope Matching range: 60-65
Holmes Wright Lantern (type A) In Mesopic viewing with high brightness: 6 errors: 1st run: 2 errors 2nd and 3rd runs: 4 errors (Green called ‘White’, White called ‘Green’). In Scotopic viewing with high brightness: 6 errors.1st run: 2 errors 2nd and 3rd runs: 4 errors (Green called ‘White’, White called ‘Green’).

Don't really understand the Nagel Anomaloscope result, but I'm guessing that's a fail! Forwarded these to the CAA, now the waiting game begins...

[Scottish.CPL]

the nagel will be a fail, sorry, 4 scale units or less..

lantern test result are very typical of the' white/green confusion,

only thing that will happen is that caa will look at the results of cad, and they should average your results with them to what you did at city, im sorry if this relpy is negative, i hope you get a positive result, but be prepared!!

[matt1991]

Ahhh, thanks for the info on the nagel!
It's weird how the CAD suggests im red colour deficient yet the lantern suggests a green deficiency!

I'm prepared for the negative outcome - I shall go back to UCL and do the CAD again and hopefully bring my average down! (At least if I do badly there I don't have to submit my result and just do it until I get another pass to bring down the average!)

[Scottish.CPL]

hey matt

the cad has diagnosed you as red deficient, but the lanterns say your green, i would have thought you would have had more errors with the red/green lights, again white green is more common for both sides..

the issue is sometimes with the Illuminance ie is Mesopic is not pitch black, nore a dusk/dawn and really the test is run in normal room lighting, and if you fail a run of the 9 lights, then you are night adapted..

the d15 and the city tests are less demanding, and easier to pass, transport canada have the 13/15 pass for the ishihara, but the accept the d15 test, as an alternative.

im supprised that they didnt do the PAPI simulator, its not a test as such bu what they used to test the cad on!!

im wondering if i should attend city and do a few runs, and see if i can reduce the results, still not sure, but when i did the test at gatwick the did the full test and not the short one to begin with, which i have gave them hell over..

[matt1991]

Hey Scottish! I was never offered the PAPI test at city or at Gatwick...didn't know it was a valid test either looking at the requirements for colour vision... Either way, knowing now that I did manage to pass the CAD I'm definitely inclined to go to city and repeat the CAD a few times and use the results to get my average down (if this result doesn't drag it down enough). I'm sure if I asked city would allow me to come and do 2 or 3 CADs in one session to get a few results. Just a bit of a pain now; I've passed in my mind and that should be merited...it's quite costly travelling down from Manchester and having the test redone! I'm currently just waiting for the CAA to get back to me about whether they consider me a pass or fail after they perform some maths on my results Ugh ! (I've still only been told my average by them, I specifically requested each score individually off them, but they just sent me my average out again with a pretty little graph that makes little sense to me... ) God knows how long that will take...

[Scottish.CPL]

ive just re-read the caa presentation on the cad, and from both our experiences, they say its 100 % accurate and % sensitive, so really come to think about it, you should have got the same reading as the first one at gatwick, because according to caa colour vision does not change lol..

and the way it reads, there is nothing in the standards that states if within a limit or boarderline, you need to redue the test and average the score, AGAIN CAA how the :mad: if that correct and factual..

[matt1991]

haha Scottish! You are right! I have recently graduated with a degree in Biology and I can tell you now, a test that is 100% accurate doesn't exist...and the fact I got 2 different scores suggests the test may be open to external variables (thus unreliable and from a scientific standpoint open to being rejected as a trustworthy test).

And yeah, i also noticed they never mention anything about borderline...I'm still at a loss as to what that means! I asked at city and they didn't know either, they just say pass or fail and nothing about borderline!

[Scottish.CPL]

gatwick says if you fall between let say for dutan, 6 and 7 units they can retest you!! ie to average out the score, so is it accurate!!!

if city is saying the latter ie, if you score 6.01 its still a fail, i was also told that any readings from previous tests ' must be taken into the averaging' stage, erm where does it say that, and there i no set procedure for cad, if you goto city let me know and ill get you to ask some questions lol

[Scottish.CPL]

Ok i have been reading the EASA medical book, now im confused as to the wording of this, as we all know caa shows first 15 plates, ie no errors, but under the EASA guidliness as the below says,

to pass the ishihara test, nothing about the first 15 plates no errors.. to me that says to the standard of the ishihara test 13/15, CAA get a grip and stop arsing about, make this a fair standard...


MED.B.075 Colour vision
(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe
performance of duties.
(b) Examination
(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.
(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether
they are colour safe.
(c) In the case of Class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe

[dobbin1]

Do we have different documents? This is from the EASA AMC to Part Med:-

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision
(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.
(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.
(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:
(1) 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
(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns. My bold

The full AMC document is here:-

https://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-015-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20on%20the%20medical%20certification%20of%20p ilots%20and%20medical%20fitness%20of%20cabin%20crew.pdf

[Scottish.CPL]

huh, ill check the document is got from EASA website Dobbin1

thanks mate..

[2close]

You are reading two different but connected documents.

MED B.075 is taken from EU Regulation 1178/2011 (Aircrew Regulation) Annex IV and this simply provides the regulatory framework for medical requirements.


AMC1 MED B.075 is taken from the Acceptable Means of Compliance, which is the document which tells the authority how they achieve compliance with the regulation.

This may seem like unnecessary duplication of effort and there is a lot of legroom in that argument.

Look at Part-FCL; the regulatory framework is in EU 1178/2011, attached to which is the AMC and on top of that you have the CAA's very own CAP 804. Between the three of them they present an absolute minefield of documentary, indecipherable crap which could have been easily combined into one document a fraction of the size of these three put together. The duplication is staggering, navigating them is an absolute nightmare, some essential areas were omitted from the original release and for extra effect, they've even managed to include some contradiction.

Surprised?

[Scottish.CPL]

Ah ok thanks

[Scottish.CPL]

Guys I'm not going to spend much more time on this subject, lets face facts that colour vision standards are unfair, I've read back on the previous threads and we could argue till we are blue in the face but its not going to change anything, and before anyone starts on the c.v.d pilots area it's not going to change anything sure Arthur pape changed a standard in that country but nothing will move the standard. To be brunt on you get a colour vision restriction after doing all the tests regardless of boarder line results, move on with your lives and alternative careers cause its not worth the hassle And heart ache, I should know. I don't apologise for my forwardness but its time to move on people.

[pponte]

I'm sorry you feel this way Scottish but people should not give up on fighting for a crime that is being committed and has been for a long time. It is the basic reason why we have laws and courts, because injustice exists and people should fight for their rights. I know a lot of people that have not given up, are cvd's and fly. They are the example we should follow instead of allowing current obstacles to prevail.

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah but that's in Australia via Arthur!

tell me about the crime being committed!!

[outofwhack]

If you have youth on your side then keep building your hours. I think we will see legal proceedings in Europe over this within a few years.

Believe me - the only obstacle is the money to run a legal case. Circa XEU500k i bet. The reason why all us CVDs can't get the money together is because we aren't synchronized in our frustration - you cant keep banging your head against the wall - so you switch off. I was devastated as a young man over this in the UK 30 years ago [and mildy p$$sed off ever since]. Moving to OZ was the option I took eventually.

If we could wake all those CVDs that switched off we would be much larger force. That is one thread of work being tackled by the CVDPA (Arthur) and associates.

Dr Arthur Pape is presenting a paper to a major aeromedical conference in Chicago in May which will question the NTSB findings on the Tallahasee accident which was partly blamed on a CVD copilot. These are all things that are going to be of value to our cause because it's the only 'so called evidence' the authorities have.

Individually we've all believed that if we just do that 'other test' we can pass it. What motivates us? We rightly suspected that colour discrimination doesnt come in to flying safely. It might have been used a bit before the advent of radio but it isnt used now. If only we hadn't all blown so much money trailing around the UK and Europe trying to pass any of a bunch of bogus tests we could have run and won the case years ago.

So, everybody, empower the man that has the experience of two legal wins againsts the aviation authorities [and they are all the same] and is willing to coordinate the fight beyond ozzie shores. Join the cvdpa.

[Scottish.CPL]

dont get me wrong, im still interested in the whole area, i just tired of not seeing any resolve, and the continuous circle im seeing..

[outofwhack]

Be assured that Arthur is very determined to cause/assist change all over the globe.

