To Palgia,
Yet another very interesting posting.
You are right in saying that the ICAO are ultimatley responsible for this colour perception standard which is based on science. Why the standard? Simple, no standard no safety. So one cannot argue with the intentions for the standard, but one can argue with the way each national aviation authority interprets as to 'how safe is safe'.
You wrote:
'The ICAO give a large amount of freedom to each individual aviation authority in determining who is actually colour deficient and who isn't.'
To me this seems an arbitary approach. The ICAO seem to be saying 'Ok guys do what you think is right within the standards we have set'. So countries have gone away and come up with their set of tests which fall within the criteria. The USA 'last chance' test is the signal gun test. A very sensible and relevant test. Of course these are the lights ALL pilots must be able to see properly. You are correct in saying that if there is radio failure a pilot must be able to see these lights. Carrying a hand held radio is an excellent idea because even a person with normal colour vision may not be able to see the lights from ATC in bad visibility. The chance of 2 radio failures is minute. But that's another topic for another day.
I have heard of people going to other countries within the JAA and getting their colour vision tested, passing and consequently getting the restrictions lifted from their licence. Isn't this what JAR harmonisation is all about?
Where do you draw the line? Good question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one yet. Each country seems to move the line to where THEY want it, as long it is still within the ICAO boundaries.
I don't think there is a conspiracy against us. As I said earlier the standards are set for safety reasons. These were not thought up overnight. They are scientifically researched. However I do believe they need to be reviewed again. The only way to beat these standards is with science - a long and hard task.
You said beat the ICAO and the rest will follow suit. This is very true but I think a more fundamental problem exists here. That is of the supposed harmonisation between the JAA countries.
As you may have guessed by now I am a cvd. I have been to the CAA and failed both the Ishihara and HW Lantern.
Under the regs. the HW Lantern, Anomolascope, Beyne Lantern and Spectrolux are accepted tests. Why couldn't I do all those tests before they decide to circle 'colour unsafe' on my medical? The obvious answer is cost. Too expensive to hold all that equipment to test 1/8 people who apply for the medical.
However shouldn't I be able to go to another JAA member state and have the remaining tests done there before a decision is made? If I do pass, it should be recognised by any other JAA country. But I have learned that this does not happen in practice. Also why different testing criteria for the same test? Where is the Spectrolux test available? Does anyone know?
So the next question is 'What now?'
I think a database of people in our situation should be started. And approaching Dr Pape for advice would be a good idea. This is a very tough, long and hard battle, so it is crucial that we start off on the right foot and tread carefully. It can be done though. Remember David beat Goliath!
So all you cvd 'Davids' out there lets start the first battle in a series of battles to win the war!
Anyway I'll stand down off my soapbox now because the Simpsons is on. (I wonder if Homer is a cvd? Hmmm... flying)
Regards
Ice.