Kharon:
The risk of a pilot 'medical' condition being causal to an accident under the present regime is almost mathematically negligible. Ship, train and coach drivers don't often keel over behind the wheel, they carry lots of passengers and operate under 'stressful' conditions, in high risk environments at times; and the doctors doing their medical assessment aren't having nervy turns after signing one off; neither are the insurance companies. How about the Doc's who do life insurance medicals, they don't need to scamper off to 'Mummy' to make an assessment, do they now. No, of course they don't, so this little red-herring runs the risk of becoming risible...
Top post “K”! The current drift is way out of my league and I’m not into promoting thread drifts or classic 'false dichotomy' interference (thanks Creamy) but the “K” post I can understand…
Perhaps to drift back we can focus on a couple of posts from a 2012 Medical & Health thread on CVD, which perhaps highlights the good DOC’s true colours (so to speak) on CVD.
First a quote from ausdoc from this passage of play..
“..The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment)…”
Okay our very own brissypilot kicks off the discussion:
brissypilot
#106
Hi all,
Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.
The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."
Case Studies Three Protanopes PAPE ICASM2012 - YouTube
It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.
The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.
Then this from the Doc, which includes the above quote:
ausdoc #107
I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).
Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.
There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.
It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).
Hmm..the Doc was certainly knowledgeable on the stats for the conference, which was acknowledged by BP:
Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited.
Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.
I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.
I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.
I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?
To which ausdoc completely ignored instead in his next he said...
“..I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test…”
But pponte was not prepared to let the good Doc off the hook quite so easily..
pponte #119
let's support what we're saying then..
Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.
I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.
By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.
We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.
Happy to go to court.. Are you?
To which ausdoc replied…
“….Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?
You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?..”
And pponte in reply..
“…Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize for targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.
This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base…”
After that, if you follow the thread, ausdoc slinks off from where he came from.
Maybe also because, a couple of posts later, AP weighed into the argument..
:
Why keep talking about these tests?
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers
So ausdoc perhaps here is your chance to debate your point of view on CVD with Arthur, I’m pretty sure he will oblige..
..just do it elsewhere OK..
ps perhaps here: Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
Further OBS on the Doc: Passing strange that prior to the Doc's recent interest in the ESB thread the last contribution he made was back in November last year in his favourite haunt the Medical & Health forum and on this thread: Should he list Attention Deficit Disorder on his first class medical?
Hmm...further research required here I reckon..