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.
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..
point taken; i thought initially the same way you explained about EASA kick in but i've been told by the CAA (PLD) otherwise. i've been even told to use LASORS as reference... but nevermind, fairly irrelevant now as 17th sept is very close.
whether they like it or not, the CAD is not approved, fact! they may (they already have actually) try to have it approved in future but this is a different matter.
i agree also on the SHOULD issue and the fact that it may lead to possible alternatives but remember only EASA from Cologne can dictate what can be 'deviated'...
The way i feel is that there're will be a more relaxed approach in future with regards to colourvision... just look at the LAPL medical.
incidentally, do you know anything more about those JAA CPL/IR holders with class one restriction?
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..
Again, the CAA should answer this but i suspect this question hasn't even cross their mind - it will when they have to switch the CAD off maybe?
your thinking is actually correct. Why should someone be awarded a class one having passed the CAD? and why not to someone who passsed other types of lanterns (like the farsworth, which is used worldwide!) or an MFTs?
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.
i've been helping few CVD pilots for the past few months and I really came across some wierd cases like a former collegue of mine that had a restricted class one medical, but JAA CPL ME/IR senior FI... including a Night FI. Believe me or not his JAA PPL was unrestricted (he passed a lantern called gilles-archer in the '80) that still allows him to fly (and teach) legally at night on his class 2 but not on his CPL!
I know someone else who got 6.3sn on the CAD (even though he passes a run out of 4), again CPL ME/IR A320 (although he has an FAA licence and flies outside EU).
well, assuming you hold a JAA CPL (including all various ratings like IR and FI) - ie not UK national - with the advent of EASA you will not lose your licence. I have written letters from both policy and PLD stating this. This in fact is one of the reasons why since last year they no longer put restrictions on licences (PLD simply doesn't want to have anything to do with Medical dept ****'s up).
how you're going to 'maintain' that licence is a slight different matter... but your licence is going to stay, and this can only be a good starting point.
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.
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).
Last edited by outofwhack; 29th Jul 2012 at 13:25.
2close, has anyone told you that? have you got a PPL now and no longer a CPL?
if you want i can send you a copy of a letter from the CAA stating what i written above, let me know.
Quote:
assuming you hold a JAA CPL (including all various ratings like IR and FI) - ie not UK national - with the advent of EASA you will not lose your licence. I have written letters from both policy and PLD stating this. This in fact is one of the reasons why since last year they no longer put restrictions on licences (PLD simply doesn't want to have anything to do with Medical dept ****'s up).
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...
as we stand, the CAD is not approved an EASA test, therefore its use under EASA would be illegal. They may try to have it approved as earlier as possible of course but this is another matter (it would actually solve this problem - relatively speaking!)
I suspect those that have passed the CAD so far will be 'safe' and keep their medicals (some sort of grandfather's right). As scottish says, can you imagine the legal implications if otherwise?!
gijoe, if i may give you an advice, on you letter make sure you quote words-by-words the new EASA regulations. Not much point using JARs now as they are out of dated, nevermind the fact it can lead to mis-understanding! good luck, and let us know
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.
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.