He's a busy GP doctor but fighting the aviation colour standard has been a large part of his life. He's back on the case after his legal wins in the 80s and 90s - now that we have a large group of CVD airline copilots (that cant pass any colour test) each clocking up 6000+ hours by day and night in various airlines who want to make them captains. Hence setting up the CVDPA which is currently advising a legal case within Australia for these pilots.

As mentioned I am an ex pom, cvd commercial pilot and I might have to return to old blighty one day so I've met with him and know how devoted he is.

[brissypilot]

Hi Scottish,

I know how incredibly frustrating it can be, believe me. Although we're far more fortunate here in Australia that you poor guys in Europe, there is still discrimination occuring here. I've failed every colour vision test available and so my medical still restricts me & others like me from exercising the full privileges of our ATPL licences. There have been many times in my 15 years of flying when I have often thought it would be easier to give up as I am unable to fulfil my career goals. In doing that though, I would fail not only myself, but future generations of pilots who would continue to suffer the same injustices.

The most frustrating part for me is that I fly professionally for a living and so can see first hand just how irrelevant to the 'safe performance' of a pilots duties all these tests actually are. They prove absolutely nothing aside from the fact that we are colour defective, which we already know anyway!

Australian CVD's once also had similar restrictions to Europe and it was only due to Arthur's persistance to mount a legal challenge in the 1980's that we now enjoy a great deal more freedom in comparison to you guys. As OOW mentioned, the job is not quite finished here yet. We remain optimistic of a positive legal outcome in Australia sometime this year, which can then be used as evidence to prove to the rest of the world that the colour perception standard is a crock of BS!

I also speak with Arthur on a regular basis and I know he is extremely dedicated to help others internationally as are all CVDPA members including myself. To be successful though, we need to stop talking about all these irrelevant tests and start talking about ways to unite collectively and mount legal action. That is the only way we're going to win this fight!

[outofwhack]

BrissyPilot,

I hope you wont mind me clarifying to others that you are not just a 'Day VFR' professional pilot either.

Your job is flying a twin-turboprop 70 seat airliner in and out of major airports and country strips by day and night. You already have the dream career of thousands of cvd pilots in Europe who are restricted to Day VFR and No Passenger Carrying!

As a young adult in the Europe I felt bitterly disappointed having my intended career robbed from me when I got those first results. Everything I ever remember since birth was in preparation for a flying career. There was only one path for me but the gate was locked.

What was not clear to me until decades later was that I had suffered unjust discrimination by an bureaucratic, unscientific bunch of self-proclaimed experts. But what is important there is that unjust discrimination is ILLEGAL in just about every country.

When the next Australian appeal is won - all aviation colour vision testing in Australia will be redundant. This will be a strong precedent for legal action in the rest of the world. The rest of the world will be made to follow by legal action funded by us and any organisation that will support us. This will be done. (join the cvdpa).

[matt1991]

Hey everyone!
Just thought I'd drop in and say that the CAA have now deemed me colour safe!
They averaged my results from their test (got an average (3 tests) of 12.86 proton) and the result I got at city university (10.93 one go). My final score is 11.81 which is under the 12 threshold!
I was worried if they'd average using each individual result but it would appear they averaged against an average...either way, I can't complain, I've passed!

Belated happy new year to all!

[Scottish.CPL]

hey matt1991

I glad you got your restriction lifted, i not sure what to do myself, deutan score 7.44, not done any other runs, either at gatwick or city, really cant take anymone negativity from CAA, how was your experience at city!! really doing my head in, all this Sh**

[matt1991]

Well I haven't even started training yet haha! I just needed to find out before I took the next step!

My experience at City was great! I think it really might be worth your while to go - I took breaks after every 2-3 clips and the screen they used was a new flatscreen monitor (I can't say whether that made any difference...but I passed at City with a difference of 1.75 between the score i got at CAA...) aswell as this, you use a chinrest to hold your head steady (once again, not sure if this made any difference). Another good thing is if you don't pass at City you don't have to tell the CAA about your result and add to the pesky averaging technique! So all in all, I wish I had never gone to the CAA for my 1st test!

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah im thinking of going to city, how much did they charge, and was it one charge for all sessions or per session..

how far is the university from the major airports!!

[matt1991]

It cost me £125 plus vat (£150) for all these tests :
Ishihara colour vision test (1-25 plates of 38-plate test), American Optical Company (H.R.R) Plates (2nd Edition), CAD, Farnsworth D15 Test, City University Test, 2nd Edition, Nagel anomaloscope, Holmes Wright Lantern (type A) and the Holmes Wright Lantern (type B).

Location wise, I'm not too sure...I got the train down from Manchester and then a tube to Angel and its a 5-10 minute walk from there...

[Scottish.CPL]

sorry mate, what i meant was when doing cad, did you do one run, or a few runs, just because the cad as i might have said before has a fast and long version, i guessing that if you pass on the first run that's it, or they only make addition runs when averaging out scores, and how many they would allow for the fee you payed, stupid question probably but one i would ask :ok:

[matt1991]

Ahhh, I understand. At City I did one run lasting rougly 10-15 minutes. I wasn't given a choice...whereas at CAA Gatwick I did the fast CAD (2 minute screening...apparently its done for people who panic when reading the Ishihara plates and make errors who are actually colour normal...that's how it was explained to me). Then if you fail that you do a full CAD and either pass, fail or get borderline. If you get borderline (as I did) you have to repeat the full CAD 2 more times and then they average your result.

I'm not sure whether you could ask to do more runs at City, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask if you wanted to do a few in one session...the woman who conducted it was nice and friendly.

[Scottish.CPL]

Ok thanks for the feedback

[Carlabela]

Hi Scottish.CPL, You can redo the CAD test at city how many times you`d like. In fact I did mine 4 times.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey can you tell me about your experience and your results on cad, ie how many plates you failed, and your average results, you can PM me if you like

[outofwhack]

Looking through my files just now I saw a welcome note thatDr. Arthur Pape MBBS (CPL(A) MECIR) wrote for welcoming visitors to the CVDPA website.
I dont think we used it in the website so I am pasting it here.

QUOTE

I would like to personally welcome you all as subscribers to the CVDPA. By subscribing, you have made a commitment to ensuring that the CVDPA achieves the articles in its mission statement.
As a subscriber, you are at the business end of the CVDPA. You can expect to be kept informed and you should expect to be asked to contribute to the growth and effectiveness of it.
The task ahead of us is huge, and the bureaucracies and professional groups who promote and protect the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS) are powerful and fully funded by taxation revenue. Their arguments may be weak, but their funding is huge. Therein lies our greatest dilemma.
We have had great successes in Australia, as is more than fully explained in the website articles, but we should never be complacent. There are many promoters and protectors of the ACPS even in the Australian CASA who would dearly love to see the AAT outcomes reversed. Despite those successes, the job is incomplete and will stay so until the control tower signal gun test is thrown out. The history of how this test has come about in Australia can be talked about at another time. The challenge to it will rely on the fact that the control tower signal gun has no relevance to modern aviation practice and the testing of CVD pilots cannot be masqueraded as anything other than just another colour vision test.
Three highly experienced pilots, each with thousands of hours of unblemished flying records and each with exemplary reports from their superiors and peers have taken on the challenge of fighting an appeal to have the control tower signal gun test thrown out. They have already spent tens of thousands of dollars and expect to pay at least another $100,000 by the time the process is concluded.
A dedicated group of New Zealand pilots is preparing a legal challenge to the NZ CAAs version of the ACPS. They are growing in support and stature. We need to give them as much as we can.
In the USA, CVD pilots face the prospects of being collectively punished by the FAA on the strength of recommendations made to it by the NTSB in the aftermath of the Fedex Flight 1478 crash in Tallahassee in 2002. We have sufficient evidence to put a strong case that it was the PAPI itself that failed to perform. Details of that will be discussed in future postings on the website. Further, whilst the USA was for decades the Mecca for CVD pilots, the ACPS there is no more rational than anywhere else. There is a great deal of work needs doing for CVD pilots in the USA.
Dont even talk about Europe! Whats going on there is totally insane. The CVD pilot there is treated worse than a leper, figuratively speaking.
Yes, the task ahead is daunting. But is it impossible? I think not.
We have shown in Australia that the ACPS is vulnerable. It is based on bad logic and bad science. The CVDPA philosophy is the same no matter what country you look at. There may be wide variation in implementation, but the thesis behind it is universal, and that thesis is weak. The theoretical basis of a challenge to the ACPS is mature and ready to withstand any scrutiny in any country. What we lack is financial muscle. To fight the fight takes a lot of money. We need thousands of people to subscribe. We need many sponsors and benefactors. How can all this happen?
I estimate that in Australia there are about 800,000 CVD people. In the UK its in the order of a couple of million. The same and more for the USA. Add to that the many millions when all the continents are included. Lets just assume that perhaps 0.1 percent of those millions have any wish to be a pilot. Really, I have no idea, but I do know there is a huge potential target out there that just might want to challenge the ACPS. With just a small contribution from each one of those millions, we could have an amazing financial capacity to make the world take us seriously, and by that I mean fight legal challenges.
The first challenge I put to each subscriber is to become pro-active in promoting the CVDPA and telling as many pilots, flying schools, airlines, pilot unions, friends, mothers and fathers and whoever else you think might just be able to help. In our first three days we have had hundreds of hits on the web, we have raised nearly four thousand dollars in cash, and I am certainly happy about the initial response. Now lets all make sure that we build the momentum. We must do this or we will become just another bunch of tyre kickers, moaners, whoa-is-me victims.
I cant express how happy I am to get to this point in the struggle I started in 1977, when I asked the Department of Aviation examiner of airmen who had just failed me on the Farnsworth Lantern What relevance is all this colour vision stuff anyway?î. His reply has rung in my ears a million times in the 35 years since then: 'I dont really know. I think its BS, and maybe you can do something about it, being a Doctor and all that'

