<http://www.cvdpa.com/>
Folks,
The above is the web site you need to look at.
As is all too often the case, a number of posts here are inaccurate and misleading, for the whole UP TO DATE CVD situation, go to the above, where you will find the whole history, including the various AAT cases that resulted in the current Australia licensing situation.
Dr. Pape has represented a sensible position on CVD up to an including being the IAOPA representative at ICAO considerations of the subject.
All the changes to date, to the advantage of Australian pilots, are based on a very simple proposition ---- there is NO DEMONSTRATED LINK between the "traditional" colour vision standards and a pilot performing any flying task "safely" --- ie: CVD does not increase the risk levels, compared to a "normal" colour vision pilot ---- and if you disagree, all that proves is that you haven't examined the facts.
All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.
Indeed, this is true of much of the medical standards for pilots, the "standards" were never based on objective consideration of the level of medical fitness needed to perform pilot tasks, but were copied from military medical standards, that were designed to exclude all but a very small percentage of candidates from pilot training.
When I first did a CPL initial medical, you had to pass the vision standards uncorrected ---- no glasses!! But you could subsequently continue to fly, if glasses were eventually required ---- either it is safe to wear glasses and fly professionally --- or it is not, and the then DCA was finally forced to recognize that, and drop the uncorrected vision initial standard.
Nobody, today, would suggest that a professional pilot with glasses represented an increase in risk, let alone an unacceptable increase in risk ---- and that is where we have to go with CVD, for the great majority of pilots or potential pilots with CVD, it is the same as "glasses" --- there is simply no demonstrated increase in risk ----- as opposed to an assumed increase in risk.
Tootle pip!!