Hi Todalda and welcome to this forum,
Whilst I fully appreciate your philosophy I feel there is a little more to it than meets the eye.
What people are complaining about is an unfair system perpetuated by the JAA which is using outmoded methods of testing and rules that are based on assumptions rather than proven fact to place an outright ban on CVD pilots flying commercial air transport, whilst many other developed nations with exceptional safety standards and records use far less restricted methodology for testing and permit CVD pilots to fly commercially in certain circumstances. Unless of course the JAA member states would like to openly accuse those other countries of not operating safely, in which case why do they allow their pilots to operate in their airspace?
Like you, it is probably too late for any changes to make any difference for me and even if the rules changed overnight it is highly unlikely I would obtain an airline (even regional) job at my time of life, not that I would want one. However, I am firmly of the opinion that the authorities have no provable case that CVD pilots pose any greater risk to flight safety than any other pilot and that they rely entirely on spurious academic rationale to fortify their weak argument.
It is my belief that the CAA and other JAA national authorities is actively discriminating against a group of individuals without any justifiable cause.
If the authorities could prove their case using valid, real life practical examples, instead of constantly shifting the goalposts to argue their academic case, I am certain that the guys who presently feel very miffed would accept that it is in the interests of flight safety that they are not permitted to operate commercially. However, I really cannot see how the authorities could achieve this, based partly on the mechanisms in place in other countries but especially as the opposite has already been proven in the higher Courts of Law, using technical as well as social argument.
I agree to a certain extent with Outofwhack but in the first instance the Ishihara Test needs to be applied correctly, i.e. as per the test manufacturer's instructions and (so far as the UK is concerned) in accordance with the guidance published by the Health & Safety Executive, both of which clearly state that the pass criterion is no more than TWO errors and not NIL errors as applied by the JAA. I also have it on very learned authority that an organisation cannot manipulate a prescribed medical procedure to satisfy its own protocols without leaving itself wide open to legal challenge, which is exactly what the JAA has done.
Personally, I've had radio failure twice and joined circuits safely and made perfectly safe landings, without the tower even attempting to signal me. The one occasion where I did ask a controller to shine the light to me (for testing purposes) I was unable to see the light, even on final, because the light was not visible through the control tower windows - the controller had to go out on to the verandah whereby I was then able to identify the colours; lucky there was a verandah. How is the system supposed to work when you have controlled airfields with control towers with sloping tinted windows that do not open. There is a flaw in regulation there alone - the pilots must be able to recognise the light signals but to the best of my knowledge there is no legal design requirement for the control tower to be able to display the light signals. There is also no legal requirement for an aircraft to carry a signal light but there is a legal requirement for the pilot to know what signals to send to the ground.......derrr, hello, MacFly!!!!
TTFN
2close