ppl limits

[cessnasey]

hi.

i recently started learning to fly (havnt been able to do much due to weather) and am color deficient so i am aware my flying can only go as far as private flying.

however after reading recent posts about the "give up rate" of PPLs, it got me thinking. so i started looking into what available extensions there are to a PPL being color deficiant. im aware i cant do nite flying. can anyone advise what other extended options would be available to me being a color blind PPL?

thanks

[S-Works]

being colour blind does not neccesarily prevent you from night flying. I have a friend who is red green colour blind nad has a night rating. As i recall you can do a lantern test or something instead. I would consult the CAA medical department for advice.

I dont think there are any restrictions on colour for IMC or IR either.

[wombat13]

Don't want to sound too glib, but I don't see how being colour deficient would stop you from getting an aerobatic rating.

You just have to be mad

The Wombat

[Sans Anoraque]

My Grandad was colour blind and he flew gliders into Arnhem.

At night.

[IO540]

I know of one definite case who failed not only the Isihara plates at his AME but also the CAA/Gatwick lantern test, and after hassling the CAA for ages got an IMC Rating. Restricted to day flying only. Prior to this happening, it was widely believed that this was impossible.

I know nothing about this bit but would be very suprised if an IR was obtainable, especially from the CAA. The CAA even refuse (repeatedly) an IR if the candidate fails the Class 1 audiogram in one ear, although I've heard of one case who got an IR with one ear failing the initial limits but being in spec for the renewal limits. The fact that a pilot who just passes the renewal limit (in both ears) will be deaf as a post doesn't bother anybody; this is a nice job creation scheme.

Important to note that failing the Isihara test means nothing. It is the lantern test that is definitive. That's what I did; passed the CAA LT 100% while failing the isihara plates miserably. The CAA letter which one gets after that is the most priceless piece of paper - even the FAA accepts it for the FAA PPL (which includes night privileges as standard).

The FAA might offer other options, involving the viewing of actual lamps aimed at the pilot from a control tower. Again, no need to know for me so I have no info. And, one can fly a G-reg, worldwide, on an FAA PPL. The FAA route is THE route of choice if one wants an IR for private flying (or for bizjet flying, perhaps) but then one needs an N-reg plane which basically implies buying one.

Sans Anoraque - I think the bar on night flight just because one can't pass the colour vision tests is a bit stupid. Firstly, most of the people (usually men) that fail the tests can in fact see all the colours in the cockpit just fine. Secondly, tower lights are almost never used these days, and anybody with sense will carry a portable radio in case of a total electrics failure. Thirdly, there is nothing to see when in IMC, so what's the point in see-and-avoid when a suitably rated pilot could be in IMC at any time, in Class G, without any ATS service? It's all barmy.

[Engine overtemp]

I think the restriction on night flying for colour blind aviators is down to collision avoidance (coloured nav lights) and not your ability to see the instruments!

[IO540]

Yes, but if you are appropriately rated then you could be in IMC and then you can't see other traffic anyway, so on that line of reasoning there should be no flight in IMC without positive radar control.

The statistical reality is that you could fly around blindfolded, and so long as you keep out of somebody's airfield circuit, you would die of old age long before hitting something. The see-and-avoid system doesn't actually work; it's a myth that has persisted for decades. Sure, you can spot a lot of planes by looking out of the window, but most planes are on straight trajectories (particularly at night e.g. not a lot of aeros or gliders) so a target on a genuine collision course will always be a totally stationary spot, regardless of its colour.

Time to duck before everybody jumps on me :O

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Time to duck before everybody jumps on me Er, I think we'd rather you didn't explain it to our families and passengers quite like that, but it's difficult to disagree much ...

[Monocock]

Cessnasey

One thing's for sure. Colour blind or not, you should thank your lucky stars that the ground exams are multiple choice and not written.

[IO540]

Someone very close to me is a university lecturer and I am thus reliably informed that a large % of today's degree candidates, and an almost as large % of graduates, are unable to write a single meaningful paragraph. I've seen the work she takes home for marking and it's absolutely astonishing.

Of course there are still establishments where this isn't true but if one had to write answers properly most "young" people today would never be able to pass any exams.

[cessnasey]

so i cant get an IMC rating being colorblind? i thought this was ok?:sad:

[Sans Anoraque]

Whooosh!!
(Sound of Monocock and I0540 going completely over cessnasey's head!)

[cessnasey]

definitly! hey im new to flying, got 3 hours logged! go easy on me...

done the lantern. and the beyne lantern, failed both. wanted to do it again but the caa wont have it!

anyhow. i can handle not being able to fly at nite, but would like to know i got the option of an IMC and would also love to do aerobatic rating.

thanks for all the input/replys.

[ThePirateKing]

Cessnasey,

As a CVD PPL, I can categorically state that you CAN get an IMC rating. (You couldn't 5 years ago, but the CAA actually fought the case with the JAA Medical Division and got the 'VFR only' bit of the CVL endorsement removed.)