END QUOTE

[2close]

This is an interesting development for the European situation.

It is no secret that EASA Pat-MED is a derivation of JAR FCL-3 and that this was widely developed by the UK. The UK led the committee that developed EASA Part-MED and also developed the CAD, a massively flawed test which has NOT been adopted as an approved test under EU Regulation 1178/2011 but which is still used by the UK CAA. To my mind the UK is without doubt the driving force behind the ACPS.

Apart from the direct financial gain from the implementation of the CAD there is indirect financial gain in other areas, which I have personal knowledge of but cannot mention here.

Regardless of whether you think the CAD is a good thing or not and those who have tried it and passed will probably have different ideas to those who have failed, it must also be remembered that a driving force behind the funding for the development of the CAD is now the ICAO Chief of Aviation Medicine, a former CAA Chief Medical Officer.

Therefore, the UK would appear to have vested interests in maintaining the ACPS and also pressing for world wide adoption of the CAD.

The UK has been very careful of its wording of disability discrimination laws (no doubt under the influence of certain parties) and it could be a challenge to include CVD within the meaning of a 'disability' under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 or the Equality Act 2010. However, during an orchestrated effort a few years back, a (very expensive) meeting with Counsel in London (ironically a few hundred metres from CAA HQ) it was stated that the case was not without merit and that there were a number of avenues that could be explored, including sex and even genetic discrimination.

However, EU discrimination law is not so discriminatory (paradox!) and the following is an excerpt from the EU parliament:

Parliamentary questions
3 May 2012 E-003105/2012

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

The Commission is aware of the discomfort and social constraints faced by people with colour blindness. Colour blindness is a handicap, which is affecting about 10 % of the male population. There is no treatment or cure available for colour blindness.

The diagnosis of the disability is routine (Ishihara Test) and belongs to normal childhood physical examinations. The management of healthcare systems is the responsibility of Member States and the Commission does not have any competence to act in this field.

The Commission is addressing disabilities, which also covers colour blindness, in its European Disability Strategy 2010-2020(1). It stresses that persons with disabilities have the right to participate fully and equally in society and in the economy. Denial of equal opportunities is a breach of human rights.

In addition, the issue of colour blindness is addressed in the Information Providers Guide(2), designed for everyone who develops and publishes material on European Union websites. The rules set out in the Guide aim at ensuring a coherent and user-friendly service to users. It is freely available on Europa in English and is a living document which is regularly updated.

The Commission is not considering taking further actions beyond the initiatives set out above.

(1)
European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 - Justice (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/disabilities/disability-strategy/index_en.htm)
(2)
Information Providers Guide - European commission (http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/index_en.htm)

Some EU countries have adopted a far greater inclusive policy towards disability and these countries could very well treat CVD as a specific disability in itself.

My first thought would be that one or more of these countries are identified, then Class One medicals are applied for in those countries, bringing legal action for disability discrimination against any national aviation authority refusing to issue the medical on the basis of CVD. EU Regulation 1178/2011 does not have precedence over other national laws and you only have to remove one card from the tower to bring the whole deck down.

BUT, a big but...have no illusions, you can expect nothing but an uphill struggle - as was made abundantly clear to me personally through the thinnest of veils by a top dog at the CAA several years ago (I won't say who but rest assured a VERY senior person), they have a lot more money and power than us and can drag on a case to the point of bankruptcy. I think the same could be expected of most EU countries, in some of which money talks and corruption is rife.

A lot more digging to do but it's a start............... and now to bed!!

:)

[OM-TOM]

Hi guys,

I'm a CVD student pilot with VCL limitation. Next week I have an appointment for a Fletcher CAM lantern test. Could anybody who have experience with this test give me some advice please? I know that it should be almost the same as the old Holmes-Wright (white looks like yellow, green is pale, almost white, etc.) but are there any differences?

Thanks!

[Scottish.CPL]

Well I know that the fletcher cam lantern in not a n approved lantern and I don't think CAA will allow it since the cad came in.

[OM-TOM]

Scottish.CPL, thank you for your reply!
I did some research and found that Fletcher CAM is actually a replacement for the Holmes-Wright lantern test:
"It uses all the stimulus sizes, colours and intensities specified by the Holmes-Wright A and B lanterns,..."

So it is a new version of H-W, therefore it should be acceptable to CAA UK. But that's only my opinion.

[EzioAuditore]

Hello Guys,

Nice to be posting a thread.
I'm a wannabe pilot planning to do CPL in Canada. I'm from India. I have this Red-Green color deficiency disability. I have tried Ishihara Test and failed. I saw these Farnsworth lantern test pics in internet and saw that I can differentiate color with this test.
Is there any place in India where I can do this test?

Thank You

[bt95]

Hey everyone, I've been on this site for a while but this is my first post.
I have a few questions that I'd really appreciate to have answered.

Firstly, I'm an Australian currently in my last year of high school (Yr 12). My dream goal is to fly in an airline (might be a little too optimistic).
By mid-high school I began to see that colourblindness would prevent me from flying in an airline (can't get Class 1 Medical, can't fly at night, can't obtain ATPL). I formed an idea of all this sometime last year. I almost gave up on flying and chose engineering instead.

However, I just found out about the whole thing with Arthur Pape through a friend of mine today, and I'm really surprised that I had not seen it earlier. My view before that was Australia was one of the strictest countries in regards to CVD, with the US being easiest (with SODAs and similar) but now my view is completely flipped around, and I feel like I have hope again.

I'm sorry if this is too long but if there are any other CVD pilots flying professionally it would be great to have some advice.

1. I looked at the CASA website again, it appears that I can obtain a Class 1 Medical but with restrictions, but I can obtain a PPL and a CPL, but not an ATPL. It appears that I can still pass an alternate test to obtain an ATPL. What I'm wondering is how many attemps can I make at it? For example the farnsworth or the light gun test. If I fail them as well without retry, would that mean the end of everything?

1.1 Are there any other tests besides Ishihara, Farnsworth Lantern and Light gun that I can do?

2. I don't understand this one much. Would a charter airline require ATPL (small aircraft) as it is RPT.

3. What career opportunities can I look at with just a CPL? (Besides FI) For example, are there any cargo operators I can try to look at, that only require CPL? (Melbourne/Victoria area)

4. If I obtain a PPL and CPL licence, would they be almost identical (in terms of what I can do) to unrestricted licences? For example, flying at night.

5. Would it be suitable to enter the industry through a university (or TAFE) such as RMIT? They have a course that gives a PPL, CPL and a frozen ATPL (however useful that will be). I may be able to work as an Instructor with them for a few months/years to build up hours, but will I be able to get another job with a cargo/charter airline with just a CPL or would I require additional training (like IFR, night rating) that is not possible for a CVD person?

6. Can I go for a medical (or just vision) test before I have an ARN? I would like to know before I apply for the university courses. But seeing that I can get a CPL anyway, should I be very concerned about it?


I apologise for having many questions, but I am apprehensive at this stage as flying as all I've ever wanted to do. As with the last year of high school, the pressure is on and I don't want to be working towards something only to be told at the end that I can't do it.
I'm looking toward aviation for a serious career, and not for leisure.

I will appreciate every answer.

