Medical & HealthNews and debate about medical and health issues as they relate to aircrews and aviation. Any information gleaned from this forum MUST be backed up by consulting your state-registered health professional or AME.
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!
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...
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!
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.
Up to now, all medical issues were mainly decided by staff of the medical department only (medicine background really, not much of aviation expertise there). Under EASA if i understand correctly, any decision or appeal is actually referred to the licensing authority (PLD). Not sure if this is going to make any remarked change but i would not rule out a more pragmatic approach to problems... as opposed to a more wet-dream-theoretical one! the cad is in fact a metaphore of the whole situation: good intention, poor design, totally detached to reality, absolutely inconclusive.
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.....
if you have been denied a retest on a lantern test, then you must challenge them, even legally if required. The JAA medicine manual in fact alow retests after six months... and as far as i know everywhere in mainland Europe it is allowed. If i were you i would also as for a FOI check on the lanterns to make sure they have been serviced. Lantern's lamps are indeed very delicate and must be checked/serviced periodically otherwise they could be 'inaccurate'.
here's the funny bit... would you believe in fact that the CAD (which is not approved) can be resit after six months (by paying an extra further £125)? funny that, innit?
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...
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.....
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.
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!
I have to correct you there Windforce (in the nicest way of course )
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!!
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.