Also, you only need a class 1 medical (+ audiogram) to get a full IR. Unfortunately, the other thing you need before you begin IR training is a Night Rating, which as a CVD you cannot get.

Hope that helps,

TPK:ok:

PS There's an extremely long thread on this in the medical forum.

[OVC002]

There must be somebody in the know, who can give a reason why it is impossible to obtain a night qualification, and hence an IR, as a result of colour blindness.

[cessnasey]

thank you very much for clearing that up for me.:ok:

[Rod1]

Welcome to the camaraderie of the air!

The bottom line is that there are 100’s of airfields to visit, lots of different aircraft to fly and a multitude of people to meet and being colour blind is unlikely to have a significant impact on any of it. Most private pilots who have a night rating do not use it and the same is true of the IMC.

Get your licence, get into a group or other arrangement that allows you to fly regularly and enjoy flying, it is a great hobby. This is true if you want to visit every airfield in France, become world aerobatic champion or any one of a 100 other things, all of which you could do!

Rod1

[IO540]

Most private pilots who have a night rating do not use it and the same is true of the IMC.

I can see where you are coming from, but have to say that while night flight is perhaps always avoidable, an IMC Rating can be extremely useful, and indeed it is very difficult to do flights of any length in the UK without it. It also gives you VMC on top privileges outside the UK (anywhere this is permitted under VFR) and that is very useful for flying into Europe.

For aerobatics, none of this is relevant.

While one can always be accused of pushing a novice into something he/she is not sure about, one can also argue for doing things as early as possible so as to keep as many options open as possible. Getting the colour vision thing sorted early on keeps all the options open for later.

[Rod1]

IO540/cessnasey

Now lets see;

807 hours TT

8 h Night flight

112 French airfields visited

600 h “serous” touring

110 hours of IMC of which 60 were practice or test and 15 local flight weather checks.

About 9.5% of my “serous” touring required an IMC rating, so you do not have to have an IMC to tour seriously. Take a look at the number of high speed PFA aircraft flying the length and breath of Europe for further confirmation.

IF I had had a colour vision problem I could still have done almost all of the above.

Come on in the water is lovely!

Rod1
PS I gave up on the world aerobatic champ side but the airfield one is going ok, as is building my own aircraft, in which I plan to set at least one world record. Flying is FUN provided you do not let the b******s get you down!

[Monocock]

cessnasey

Over on the girls forum there is this (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=18344) that you might find interesting

Good luck with it

[Flik Roll]

You can still go upside down colourblind. And you get a clearence not a rating in the UK. WHy not do a search on the "marvellous" web of wonder which is the CAA website!

[drambuster]

"There must be somebody in the know, who can give a reason why it is impossible to obtain a night qualification, and hence an IR, as a result of colour blindness."

How about the PAPI lights? If you're seriously colourblind (as I am), you're not going to have a clue whether you're on the correct glidepath or not! (unless of course there's an ILS to hand)

[IO540]

PAPIs are unnecessary. One can land perfectly well using just runway lighting. The runway needs to be lit anyway for night operations.

The other thing about PAPIs is that they tend to be set up for a 3 degree "glideslope" which is very shallow for light aircraft.

[DFC]

While it may seem harsh to those that fall foul of the medical requirements, there are genuine reasons for having those requirements and they are actually linked.

For example:

People claim that the hearing requirement for the IR is unnecessary. Chuck Yeager once said "I may be deaf but isn't that what volume knobs are for?" Thus I can sympathise with them when talking about single pilot operations. The medics however claim that the hearing test is not simply a measure of current ability - it allows for reductions before the next test.

As for the colour blindness issue:

IO540 is correct to state that a light at night on a collision course will be steady. That makes it difficult to see. More important then that the pilot seeing that light can differentiate it from the stars or ground lights that may also be seen. Furthermore there is a big difference between what the law requires us to do when we spot a green light converging on us to what we must do when a red light is converging on us.

It must also be remembered that being in IMC has nothing to do with being a) in cloud or b) in reduced visibility. It possible to be in IMC and see an aircraft 10nm away. The rules of see and avoid apply always. However, logic dictates that if you can not or did not see the other aircraft then one could not see or avoid it. There can be reasons other than IMC which make detection of the other aircraft difficult or even impossible - military no lights flights at night - operating at such a speed in the visibility/ airspace that gives insuficient time to etect and avoid other aircraft. The minimum vision requirements including colour perception for those that want to fly at night is only part of the system.

The IR gives pilots the privilege of being able to fly at night without having completed any night take-off or landings within the past 90 days. Thus it is simply logical that the applicant should have demonstrated the ability to fly at night i.e. PPLs need to hold a night qualification and CPLs don't because they had to complete night training to get the CPL.

I wonder how many people are told that they can not be an electrician because they are colour blind? What do they do? Do they try to get the wiring systems changed?

Regards,

DFC

[OVC002]

I would think most people are comfortable with the idea that appropriate colour vision is necessary in order to be PIC at night.