[2close]

OM-TOM,

The UK CAA will NOT accept any colour vision tests other than their very own, self-sponsored CAD Test, even though the CAD is not approved by EASA.

(This is the same UK CAA that claims it cannot operate outside the requirements of EU Regulation 1178/2011 and its Acceptable Means of Compliance..........mmmm........).

Apart from that, even though the Fletcher CAM may be a replacement for the Homes-Wright, the UK CAA would NOT accept it, simply because it is not on the list, as published in the AMC (see below).

Bad news but try another EASA member state.

:)

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision
(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.
(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.
(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:
(1) 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
(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

[brissypilot]

Hi bt95,

The first thing I'd recommend you do is to join the CVDPA. You are quite correct, thanks to the efforts of Arthur Pape almost 25 years ago you can now have an aviation career in Australia. It wasn't always like that though and his victories at the AAT did not come easily. It was only through lots of hard work, dedication and many dollars that we are as fortunate as we are now.

As you've no doubt read through these forums, things are heating up again in Australia with another legal challenge now well underway at the AAT with the aim being to finish the job started all those years ago and to prove once and for all that CVD's do not pose a safety risk. We can then use this experience to put pressure on ICAO and the rest of the world to bring about further changes globally. All this can only be done though through people joining the CVDPA and becoming actively involved.

To answer your questions:

1. You can achieve any licence you want in Australia. I've held an actual ATPL now for 8 years, however as I've failed all colour vision tests, I may not exercise the privileges of that licence. If you fail the tests, your class 1 medical will be issued with a restriction 'not valid for ATPL operations'. However, that will not stop you from exercising full PPL/CPL privileges day or night, VFR or IFR. If you pass any of the tests, you are granted a full unrestricted medical. However, you will normally only be granted one shot at each test.

1.1. Besides the Ishihara & Farnsworth Tests, the other two options are the control tower signal gun test and the practical lantern test (conducted at the Victorian College of Optometry). The latter test is designed to simulate a PAPI, however it is nothing like the real thing at all. It is simply a modified Farnsworth Test. I fly PAPI's all the time with no issue whatsoever, yet I failed this test miserably.

2. ATPL is not necessarily related to RPT. Basically an ATPL is required to be pilot-in-command of a multi-crew aircraft. A CPL is required to be pilot-in-command of a single pilot aircraft (or co-pilot in a multi-crew aircraft).

3. There are still plenty of career opportunities as a CPL holder. eg. general aviation charter/instructing, freight in single pilot aircraft, RFDS etc. You can still also use CPL privileges to become a co-pilot in a multi-crew aircraft (including jets), you will just be prevented from becoming a Captain. This is the situation I and many others in Australia currently find ourselves in. We are flying for airlines as First Officers, each of us with many thousands of hours experience, however are discriminated against from becoming Captains.

4. Flying using PPL/CPL licence, you can exercise full privileges, even if you fail all colour vision testing. You can fly at night and IFR with no problems or restrictions whatsoever. Similarly, flying as an airline co-pilot using CPL privliges, you can undertake exactly the same duties as colour normal colleagues.

5. Definitely doing a uni degree is an option - I won't go into the pros and cons of it here as it is not relevant and there are plently of other posts on these forums which examine this issue. Almost all charter jobs and definitely airline jobs require night & IFR ratings etc, but remember you can still do all that even if you fail colour vision testing.

6. I'm not sure about the requirements these days, with ARN's. I'd imagine you probably need one though before you can go for your medical. I wouldn't be too concerned anyway, as you can still exercise full CPL privileges regardless of how you perform on the colour vision tests. If you pass the tests, you just get the extra bonus of being granted ATPL privileges so that you can one day become a Captain.... but that will still be a long way off and hopefully through people supporting CVDPA we can change all that in the future anyway.

Hopefully that answers all your questions! Feel free to send me a PM if you would like.

Good luck with Year 12 and don't listen to anyone who tells you that being a CVD means you can't fly. As you'll soon learn, it doesn't make any difference at all - our challenge is to get that message out there and to hold these beaurocrats around the world and their irrational decision making to account.

[bt95]

Hi brissypilot,
Thanks for replying.

[Carlabela]

Can people who have a Restricted Medical fly Cargo Aircraft in day time hours? Does Cargo Aircraft count as public transportation? CAA states that you can do your Night rating with a Instructor at all time. Can the Captain of a Cargo Aircraft be your instructor? Thus letting you fly at night? I also have an Unrestricted FAA Medical is it easy to find a Job in the states if I did my flight training in America? Thanks for your help

[Scottish.CPL]

The jobs might be available but its the working visas and pets that are a nightmare, I too have an unrestricted FAA class one And CPL/IR

[Rockets11]

So I have been to the CAA in gatwick today and failed the colour vision test, 1st the ispharia plates and then the CAD test. Now I no that its probably the end of the line with regards commercial flying is concerned, but it was mentioned to me about another test in America and Canada the signal gun test. Does anyone know Any more about this, or any other alternative ideas ? Is Australia the same with regards colour vision testing? An I now doomed as I have failed the ispharia plates and CAD or is their a chance I may pass the signal gun or fansbury lantern test. Any advice would be great.
I was sure I would have a chance of passing the CAD test as I already knew I wouldn't pass the ispharia plates, but it seemed their was a problem with the colour red. The colour issue has never really affected me before but obviously their is an issue with it.
All other parts of my medical were passed with flying colours so I am gutted.
Thanks!

[matt1991]

Hi Rockets11
I failed the CAD at Gatwick (red deficiency) a few months ago- so I decided to go to City University, London to take the Holmes-Wright lantern and the Nagel Anomaloscope (the other 2 tests that the CAA recognise but don't administer themselves) - at City Uni they conduct several tests when you go, one of which is the CAD. Surprisingly I managed to pass the CAD there and failed the HW lantern and the Nagel Anomaloscope. Sent my results off to CAA and now I'm deemed colour safe.
I don't want to get your hopes up too much, but it might be worth your while going to UCL and getting these tests done there, if you pass either the HW lantern of the Nagel one then the CAA will deem you colour safe (you might even do better on the CAD). Keep in mind that the CAD test, from my experience, is dependent on how you perform on the day so make sure your feeling well and have had a good nights sleep. Second time round at the CAD, I took my time, had several short breaks in between each clip and managed to pass. If you want any more info, just ask! :)

[Scottish.CPL]

I agree with you matt1991 I'm thinking of going to ulc, it's just getting there from up north! Also I agree with the taking your time as this is not a option at gatwick and I got so pissed off with the whole test after fifteen minutes

[matt1991]

I had to travel down from Manchester (yeah, your quite a bit further haha..) so I can understand what you mean! I wish they did these tests in more places so it would be a lot easier for people who don't live in London!
At Gatwick I was told to take my time and take breaks but I didn't feel relaxed there at all. At UCL it was very friendly and so a lot easier to be relaxed and take breaks...

[Scottish.CPL]

hey, my experience was different, i turned up for my renewal and did the cad last, the lady put the tv on and the laptop on and i went through the mockup test so i knew what i was doing, now bearing in mind that i was not told about the quick screen and was changed for the whole test, i was told to look at the middle of the screen and to press the direction, i was not given any breaks at all.

also what is annoying is that i scored r/g 7.44 so a straight fail, but was told that if i scored between 6 and 7, they could test me again and average the results out, ok fair enough, now i am being told that any results i have will be average into any other test results, that's not fair for a start.. and that came from the new head of medical section who has no idea what he is talking about, and certainly there i nothing in the medical that tells of this method to be used..

[Smiless]

Well I just came back from several colour assessment tests at City University. To cut a long story short, after a couple of different colour tests, I went on to do the CAD test.

At first, I did the blue/yellow test, and I got a threshold of 0.79 - Better than a normal person with normal colour vision according to the lady. But then I did the red/green test... Threshold: 21 - Green deficient. :sad: Way over the limit. The lady herself looked and sounded a bit shocked when she came back into the room to see that result. Especially because she seemed fairly confident that I would pass the CAD test relatively easily and quickly. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case...

I have to say though, the test really is frustrating. Sitting in a pitch black room facing a computer screen seriously messes with your vision, and tires your eyes quite quickly - Especially on the longer red/green test (9 minutes). Also, I've got to admit, that I really started rushing the test and ended up clicking buttons as quick as possible, which might have contributed to such a bad result, but to be fair, I think I would still fail if I got a chance to do it again, as 21 is extremely high. :(

The CAD test really does move extremely quickly. In all honesty, it feels as if you have less than a second to look where the square block is moving to.

