dobbin1

In what way do you fall foul?

outofwhack

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

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

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:
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.

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?

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.

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 !