I think ILS 26R may be asking a question and not making a statement.
I suspect English may not be his/her first language but the question would seem to be whether CVD would have a problem with EFIS displays, the obvious answer to which is 'absolutely not', otherwise the authorities would have to stop CVD pilots flying at all in case they (heaven forbid) find themelves in charge of an aircraft with a G1000 (or similar).
It is a known fact that CVD persons are often better at discriminating subtle changes in colour in a mash of colours than colour normal persons, one I can attest to, having proven it on many occasions.
The issue with CVD tests is their fitness for purpose not the fact that they identify persons with CVD. What should be on test is how the individual's CVD affects his ability to operate a modern aircraft?
The test needs to be specific-to-task and not a simple 'catch and ban' all and sundry.
In this day of advanced, state-of-the-art simulation (and I operate a very advanced 737-800 sim with zero problems) with their high-end graphics, both on the ground and in the air, there is no excuse for not being able to devise a thorough practical CVD test, which could test all aspects of aircraft operation, including taxiing in severe inclement weather through flashing multi-coloured lights.
On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority.
As well as this, over the years I have personally come across many CVD pilots who, through one way or another, have slipped through the net, one of which I know was a RAF Tornado pilot/instructor and another had >15,000 hours on Airbus aircraft on a JAA licence for European operators, much of which was at night. Funnily enough, their aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky or landed on the taxiway at night.
It is a shame that an amnesty for CVD pilots flying for EU airlines could not be brought about with a guarantee of no loss of licence, in order that the authorities could see the prevalence of people who had beaten the test (and it is not difficult) so they could see how little effect it has on actual aircraft operation.
And in anticipation of the comment "yeah, but what about when such and such happens?"..... in response, how about when ATC orders an expedited climb and your FO forgets how to change altitude when you're in the toilet.....or when you forget your spare spectacles and accidentally break your only pair in flight. We cannot cater for every single eventuality, which is why we have risk factors, parameters and tolerances. With the current CVD issue, a probability of failure in excess of acceptable tolerances is being assumed with absolutely no empirical data to substantiate that assumption. Why? Also, stop making the argument against CVD fit the assumed bias - provide evidence. What seems to happen is that, whenever the anti-CVD lobby starts losing a part of their argument they introduce something else to fit the test.
There are wheelchair users flying as commercial pilots and good luck to them - they should be permitted to do so - but when it comes to certain conditions, the authorities are stuck in their ways because that's the way it has always been.
I am also fed up with this comment "Why should we reduce our standards to the lowest common denominator?" when it is mentioned that other countries (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada) have far relaxed CVD requirements and their pilots aren't regularly involved in colour related accidents. If that is your argument, then let's mandate that all drivers in the UK be 'Advanced Driver' standard -why should Advanced Drivers accept that other drivers should be of a lower standard? I would wager a good sum of cash that making 'Advanced Driver' the minimum standard for motorways and A class roads, accompanied by biennial testing, would significantly reduce accident statistics. But that would mean introducing legislation on the basis of assumption, which is wrong.
Back to the forum................