Nevermind. I think that is the final call now, and there will be one less pilot in the skies. It's extremely painful to throw away my childhood dream of being a commercial airline pilot, especially after saving up, gaining the courage and spending the money on my Lasik eye surgery to pass the vision restrictions to then find out I am colour deficient - At least I have better than perfect vision now.

All the best to you colour deficient guys & girls. It's not a fun experience to find out you are colour deficient just before you aim to start taking flying lessons. Good luck with your medical/vision tests in the future guys!

[Scottish.CPL]

smilles what did you score of the ishihara plates, how many times did you do the cad!

[outofwhack]

Smiless,
I know exactly how you feeling. The same happened to me in the UK when I was your age.

Know this: the initial tests you failed are standard colour vision tests. You can pilot a plane as safely as a person with normal colour vision if you were allowed to. The CAD test is just another test of colour vision and nothing to do with the task of flying - it's just a red herring, not to mention another way for your aviation authority to make money and keep you thinking they are trying to help you.

Your easiest option is migrate to Australia where court cases have had fantastic results. We have had colour vision deficient pilots for 20 years or more at all levels including international airline captains.

You should research avenues to get funding to fight a legal case within Europe.

[Smiless]

Scottish.CPL: I scored 2 out of 25 on the Ishihara plates. And this was the first time doing the CAD test for me. I did one test for the blue/yellow (4mins long) and one test for the green/red (9mins long).

Outofwhack: Thanks for the encouragement & advice. I will look into migrating to Australia, but in all honesty, I've almost lost all my hopes of being an airline pilot right now. We'll see what the future brings. I guess I'll just finish off my Aerospace Engineering degree first before deciding on what to do career wise.

[2close]

Smiless,

When you say you scored 2 out of 25, do you mean you made 2 errors or only had two 2 correct?

If the latter then that is most definitely a failure, however, if the former then we need to talk. Drop me a PM and we'll take it from there.

I have been informed this weekend of a person who passed Ishihara for a Class 2 medical then went to a local optician for a full eye test to EASA standards prior to the Class 1 medical at Gatwick and passed that, including the Ishihara test......yet, amazingly, s/he managed to fail Ishihara at Gatwick and was charged a further £ 125 for the privilege of taking the CAD Test, which was passed.

Personally, I am very suspicious as to what is being allegedly perpetrated here. :suspect:

[Scottish.CPL]

i recon the plates at gatwick dont get replaced, ive been to gatwick a few times over a period of time and its the same crappy ripped cover..

and to point out that the plates are very sensitive to light and saturation, and so if the plates are old and worn, any small level of the plates being faded is going to cause issues even to anyone that might have a slight colour dificiency,

ive been to opticians and passed the plates random, been to university eye clinics and got the same results, but every time i have done the plates at gatwick i struggle..

[outofwhack]

No not much happening.
Here's a few topics of interest:

1. A few aviation doctors I have talked to in UK
and Oz admit that during class 1 medical renewals
where the Ishihara cards are shown to
existing commercial pilots they will make
the odd mistake too - but they overlook it
because it is a demanding test and colour
normal people will make the odd mistake.

2. A UK perception scientist Dr Beau Lotto
admits that in some circumstances a
colour can appear as another colour. Search for
him on YouTube. It's very interesting.

3. An appeal court case is in progress in Australia. See CVDPA

OOW

[Scottish.CPL]

Ok, right i have a question for any one that is an ame on here,

with regards to the lapl colour vision requirements,

say you pass the plates but not to easa req 15/15 but you pass 13/15,

you go to a medical exam for lapl and you have proof on paper from a optician or university showing this, and you want a night rating, would caa accept this,

ive taken cad and failed, not sure to repeat this..

[dobbin1]

I'm not an AME, but AIUI a 9/15 pass on a LAPL medical allows you to add a night rating to a LAPL. Since higher level licences (CPL PPL) have lower licence privileges embedded in them, it should theoretically be possible for a PPL/CPL to fly at night using their embedded LAPL privilages if they have a LAPL medical and 9/15 pass.

However, are you allowed to have more than one medical certificate, or would you need to give up your class 1 or 2 certificate in order to get night privileges?

This crazy situation just shows how stupid the current system is.

[dobbin1]

Further reading of the AMCs reveals this:-

AMC1 MED.A.030 Medical certificates
(a) A class 1 medical certificate includes the privileges and validities of class 2 and LAPL medical certificates.
(b) A class 2 medical certificate includes the privileges and validities of a LAPL medical certificate.
So a 9/15 pass should be enough, but I am not sure if there is any mechanism for adding a conditional night rating, ie "valid only when exercising LAPL privileges" on to an EASA CPL /PPL.

[Scottish.CPL]

Hey ok now ive read it properly, it was like 12.30am when i read it, yeah so the wording of this does suggest it, has anyone been able to contact caa direct to ask them if this would be the case!!

[FlyingBlindUK]

Dear Forum,

I've been interested in becoming an Air Traffic Controller for a long time now and decided to finally make the move. As I was going through the 'How To Apply' section on NATS' website, I noticed the medical tests and was not worried about any of them as I have no history of health problems. But then I got to the visual tests and noticed something I've never heard of; Ishihara Test. I started searching for more details about this test and have come to a reasonably strong conclusion that I'm fairly colour blind.

I'm quite shocked about this outcome as it seems to have come out of nowhere. However the colour deficiency has never once affected my real world performance. I've passed my driving test and am a competent driver. I also went in for an eye test before knowing of this condition and passed with flying colours (however they only tested for visual acuity - viewing distance). Do I have any chance of becoming an Air Traffic Controller for NATS?

[dobbin1]

I'm going to talk to my AME when I go for my next medical (sadly only class 2 from now on). I'll ask him to test me on the plates and if I manage a 9/15 pass I'll take it to the CAA.

I fear that I won't even manage 9/15 though, but worth a try.

[Scottish.CPL]

let me know how it goes, when are you due your renewal, just take your time with the plates, how many can you read, have you have different results!

[FlyingBlindUK]

Guys I only found out a couple days ago that I'm colour blind and am now in absolute shock. I planned to become an Air Traffic Controller for so long and then this hits me out of nowhere! I done the Ishihara online and couldn't see any of the plates whereas my parents could. What's the chances of me being able to do the CAD test and passing it?

For those who went through that route is the job THAT colour demanding in reality?

[homonculus]

If you haven't done the test but merely trawelled the Internet, how do you know you are colour blind???????

[marianoberna]

you can take the isihara test on the internet, it's just looking at a bunch of dots and finding the number

[2close]

Most people with Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) are unaware of it until they are tested.

The Ishihara Test is the primary test for initial screening for CVD .

The test used is the 24 plate version and the test is done using the first 15 plates, all of which show numbers in amongst the dots.

The manufacturer's pass standard is 13 out of 15, which allows for mis-readings (even colour normal persons can do this). However, our civil aviation authorities know better than the experts, the designer and the manufacturers and deemed that 15 out of 15 shall be the pass mark for Class 2 and Class 1 EASA medical certification.

If you fail (get even one wrong!) the Ishihara Test you will be asked to take the CAD Test (at Gatwick at least), a CAA only non-EASA approved test which involves you identifying rapidly flashing coloured squares in amongst a background of rapidly flashing grey-scale squares. This has two tests, a quick test; pass this and you're OK, fail and you're onto the extended test (particularly unpleasant by all accounts) - pass this and you're OK, fail it and you're limited to Class 2 certification only with VCL - daytime only.

I'm not sure what the alternative tests at the NATS Aeromedical Centre (AeMC) at Southampton are.

The best thing to do is to go to your local optometrist and have them check you before going anywhere near an AeMC.

Now check your PMs.

:)

[Pace]

I had the most bizarre medical ever! I had always had a fraction of colour blindness which was deemed as not a problem and happily sailed through my Medicals for years!
Colour blindness as far as I know does not get worse or better!
I trundled off for another test and the AME determined that I needed the lowest strength reading glasses!
He refused my medical till I had the glasses so I drove the fifty miles back home and rushed a new set of glasses through!
Problem is I don't like wearing glasses and asked for a tint so they looked more like sunglasses!
Fifty miles back with my tinted glasses and the AME insisted I did the full spectrum if tests wearing the new glasses!
Vision fine until he wated a colour test !
I could not read a thing in the numbers book and was perplexed as was he! I would also need to take the other test!
Then it hit me ! Get the best colour vision pilot in the world give him
Tinted glasses and he will fail the colour test!
Look at blue say through yellow and you will see green etc!
He insisted I go and buy another very expensive pair of glasses which were clear and redo the tests yet again!
I was livid and moaned that did they ban pilots using sunglasses as they would all effectively turn colour blind!
I never used him again after that very expensive medical
Yes I also had the ishicara test as a precaution

[brissypilot]

FlyingBlindUK,

Have a read of this link to a submission to the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission (http://cache-au.funnelback.com/search/cache.cgi?collection=fed-gov&doc=funnelback-web-crawl.warc&off=23668282&len=10749&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humanrights.gov.au%2Fdisability%255Frig hts%2Fexemptions%2Fcasa%2Fsubs%2Fdenman.doc) in 2002.

