Quotes from RL submission:
In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently.
These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO.
In ICAO Annex 1 the reference for CVD is at Chapter 6 paragraph 6.2.4 and reads:
6.2.4 Colour perception requirements
6.2.4.1 Contracting States shall use such methods of examination as will guarantee reliable testing of colour perception.
6.2.4.2 The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.
6.2.4.3 The applicant shall be tested for the ability to correctly identify a series of pseudoisochromatic plates in daylight or in artificial light of the same colour temperature such as that provided by CIE standard illuminants C or D65 as specified by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).
6.2.4.4 An applicant obtaining a satisfactory result as prescribed by the Licensing Authority shall be assessed as fit. An applicant failing to obtain a satisfactory result in such a test shall be assessed as unfit unless able to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights. Applicants who fail to meet these criteria shall be
assessed as unfit except for Class 2 assessment with the following restriction: valid daytime only.
Note.— Guidance on suitable methods of assessing colour vision is contained in the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).
6.2.4.4.1 Recommendation.— Sunglasses worn during the exercise of the privileges of the licence or rating held should be non-polarizing and of a neutral grey tint.
The last known list (that I can find) of Australia's notified differences can be tracked back to
AIP Supp H12/11. Now if you scroll down through the list, of over 1500 differences notified..
, you will eventually get to the relevant section:
Chapter 6 Medical Provisions for Licensing
Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider.
In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..
Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.
So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified??
Maybe I'm missing something...if so '
please explain'???
TIA
Ps For those of you interested in getting up to speed for this afternoon's episode of the Senate Estimates soap opera here is a video link for the last episode on the 18/11/13:
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport [Part 2]