I applied to UAS with the hopes of becoming an RAF pilot, but colour vision screwed me over. I don't necessarily hold too much against the RAF for wanting perfect pilots, but I hold everything against optometrists.
For starters, the book was held right up against my face so that I could barely focus on it. I read in a honkin' great big optometry book that on the 38 plate version of the Ishihara, up to seven errors is considered normal. I was barely shown seven plates, let alone got seven wrong. In fact, there was only two I got wrong. I know this because I did some research afterwards. Now, I'll note that the source for the test procedure in the textbook was American and so they probably have different standards. But to that, I say WTF?
How can the world's medical community disagree as to what constitutes colour normal? How can we have credibility in them if this debacle occurs? It's amazing how optometrists love to dwell on the plates you can't do while giving very little attention to the plates you get right. And their tone! They give the same disapproving "okay" for every answer, despite the ones you get right. I wanted to say, "Do you people practice being awkward? Is it so hard just to say yes or no to the answer I give?"
To be fair to the optometrist at OASC, at least he gave me second chance at doing it under a lamp, supposedly to simulate daylight conditions, although I don't reallly know how accurate a simulation sticking it right under a desk lamp really is. It's one step above the AME that did my JAR Class II.
Then came the lantern test (HW I presume). The first few were easy; red and green unquestionably, although of course I wouldn't know even if I did get it wrong because they don't tell you anything. But then came a pair or two that looked different. There was this orangy-yellow light that featured. The thing is that in the demonstration pairs, while red was normally red, in one of them, red was more of a light orange, and so I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't say anything because I presume that he would attribute my confusion to my defect. Either way, I failed that too.
I might remind you that of the small number of plates he showed me, I only got two wrong. Wasn't he the least bit doubtful when, despite getting a number of plates right, I would get be CP4?
Later on, the head medical guy gave me the final statement. He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
That's exhaust fumes if I'd ever heard it. First, the red light is above green light defence of medical guys doesn't work at night, when from a distance, you can't see the traffic light assembly. Second, I know clearly the difference between red and green traffic lights and on the train of shame home that night, as it was firework season, we passed by a firework show and I knew clearly which fireworks were green and which were red, not to mention all the other pretty colours.
Third, there is an environment I encounter in my motoring that has greater similarities. I call it the M40 at night, the motorway that dominates most of my journey from my home in London to university in Birmingham. Through large stretches of it, there are no street lamps. The only source of illumination is the headlights of other cars and the marking on the road are signalled by the use of coloured reflectors. These reflectors have been trampled underfoot of a stampede of bad drivers that can't hold lane (including me sometimes). They are rained upon, soiled upon, they are left with tire marks all over them. They are outshined by the lights in my mirror, from the traffic going the other way, and from the glare on my absolutely filthy windscreen. Clearly, for colour recognition, these aren't ideal conditions. Yet, I know exactly where the hard shoulder is. I know exactly where the central reservation is. I know exactly when a sliproad approaches. I know all this just from looking at the reflectors.
I guess real life doesn't factor into the optometrists' testing parameters.
Being rated CP4 seemed unnatural to me since the only problem I'd ever had distinguishing between colours has been on those bloody colour vision tests.
Anyway, I've booked a lantern test at Gatwick in a short while, to see if, by some longshot, I can do better with the CAA. Any advice on what subversions to beware?
On my OASC medical form thing, I was declared permanently unfit for almost everything. However, in the temporarily unfit category, there was this entry. It said "Eng" and it was followed by something (the handwriting is terrible, the guy's a doctor alright) that I optimistically interpret as "need waver". And to add to that, in the book listing all the branches, through the Engineer branch tick box, there was the unfit line but with a 'w' over the top. Either way, Eng was certainly in the temporarily unfit category. I might investigate this further.
I've noticed that a lot of people here don't take the judgement of the optometry community well. And I understand the reason why. We all recognise that colour vision is important for a pilot, but what we don't recognise, is the judgement of the optometrists about how much colour vision.
Let me state it plainly. The issue is not how one person's colour vision compares to another. The issue is whether or not an individual's colour vision is sufficient to allow them fly safely.
Optometrists don't seem to understand this. They construct tests that are as nitpicky as possible and use it to conclude that our colour vision is inferior. That may be, but does that mean we are unsafe? They can't make an informed judgement about what is sufficient because they can't understand what we really see. You are unlikely to find many colour defective optometrists.
Consider! Visual acuity is judged with pinpoint precision (forgive the pun). They have all this numbers to categorise every facet of your eyeball. They have decimal points and negative signs. A whole host of quantification. Now, how to they judge colour vision? Colour normal, colour defective safe, colour defective unsafe. That's what passes for "quantitative" measurement of colour vision.
The reason is simple. Visual acuity is an issue of optics. It's all about focal lengths and other such detailed stuff. They can measure these things very precisely and form all these mathematical descriptions of it, and construct these accurate models of the eye.
But colour vision is an entirely different ball of wax. The only thing they have to go on is what we tell them we can and cannot see. They see the glyph on the Ishihara plate and conclude that because we can't, we must have a serious problem. I've never seen through the eyes of a colour normal and so chances are, what I think is fairly colourful would just look psychedelic through their eyes, but the point is that I know better than they do whether or not I can identify the lights on an airfield.
To be blunt, they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be inaccurately describing me as a monochrome. And if they did, there wouldn't be this huge inconsistency across the international community about what constitutes different levels of colour vision.
As I've said, in the case of the RAF, I don't hold too much against them for wanting perfect pilots, but I think that all the horror stories I've been hearing on this thread show that the optometry community had better pull itself together, recognise their own "deficiency" and stop unfairly condemning so many of us on based on guesses.