It is a submission from an experienced air traffic controller in Australia who suffered discrimination at the hands of the authorities as a result of his CVD.

While I'm not aware of what the outcome for him personally was, his experience again highlights that colour defectives are just as capable at performing tasks as our colour normal colleagues.

Just like the CVD standards for pilots, I would suspect that the standards for ATC's are founded on baseless assumptions of risk rather than actual evidence and experience.

As others have mentioned, make sure you go and get a formal test done from an optometrist before you get too worried. Don't just trust the ones done online!

[Scottish.CPL]

gothe,

The Ishihara test has a few flaws, there are a few different books but they are mostly the same 14,24,38 plate edition, as the manufacturer states 2 errors or misreading are accepted as ok, misreadings happen when the light used is not correct, its supposed to be used with a blue filter that simulates true norther daylight, but the other issue is that the books need to be replaced very few years dependent on use..

also practitioners will arrange the plates in a random format to prevent learning or any visual hint,

If you have done the test before and passed all the plates, and then did the test again on a older book, one plate might be slightly faded and will cause a misread :ouch:

we had all had to take a few seconds more to look at a plate to decide if its a number 8 or 3, as one part of the 8 is darker and the other side is lighter :oh:

hope it helps if you need anything else just PM me :ok:

[FlyingBlindUK]

@2close: Thank you for your informative reply! What's the chances of me doing well at the CAD tests when I can't see a single Ishihara plate? My parents have sat with me and went through all the plates like a hot knife through butter (pretty much confirms my CVD). I will also read the PM, thanks!

@brissypilot: It's really frustrating. Why not just test us on the primary colours associated with the job? Is it really that difficult? I for example can tell the difference between most colours. It's shades of reds and green that do me in. Of course I will book an appointment with my optometrist(?) and see what they have to say! Thanks!

[pponte]

FlyingBlindUK: don't give up.
Different countries have different rules. Canada, Brazil, Australia are for instance different than European countries ruled by EASA.

google cvdpa and you'll find that some work is being done in Australia to change this worldwide.

Google cvdpilots for more info also on the policies for different countries.

We need to group and fight this together. pvt me for more info.

[Scottish.CPL]

flyingblinduk

listen i pass 13/15 plates or more, but struggled with one or two at gatwick, and i failed the cad by 1.44 units, so really from what people are pointing out, its your luck if you can keep up with the cad, as its not so user friendly, its basically the same background as ishihara plates but the background flickers,

[FlyingBlindUK]

Oh man that's terrible news :(

I called NATS the other day and it seems that there isn't an obvious correlation between how many Ishihara plates one can see and how well they do on their CAD test. I decided I'm going to go to City University and take the tests there as they invented CAD in the first place. NATS also accepts a pass if you pass in City.

The new color blindness test - YouTube
Is that not the CAD test? It only disappears for a few seconds in my case... but people have been pointing out that this isn't what it really looks like or is easier than the actual.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey there, yeah that screen shot is also on utube, and is nothing like the real test, for one the real one is faster, flickers allot, and gives you a headache after 5 min, be warned that if you fail to achieve the pass 6 units for green weak, and 12 units for red, its hell to pass to be honest,

also caa state that if you or example were green weak and score of 7 units, they can let you retake the test and all scores under 7 are averaged out and if you get under 6 then they pass you, there is no instruction on the caa website to my knowledge or the city's knowledge when i asked them about this that this is corect!!! some one lease correct me on this.. cad is still not EASA approved!!

[FlyingBlindUK]

Lol it's not a screen shot. It's probably the video you were speaking of. But yes CAD is not in the EASA standard. We should be doing lantern/anamoloscopy instead. But oh well :\

[outofwhack]

I disagree. We should be forcing the CAA to drop all colour vision testing and give us unrestricted medicals because CVD pilots can perform just as safely and as well as colour normals in every aviation task. Google cvdpa

[2close]

Correct Scottish.CPL, the CAD is NOT approved by EASA and the situation could be more serious than you think.

EU Regulation 1178/2011 Annex IV Part MED states:

MED.B.075 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

(b) Examination

(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.

(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.

(c) In the case of Class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit. Applicants for a Class 1 medical certificate shall be referred to the licensing authority.

(d) In the case of Class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception of colours, his/her flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.

This is complemented by the Acceptable Means of Compliance, which then states:

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision

(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

(1) 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

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.


The question arises whether the AMC is an "APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE" and if so, it has the same status as a legal Statutory Instrument, e.g. the Highway Code is an ACOP to the Road Traffic Act and as such, whilst charges for alleged offences would be brought under the RTA the authoritative document for determination of knowledge of the rules would be the Highway Code, i.e. the man on the Clapham omnibus is not expected to know the ins and outs of the RTA but is expected to know the Highway Code.

Myself, as there are two levels of sub-regulatory document I believe the AMC has the status of an ACOP, with Guidance Material forming a less regulatory Code of Practice, which normally contains information such as best industry practice, to be used, as the name suggests, as guidance.

This being the case, the CAA must use the tests prescribed by law and any medical issued by the CAA using the CAD Test as its means of determining colour vision is not compliant with EASA Part-MED and as such (using the word very carefully) illegal, rendering the Part-FCL licence unlawful and the operation of aircraft by any person holding such a licence unlawful and uninsured.

This could be disastrous for any persons holding such a licence involved in any accident which resulted in damage to property or injury to persons, regardless of whether the cause of the incident had anything to do with eyesight. Any decent insurance investigator would look closely at the holder's licence and if he came to the same conclusion the insurer could refuse to pay out.

As the CAA prosecutes breaches of aviation legislation in the criminal Courts it stands to reason that this is covered by criminal and not civil law.

The CAA also states unequivocally that it is unable to make any exceptions to EASA driven EU Regulations and that it is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation. How can the licence holder comply with the law if it is the regulator that is breaking the law in the first place.

This needs clarification and I think it's about time AOPA stepped up to the mark here with the CAA Legal Department and get them to state, in writing, why these medicals ARE lawful and why the CAA Medical Department is permitted to breach EU Regulation 1178/2011 and the AMC.

[2close]

At the very least, CVD pilots should be permitted to hold a Class 1 medical with the following restrictions:

CAT MPA OML as FO only
(Commercial Air Transport Multi-Pilot Aircraft Operational Multi-Pilot Limitation as First Officer Only)
CAT SPA VCL
(Commercial Air Transport Single-Pilot Aircraft by Day Only)

Once an ATPL is held, with >100 hours Night Flight and on successful completion of an assessment flight by an appropriate TRE, the first restriction should be removed.

I don't see much to be gained from aiming for too much to start off with but the above would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

[Scottish.CPL]

I agree with you all

[brissypilot]

EU Regulation 1178/2011 Annex IV Part MED states:

MED.B.075 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

The ICAO Colour Perception Standard has been thoroughly examined by Dr Arthur Pape & Prof. Boris Crasinni.

Have a read of this article that was published in the Journal of the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine (http://cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/implicationsofaatdecision.pdf) a few years ago. It's very insightful and is well worth a read.

[150bugsmasher]

The British government is conducting a review into red-tape in General Aviation, can I suggest any Brits here drop an e-mail to them or the MP Grant Shapps who is overseeing it, arguing that the rule is unnecessary, discriminates and is yet another rule holding back 1 in 10 of us gentlemen.
We should take this rare chance whilst they're listening.
It's worth noting that Grant Shapps has a PPL too...

