Hi Soup Nazi, thanks for your support. I too have been diagnosed as being a protanope and unfortunately have tried and failed the same practical lantern test in Melbourne. The problem with a lot of these tests is that there is a certain amount of luck involved in passing them. For example, I personally know a few guys who have passed the signal gun test and now have unrestricted medicals - most of these guys readily admit they only did so due to sheer luck. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I did this test and scored 7/8 lights correct yet and so the restriction remains...
The real problem with these tests (and Arthur Pape agrees with this) is that they are contrary to the recommendations from the Denision AAT case. These AAT cases from the 80's are still the most exhaustive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted in the entire world. As many would be aware, the overwhelming conclusion from this case was that CVD's do not pose an aviation safety risk. They did however recommend the introduction of a 'practical' test for protanopes such as yourself and I.
This is why CASR 67.150 (6) (c) now enables a CVD affected person to meet the requirements of the regulations by passing a test which 'simulates an operational situation'. The two tests that CASA devised to simulate this operational situation are the tower signal gun test & the 'practical' lantern test in Melbourne. I've never seen a signal gun in real life (nor have I met anyone who has). Similarly, I don't fly an aircraft in a laboratory like with the test in Melbourne. So how is it possible then to say that these two tests reflect an 'operational situation'?
I'm more than happy to demonstrate to my competency in the aircraft or simulator for example by flying a PAPI approach or by interpreting glass cockpit display screens. (As we do anyway by virtue of the fact that we pass regular CIR renewals, proficiency checks & line checks...) That would be a far better way of ensuring that we meet the regulatory requirements and would then also be in line with the AAT's recommendation of a practical test. Unfortunately this has been suggested to CASA and the answer is always an emphatic 'no'.
The ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine also provides for a certain amount of flexibility when making aviation medicine decisions and recommends that an individual's 'abilities, skills and experience' be considered. It can definitely be argued that the CASA approach so far has been far from flexible and continues to discriminate against very capable and competent pilots such as some of the other guys I mentioned in my last post.
As such, this is the reason why another appeal case is being coordinated so that we can get this issue resolved and we can continue to progress our careers. Hopefully with more support and membership through CVDPA we can make this a reality and eventually take the fight to assist the guys in the rest of the world too!