"That's part of the problem - nobody really knows."
Yes they do, the fact that CVD pilots have successfully passed proficiency checks for the past 25 years in Australia and the past 40 years in the USA confirms that there is no problem.
Exactly! CASA had no trouble sending letters to the supposedly 400 professional CVD pilots around Australia. Instead of writing to all these pilots and telling them that they're a threat to the safety of air navigation, it wouldn't have taken much more effort to instead pull up their CASA records of instrument rating passes etc to see what the statistics are of how successfully they pass these checks when compared to colour normal pilots.
They could've written to the AOC holders and instead requested feedback on how well their CVD pilots actually perform in a real world environment. All this information is readily available through detailed training records.
CASA could've actually consulted with the industry and the affected stakeholders to better understand the issues, rather than alienate them even further.
if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS
As AP explained a few pages back, the colours aren't the problem and don't need to be changed. CVD pilots perform equally as well as pilots with normal colour vision. His presentation to the International Congress of Aviation & Space Medicine conference in 2012 is worth reviewing. Yes, this is only a small sample of three pilots (with the most severe form of CVD there is), but it does unquestionably highlight how the CVD pilots are still required to pass all the regular and rigorous tests required for the "safe performance of duties" (to quote the ICAO standard). These guys might've failed the three levels of CVD testing as per the regs, but they each have passed literally dozens of flight and simulator checks over thousands of hours each.
In my employment, my performance is assessed in the sim four times a year. Despite my own CVD, I still pass all the required sequences with no discernible differences to my peers with normal colour vision. The comments over the last 18 pages of this thread highlight that colour on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary to safely perform duties. I don't believe CVD is a "medical" issue, rather it is a "perception" issue.
Visual perception and how we perceive things and make correct decisions is far more complex and relies on many more cues than the simplistic views adopted by those who promote colour vision research and testing. They also forget that people with a CVD have never known anything different their entire lives. I didn't even know I was colour "blind" until I went for my first aviation medical at age 15. In my 16 years of flying since it has never once come up as an issue. As humans we learn to adapt. Perception is a private experience and no one else can claim to "see" what another person sees and therefore they can't assume to know how we individually process and react to information. If flying was dependent on the ability to be able to reliably name and distinguish colours, then I'd be the first to admit that I shouldn't be doing this for a job. But it doesn't!
As Creamy highlighted a few pages back, the premise of the argument of those who set the standards is false. Colour is undoubtedly used lots in the aviation environment, but the assumption that the ability to rapidly and accurately identify colours is essential to the safe performance of duties is completely wrong!
With the PAPI for example, it has long been argued that that this is colour "critical" and that without the ability to perceive it's colours, that CVD's will pose a safety risk when using it. You would think from the way some of these researchers write, that it is impossible to land an aircraft without it!
Forget for a moment that the evidence shows that CVD pilots continue to use PAPI on a daily basis without issue and that even colour normal pilots cannot reliably interpret it under certain atmospheric conditions.
The claim that PAPI is "critical" to be able to land an aircraft is false. All pilots are trained from day 1 to land an aircraft based on the visual "perspective" out the window. We fly into airports that aren't even equipped with it including at night in black holes. We can program VNAV guidance into the FMS. We do mental calculations of altitude vs distance to run to confirm the correct profile. Approach plates also have this information published on it. CASA even issue exemptions for jet operators to fly into airports without it subject to conditions. Colour is not critical!
A few more comments from the
petition. Over 800 signatures and still rising
I see no logical reason to limit pilots with colour deficiencies considering flying with the use of NVG's is done with a 40 degree field of view and a monochromatic image.
I have flown with colour deficient pilots as part of an airline crew. They are more than capable of carrying out the responsibilities of the job, some better than their colleagues whose colour vision is not impaired.
Im a colour vision defective pilot. I have 17,000 hrs in command and have been safely flying commercially for 30 years.
Retired now, but looking back on 44yrs flying finding it hard to remember when colors were that important.
I operated as a pilot for 45 years(including 25 years as a B747 Captain) with Qantas. I failed the standard colour blindness Ishihara plates continually. I passed the "Lantern Test" in 1968. Never in my whole career did my colour blindness?interfere in any way with my ability to operate as required.
Colour vision may have been important when signals to aircraft were ONLY by means of RED & GREEN or white lights, but we now have RADIO & Telephone/Texting available so why take this backward and unnecessary step? I am a professional pilot not afflicted in this way but CASA has to start thinking of cost to innocent lives not their own to control i.e. the families of those disadvantaged by the stupidity of many within the CASA
I am a now retired CVD pilot after a 46 year career and 25077 flying hours. The majority as captain on DHC8 a/c. My so called CVD was of no effect on my operating of these a/c. Further I held check and training approvals on DHC6,EMB110,DO228,B1900Dall being turbine powered plus numerous piston multi engine a/c. Also I held initial & renewal approval for Class1 instrument ratings. All in RPT operations. Dr Pape is well aware of my qualifications. PS I have 584 hrs night hrs again on RPT operations.
Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm.
As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.