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.
ano mate, but its better that nothing at the moment , 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?
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?
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.
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..
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."
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.
Last edited by brissypilot; 25th Sep 2012 at 03:07.
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).
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?
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.
Last edited by outofwhack; 25th Sep 2012 at 11:49.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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....
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.
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?
, have you taken the cad test? just out on curiosity dobbin1..
I say again.........."Then again, there is always the 'God complex'.
