If nothing else it will give you an appreciation of what we are dealing with.
The only way to deal with anything effectively is as I said before:
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
I know very little about colour blindness, but if there is sufficient evidence it should not be an excluding condition present the evidence,
the airline representative may argue the IMC is a sub standard qualification - lets see the evidence to support or counter their argument. If it is poorly taught, embarrassingly it befalls the CAA to enforce standards - if they have failed to do so they are complicit.
DFC makes a sound point.
The biggest problem is that AOPA is ineffective. They do not represent the majority of pilots in the UK or in Europe and in consequence they are unable to "employ" representatives with the experience or quality to take on the establishment.
I appreciate it is a catch twenty in that if pilots don’t join AOPA the situation is not going to change. Equally if AOAP continue to do such a poor job of representing what they are about (see my earlier post) is it surprising so few pilots join?
Anyone interested should compare and contrast AOPA this side of the pond with their counter part in America. So far as I am aware AOPA US have not lost a single issue they have pursued. They are considered to be a powerful and effective lobbying body of whom the politicians take considerable heed.
On this issue, as but one example, if AOPA brought a legal challenge against EASA that they were acting illegally by not accrediting pilots with an FAA IR with instrument privileges then I suspect they would win.