The question is why are those who are CVD precluded from obtaining a night qualification or IR?

There is absolutely no need to prevent anyone from obtaining these qualifications. A simple requirement on the medical certificate for a safety pilot to be on board at night would seem to resolve the safety issue.

It is another example of mindless proscription.

[IO540]

DFC

People claim that the hearing requirement for the IR is unnecessary. Chuck Yeager once said "I may be deaf but isn't that what volume knobs are for?" Thus I can sympathise with them when talking about single pilot operations. The medics however claim that the hearing test is not simply a measure of current ability - it allows for reductions before the next test.

You need to look at the detail of the JAA audiogram requirement.

The site at

http://www.jaa.nl/jars_npas/jarsec1.html

doesn't seem to work for the individual documents, so I am writing this from memory. The doc is JAR-FCL3.

The initial limits are -20db max loss at each of the several specified frequencies. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -21db. No IR.

The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.

It is quite common for deafness to be in just one ear, and it doesn't affect flying communications. They may as well have a spec on the size of one's toes, to operate the brake pedals.

Moreover, an ATP can get a renewal at

-34db R
-34db L

and at anywhere near that level he would be completely unable to have any kind of social conversation. That's comparable to the attenuation of very good expanding foam earplugs. A lot of headsets cannot take the power required to compensate.

It's obvious why the renewal limits were set so lax: many old jet pilots are very deaf indeed. They get away with it because when you are flying JFK-LHR every day, you know what will be said well ahead, and the workload is minimal anyway.

In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.

Just another example of the "let's find a way to keep this just for the elite" philosophy. It should be "let's let people fly unless they have a handicap which makes them unsafe".

Needless to say, all of the above cases meet ICAO commercial license requirements, and I dare say many 747 pilots flying into Heathrow would fail the JAA renewal audiogram, never mind the initial.

It's just a joke.

The IR gives pilots the privilege of being able to fly at night without having completed any night take-off or landings within the past 90 days.

Hmmm, sure about the above? Any PPL with a NQ can do that. It's pretty hard to fly without a takeoff and a landing.

That makes it difficult to see. More important then that the pilot seeing that light can differentiate it from the stars or ground lights that may also be seen.

Stars can be coloured too, though it takes exceptional eyesight to see the colours clearly. Just as it takes exceptional eyesight to detect the colour of an aircraft light until it is pretty close. And a ground light which is say 30nm away will appear steady for a long time too. The need to see colours at night, for an IR, doesn't wash. And if it did, one could have an IR restricted to day only - what's wrong with that?

I wonder how many people are told that they can not be an electrician because they are colour blind? What do they do? Do they try to get the wiring systems changed?

An electrician always works in VMC. A stupid example, anyway.

[RodgerF]

Quote

In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.

Quote

The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.


This is what the CAA website says

It will be seen that there is a higher hearing threshold for the initial JAR Class 1 examination than for renewal or revalidation. Initial Class 1 applicants who fail to meet the initial hearing standards, but who reach the renewal/revalidation standards, should contact the UK CAA Medical Division to discuss their options.

There is usually some loss of hearing as a pilot’s career progresses (often due to noise induced hearing loss). If the audiogram figures reach a level 5 dB less than the renewal figures above, then an annual audiogram is required. However the hearing of experienced pilots at re-certification can be worse than the levels above, as JAR-FCL 3 Appendix 16 to Subparts B and C, paragraph 2 (b) states that: ‘If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.

[IO540]

If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.

Why does the above not apply to the INITIAL also?

The reality (which I happen to be familiar with) is that the CAA will not give you an IR if one ear is outside the renewal limits, even when it's obvious that the pilot would easily meet the requirements in my quoted section above.

This is CAA+JAA gold-plating. ICAO doesn't require this.

[DFC]

IO540,

You are correct it should have said "with passengers". However, the idea is that the CPL and the IR confer night flight privileges and thus it is only natural that night training and the medical requirements for night flight are met in those cases.

Yes, the CAA could issue someone who is deaf and colour blind with a PPL-IR limited to flight with a hearing current IR rated pilot by day in UK airspace only. How many would want that?

If exemptions are issued to cover every this and that then we would need an exemption authority reporting to the CAA. Unfortunately the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Having had a think about the IMC rating, I actually find it unusual that the IMC rating can be issued without a requirement for the applicant to hold a night qualification.

What are UK ATC supposed to do with a holding stack at sunset? Start asking all the holding aircraft if they can continue to hold after sunset+30?.........and the one at the top says - I've only got an IMC rating, I need to land! :)

Then all the IR holders say "I've got an IMC rating too let me lad first" :D

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Come off it DFC. Read what somebody wrote, and don't behave like an idiot. Nobody suggests flying IFR if DEAF!!!!

The IMCR IFR privilegss are UK only and outside Class A, so being asked to hold in a "stack" is pretty damn unlikely.

There is also no problem flying and landing an aircraft at night even if completely colour-blind.