There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Dr Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.
1. It is assumed that is something has a different colour it is for a safety reason. I think it is likely that some items are a different colour for convenience, tradition or aesthetics.
2. It is assumed that all things that are colour coded must be visible to the pilot, eg navigation lights. The pilot cannot see his own and in the current age, if you are close enough to distinguish red from green on another aircraft you're probably in a lot of trouble. We use radar and TCAS and even radio and strobe lights in the modern era, not little red & green lights. It would seem to me that red & green navigation lights are a non functional remnant from the past that regulators have not had the courage to discontinue.
3. It is assumed that colour is the only differentiator. knob / lever size, shape and texture is not discussed, neither is relative location.
4. It is assumed that the CVD pilot cannot tell the difference between colours. As I understand it, many CVD pilots can recognise shade, brightness or contrast differences between different colours. Therefore the CVD pilot will still have some "non colour" visual cues.
Unlike his predecessors, Dr Navathe does not seem to have the respect of his peers and he seems to be an academic who does not believe something exists until he can read a paper on it. Can you imagine this nonsense or the spectacle of Dr Navanthe lecturing the Senate in the era of Dr Robert Liddell?
Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation