Having read with interest these pages over the past couple of years I am now of the opinion that the only way that this issue will ever be resolved is by legal action in the UK and/or EU Courts, similar to that taken by Dr. Arthur Pape and others in Australia.
I am presently researching a legal challenge, in both technical and social terms.
One area I have investigated is that of discrimination and I was interested to learn that the Disability Rights Commission's new Code of Practice on the Disability Discrimination Act, whilst identifying total colour vision as a disability, specifies Red/Green colour vision deficiency as NOT being a disability. Having been involved with disability issues for several years I find this extremely peculiar, particularly as the same CoP identifies other very minor deficiencies as BEING disabilities.
I have very lightly challenged the DRC to explain their publication, as folllows:
"I write on behalf of myself and probably numerous other pilots with colour vision deficiencies (CVD). I find it extremely peculiar that the new DRC DDA CoP refers to total colour vision as being a disability within the meaning of s.1 DDA but specifically identifies Red/Green colour vision, i.e. that most commonly suffered by males, as NOT being a disability. There is a blatant lack of consistency in this approach. Furthermore, it is odd that the DRC has removed the question referring to the CAA and colour vision deficient pilots from its website. Taking both of these issues into context, it would appear to me that the DRC has been put under pressure into identifying Red/Green colour vision deficiency as not being a disability within the meaning of the DDA. This effectively means that the DRC is potentially as guilty of discrimination as the 'protectors' of CVD itself. You are obviously aware that it has been held by separate Courts in Australia that this approach is discriminatory and luckily for CVD pilots, whilst this is a Code of Practice it is only that and being very new has not yet been challenged in the Courts. I look forward to your comments."
Of course, the powers-that-be may be correct, maybe CVD pilots flying in EU airspace do present a clear and present threat to flight safety and therefore the safety of people both in the air and on the ground. If that is the case then why are the powers-that-be performing their duties in such a negligent manner as to permit CVD pilots from outside the EU who would not meet the colour visual standards of the JAA to operate passenger laden airliners in EU airspace on a daily basis? What would the public outcry be if a major accident was found to be due to the CVD of a pilot from outside the EU? But it's not going to happen because in both the USA and Australia, where far more relaxed CVD standards are applied, aircraft are NOT falling out of the skies, not by day and not by night.
It would help if the powers-that-be could simply keep people informed of any positive developments. Regrettably, they seem to shroud this issue in a cloak of secrecy, and one can only conclude that it is done in order to protect the 'protectors' of CVD discrimination.
Head over the parapet, awaiting incoming............
2close