[brissypilot]

Link to the red tape review to which 150bugsmasher refers to can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/general-aviation-red-tape-challenge

If you email this MP, it would also be worth referring him to the CVDPA website which has loads of information on just how discriminatory and unnecessary the colour perception standard is.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi i had a read about this chap, looks and sound ok, i think what should be advised to him is that although i dont think that the authoirty would ever stop some form of colour vision testing, but to make it fair and related to the job.

first instance would be the pass standard for the ishishara test, we would probably find a hell of allot of pilots that manage to achieve the 13/15 standard and thats was really annoys me and others, the cad.... dont want to get started but CAA failed to do one thing, they tested me on the full 15 minutes, without advising me of the quick test, further more they advised that with my results 7.44 any other test on cad if they had to average the score they would use that result, now bearing in mind that i was told that any score below 7 would be challanged with a retest, there is no information relating to this either from city directly and certianlly regarding the point that results over 7 units will also be averaged out.

The whole system from the vision of the CAA is flawed with errors and people experiencing issues with it...

Also how come the CAA stated that only medicals couild be done at gatwick, and yet this is now being done at NATS in swanick, not just for ATCO!!!!

[2close]

Here's a cracker.

I recently spoke to a bloke who had an unrestricted Class 2 medical, having passed (15/15) the Ishihara test with the AME but he was aware that, although his choices were all correct some of them could have gone either way, where on some plates he could 'see' two numbers. This does happen with some persons who may be on the border of CVD.

He them went to a high street optometrist for another check before ging for the Class 1 medical. Again he passed with 15/15.

He then went down to Gatwick and guess what, he failed......surprise, surprise.

He then was invited to take the CAD test at considerable expense to himself which he passed and was given an unrestricted Class 1 medical.

However, he was not satisfied that the Ishihara Test had been conducted correctly at Gatwick, therefore I arranged for him to be tested again, this time in natural daylight conditions as per the manufacturer's instructions. I personally witnessed him achieving 15/15.

Now, ask yourselves this; how can someone achieve three 15/15 passes in three independent tests yet fail in circumstances where such a failure is going to make more money for the organization (or person - I don't know) conducting the test?

I leave it to the jury of fairness and reason.

:confused:

[Scottish.CPL]

that's because the ishihara test plates at gatwick are old and faded, and thats how they pay the game, ive had the plates done again with an optician that i dont know so there is no faulse recording and full 15/15,

i do wonder how the optometrist at gatwick feels when he knows that he is failing people, every time i had a renewal for faa i had to redo the book, and the same little marks and tears on the book confirm the plates or book are not replaced as advised, and im talking about seeing this book over a person of 3-5 years, not only is he failing the pilots over this, also failing professionally as a health provider. :=

[mtanz0]

Hi Guys, about 6 months ago, having failed the Ishihara plates during my class 2 medical, I booked in for a CAD test at Gatwick. Unfortunately I failed the main test by what I was told was a significant threshold, but I scored 80% in the screening test, which I'm told if I would have obtained 2 more correct answers in I wouldn't have had to persevere with the main test and would have then become unrestricted. I'm recorded as having a Protan deficiency, r-g threshold 17.72, y-b threshold 0.57.

I'm considering doing a re-test, although I know I would now have to obtain an average between the two tests which is adequate, rather than just one. Also, I'm wondering do they give you the option of the screening test the 2nd time round, as this seems by far the easiest way to pass.

Like many others, I'm obsessed with the thought of flying commercially, and wondering if I move to Austrailia, which I gather is one of the few places that doesn't regard colour deficiency as critical, can I work as a commercial pilot.

I currently have a VFR restricted Class 2 medical.

Thanks.

[FlyingBlindUK]

Dear Forum Members,

I am a deutranomoly (slight red-green colour deficiency) and was wandering if this disqualifies me from becoming an Air Traffic Controller for the RAF.

I cannot see any of the Ishihara plates.

Thank you for your help!

[Scottish.CPL]

flyingblind uk,

Hello mate, yes you will be considered unsafe, all air duties according to raf standards are that for air duties cp2 is the standard, ie 15/15 for ishihara, cp3 is for holmes-wright lantern, but cp2 is required.

[Scottish.CPL]

cad is still not approved by easa and the caa are issuing medicals with this test, the problem is that the cad test is being promoted as the golden standard and that its 100% accurate, that B****it,

i take it you did the fast cad failed , and then the 15 min long test!!!

i believe proton level pass is 12 units, and you got 17.72, to be honest i think you will be wasting money because your 5x over the limit, be different if you were lets say 12.5 or even 13 units, that's close, one of two presentations went wrong direction..

you've entered a situation that we are all in wither we pass the plates to 13/15 and jaa rules are too high, or indeed you are unsafe!! just a thought,

[FlyingBlindUK]

With NATS, failing the Ishihara Test means you have to do the CAD test. Is there a similar alternative with the RAF?

[Scottish.CPL]

nats have the same standards, as the caa or easa, the raf have the same pass standard as civil aviation, cad is just a fancy computer game,

[2close]

The RAF uses the Holmes-Wright Type B Lantern Test for secondary testing.

If you are unable to see any of the Ishihara plates I would not expect that you would pass any of the secondary tests.

I would also be a tad concerned as some are designed to be visible to colour deficient persons, although with some numbers appearing more prominent than others, to determine whether you are protonomalous or deuteronomalous.

Also, if you cannot see the first plate there is a very serious problem as everyone should be able to read that, unless you do suffer with a form of numerical 'blindness' - the test has tracing and shape cards for persons who cannot read numbers.

[Chrissyuk]

Hi all,

I've been following this thread for a few months now as I had a nightmare with the CAA and colour deficiency.

I went for my class 1 medical at the start of March this year and having managed the health side of things was quickly advised i had a colour deficiency.

Realising what this could mean i became a bit flustered and when the CAD test was offered to me I snapped at the chance and after a brief explanation from the nurse, started the test.

I wasn't in the greatest frame of mind at the time and as the test went on got more frustrated by my lack of ability to see the colours on the grid and the longer it went on, the worse i got, and the quicker i tried to finish. When i finished i was advised i had a deutan deficiency and my result was 7.44, cut off point being 6. Obviously, i was devastated and issued with a restricted medical.

I was advised to look at this site and saw Matt1991 had gone to the City University to sit the CAD test with them, stating it was a much better environment to have the test and he subsequently benefited by passing the test.

I booked the full CVD tests at the college, and everything Matt said was true. Upon my arrival was met by a very friendly optometrist who explained everything about the test fully to me. I was told to take my time, explained how the threshold test works properly, that i wont see all the colours all the time, took the test, and got a 5.29! Still deficient but fell within Gatwicks parameters.

I contacted the CAA and explained my situation to them and after about 4 weeks, was contacted and invited back to Gatwick to have the CAD test again (for free as well!).

I went down on Tuesday, sat through 3 full tests (horrible), and came up with the same results that i had at City University. Even with my initial 7.44, my average was well below the 6 score required and i was granted a full medical! The optometrist (Mr Chorley) was at a loss as to why results could differ so much to which i explained that it was because I felt I was ill advised with regards to the first test, felt pressured into taking it quickly and that having had the test at City University, I was better prepared to take the test again. The only plus point with regards to the CAA was the fact they didn't charge me!

I'd like to thank everyone on the thread as there is some great advice on here and without this, I would still be stewing over my original results! My advice, contact Marisa at City University on 020 7040 0262, makes much more sense paying them than Gatwick!

[FlyingBlindUK]

@2close thanks for the reply, Sir. I may have exaggerated a little bit as there are a few plates I can see and then another few I can barely see. Most of them however remain invisible to me.

@Chrissyuk interesting post man! +1

[Scottish.CPL]

Chrissyuk, i found your message really interesting, i got the same score of cad as you, and felt the same way, ie pressure. second caa claim that cad is 100 percent accurate so no averaging of scored does that not mean that the test is in question, so we both failed to achieve the 6 unit score, in theory that should have been the end of it, you went to city and found it a better environment and passed with them!! VERY INTERESTING,

remember that cad is still not approved from easa's point of view and therefore if easa dont approve it then you are in possession of a medical that in not legal!! just under the CAA's eyes only

second 'contacted and invited back to Gatwick to have the CAD test again ' why , don't they trust the institute that designed the test in the first place,

im wondering if its time for me to go to city and do what you did!!

[dobbin1]

ChrissyUK - Just out of interest, when they initially issued you a restricted medical, was it class 1 or class 2?

[Chrissyuk]

Scottish CPL, I've just re-read the letter from the CAA and they say that the CAD test performed at City wasn't a a test for aviation standards..... Not sure how they worked that one out as its the same test?!
The first time I did the test at Gatwick, the nurse who told me I had failed turned around and said that because I wasn't too far out of the 'pass mark', I could do it again and maybe bring my average down. Like you say, if its a definitive test, why would they allow that as we well as my invite back? The whole process just makes me think there is no structure to any of it. They don't seem to have any definite guidelines and make bits up as they go. It'd suit them down to the ground to keep getting people back or re-tests at £150 a pop.

I'd definitely have a go at City, I feel like you'd definitely know where you stand afterwards and I'd resent paying more money to the CAA. Plus, if it does work out there is now a precedence for a free re-test at Gatwick!

Dobbin1 it was a restricted class 1 medical.

[Scottish.CPL]

i had to laugh at part of your reply, not are yourself, but the part about being close to the pass mark and to do it again, i was told that i i got between 6 and 7 uints i could be retested!!! we both scored 7.44

I would like to know what is the difference between the city version and the gatwick version, i might call city and ask, because all i hear in my thought are Bullsh**, the ishihara test is not aviation orientated, just a pediatric test!!

i need to find out how to get to city university from flights or train up north,

[dobbin1]

Dobbin1 it was a restricted class 1 medical

Interesting. I thought that it was no longer possible to add the CVD restrictions to an EASA class 1. My restricted class 1 runs out shortly and I am resigned to loosing my CPL due to the fact that I can't have the CVD restrictions on a class 1 and will need to drop to class 2.

Are the CAA making up their own rules now?

[2close]

Yes, and as things stand that medical will be worthless outside the UK.

They are inventing deviations for applying to UK issued medicals, which do not exist in EASA Part-MED - EC Reg 1178/2011 is THE LAW! - and this is all going to end in tears for some individuals.

You can rest assured that the CAA will not accept any liability.

dobbin1

Bad news; officially, your restricted Class 1 became null and void as soon as it became an EASA Part-MED Class 1, i.e. the date of implementation of Part-FCL/MED in the UK, and as you already know EASA Part-MED does not permit CVD deviations on Class 1 medicals. However, the good news - the UK CAA is continuing to issue CVD deviations on Class 1 medicals, with the No Public Transport/No Night Flight in place. So if you are happy to continue as you are, you can keep your CPL but it will only be valid in UK airspace. The old days of being able to keep a CPL and a PPL on the go simultaneously have gone - only one licence now!! It is a bl**dy mess.

:mad:

[dobbin1]

Well my CPL is also a PPL - it lists CPL(A) and PPL(A) in the box marked "Title of Licence, date of initial issue and country code".

I will be booking my next medical shortly - it will be interesting to see what they will give me this time around.

I am somewhat gobsmacked that the CAA medicos are prepared to put the CVD restrictions onto a class one when this is very clearly prohibited under part med. I suppose we should welcome such rebelliousness, but it does make you wonder what is going on.

[Scottish.CPL]

I am going to place for information that came my way, regarding CAD and just for your information,

There is no reason why the CAD test at City should be different to the one at Gatwick, thresholds might differ by +/-10%.

The CAD test offers two quick screening versions, one that screens for normal colour vision and one that screens for minimum red/green colour vision requirements for a specific occupational environment. The screening versions do not quantify the severity of colour vision loss.

The full CAD, takes approx. 4mins to test for yellow/blue and ~9mins to test for red/green colour vision. This produces an accurate measure of YB and RG colour vision and makes possible a graphical representation of the results.

[2close]

From City University's website:

City University AVRC Statement (http://www.city.ac.uk/health/research/research-areas/optometry/a-new-web-based-colour-vision-test)

Acknowledgements
The new version of the colour vision test was produced with support from the UK Civil Aviation Authority. The test is not yet in use for medical certification purposes. It should therefore be used only as a guide.

Interesting! :confused:

[Scottish.CPL]

right guys so its still possible to get a class 1 renewal done with the cvl added to it, and for use in the uk only, i suppose that ok, for now, considering that if you keep the medical going and pass a colour vision test, at least it can be changed, rather that letting the 5 year laps and then your eyesight changes and you cannot gain the class 1 back!!!

[2close]

Yes but remember that you will not be able to gain an IR on a CPL with resricted Class 1 medical as you MUST have night flying privileges for the IR, unless of course the UK CAA Medical Branch intends to break that law as well.

I can see this ending in tears for some who, having spent a small fortune gaining a ME CPL/IR all of a sudden have it stripped away from them because an EASA Audit shows the CAA Med Branch has been operating in breach of EC Reg 1178/2011 and orders the CAA to revoke their licences or face prosecution in the EU Courts.

Whilst I applaud the CAA Medics in one respect for giving individuals the chance to gain a ME CPL IR, surely they can't be so stupid as to think they can get away with this. It was different under JAR; they were able to act unilaterally but EC Reg 1178/2011 is European Law and not a 'make it up as we go along' boys club like the JAA. It appears that the Med Branch is acting in defiance of the law.

I wish they would at the very least clarify the position in writing - but that is unlikely as they would then need to accept liability.

I think a letter to CAA Legal is needed. Make them speak up as to what the hell they are up to.

[Scottish.CPL]

Quite right guys I only hold a class 1 medical but no license or ratings I hold the medical incase one day I can get the colour restriction removed

[dobbin1]

Well my CPL is also a PPL - it lists CPL(A) and PPL(A) in the box marked "Title of Licence, date of initial issue and country code".

I will be booking my next medical shortly - it will be interesting to see what they will give me this time around.

I am somewhat gobsmacked that the CAA medicos are prepared to put the CVD restrictions onto a class one when this is very clearly prohibited under part med. I suppose we should welcome such rebelliousness, but it does make you wonder what is going on.

My gob has been well and truly smacked. I have been issued with a Class 1 complete with the VCL restriction. My AME even called the CAA while I was there to confirm that it was okay. They seem to be getting around the part med rules by adding "ILA Issued by licensing authority in accordance with MED.B.001".

I Looked this up and found :-

MED.B.001 Limitations to medical certificates
(a) Limitations to class 1 and class 2 medical certificates
(1) If the applicant does not fully comply with the requirements for the relevant class of medical certificate but is considered to be not likely to jeopardise flight safety, the AeMC or AME shall:
(i) in the case of applicants for a class 1 medical certificate, refer the decision on fitness of the applicant to the licensing authority as indicated in Subpart B;
(ii) in cases where a referral to the licensing authority is not indicated in Subpart B, evaluate whether the applicant is able to perform his/her duties safely when complying with one or more limitations endorsed on the medical certificate, and issue the medical certificate with limitation(s) as necessary;
(iii) in the case of applicants for a class 2 medical certificate, evaluate whether the applicant is able to perform his/her duties safely when complying with one or more limitations endorsed on the medical certificate, and issue the medical certificate with limitation(s) as necessary in consultation with the licensing authority;
(iv) The AeMC or AME may revalidate or renew a medical certificate with the same limitation without referring the applicant to the licensing authority.

I'm not complaining as this means I get to keep my hard earned CPL, but it does make a nonsense of any European standardisation. I might even have a go at the CAD test next.

[2close]

Therefore, you can now get your CPL/IR, MCC and Type Rating and apply for a job as FO but restricted to daytime flying only.........or have they added No CAT to the limitations as well, in which case.....why?

Also, why can't they issue a VCL as part of an OML?

That would permit CVD pilots to perate Commercial Air Transport as a member of a multi-crew aircraft.

There is no logic to these decisions.

:ugh:

[dobbin1]

I have the NCAT restriction as well, so nothing has changed. At least I can (in theory) instruct for CPL or do other forms of aerial work if I want to.

[India Golf]

A friend (yes, really) has had a lifelong ambition to be a commercial pilot. He went for his Class 1 medical at Gatwick years ago and failed the Ishihara test, not previously knowing he had a colour deficiency. He assumed that this was the end of that particular ambition.

Being aware of this thread, I encouraged him to have his colour vision tested properly. (I also fail the Ishihara test, but passed a lantern test at the Institute of Opthamology which was acceptable to the CAA and allowed me to work airside. This same test result allowed me to have an unrestricted Class 2 medical).

Cutting a long story short, he decided to do the City University CAD test prior to his Class 1 medical. He was assured by the CAA that a pass at City University would be acceptable evidence of colour vision for his Class 1. He took the test and passed last week, sent the evidence to the CAA and was told he would have to undertake three more colour tests at Gatwick (at an extra cost of £125 on top of his medical fee). Apparently his pass at City was deemed to be "marginal" by the CAA.

Surely a pass is a pass. If I take an aviation exam and pass with 76% it is still a pass. I wouldn't expect to have to take the exam three more times because it is "marginal".

Has anyone come across this before?