Collective Colour Vision Thread 3 [Archive] - Page 2

2close

4th Jun 2008, 22:58

A JAA Class 2 Medical Certiticate can be issued to any degree of CVD with the JAA deviation VCL (Daytime only) applied. It makes absolutely no difference how many mistakes are made on Ishihara - there is only one JAA pass criterion for Ishihara and that is NIL errors (although that contradicts the Ishihara Pass criterion). If you want the deviation and its restriction removed you have to pass one of the approved lantern tests. Your Lithuanian AME has got it wrong - it sounds like another one of these countries very slow to apply JARs with lots of officials who don't understand them.

For JAA Class 1 Medical Certificates there are no JAA deviations permitted, although the UK CAA has filed its own deviation with JAA whereby the UK issues the VCL deviation on Class 1 medicals but only with an additional deviation NPT (No Public Transport). This permits pilots in the UK to hold CPLs and work in Aerial Work occupations, e.g. instructing, such as myself and many others who read these pages.

Now the multi-million dollar question is whether the EASA Implementing Rules, Acceptable Means of Compliance and/or Guidance Material to EC Regulation 216/2008 Article 7 and its Appendices will permit these national deviations to continue to apply to Class 1 medical certification. If so, all well and good, if not then many CPL FI's are going to be out of work.

Under EASA FCL001 PPL instructors will only be able to instruct for the LAPL (Light Aircraft Pilot Licence). Anything above that, including a PPL, will require a CPL. So lose the medical and lose our livelihood.

The sooner the Implementing Rules, etc. are put out for consultation so we can see what the **** is going on, the better.

2close

2close

7th Jun 2008, 22:47

Well guys, this is it, what we have been waiting for all this time!!

This is the proposed Acceptable Means of Compliance for colour vision under EASA Regulation 216/2008.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17c.pdf

Err, is it me or is there no significant difference between this and the current requirements under JAR FCL3?

So, where the hell is the guidance document?

AMC A to MED B.070

COLOUR VISION class 1 medical certificates

1. At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

2. The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

3. Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

(i) Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the clour match is trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less, or by

(ii) Lantern testing. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

TelBoy

9th Jun 2008, 13:26

Thank you 2close for that post, it is VERY interesting.
I have noted below the general requirements from that specific document, and really these read totally differently to the specifics, which are as you say JAA FCL3. In fact the General Requirements I do believe are ICAO Air Navigation Order requirements?? And we know how the JAA bastardised them!

MED.B.070 paragraph c is the killer for us with restricted class 1 CAA medicals. It does seem from this that we will loose them!

As this is a draft document I feel that it is time for us all to stand up and be counted. The reality is that CVD pilots and colour vision testing/requirements make up such a small part of the job the EASA has ahead it will easily get swept aside. We ALL need to make are feelings known to the EASA now so that it gets noticed. Those earning a living from their restricted class 1 need to make it known that they will bring legal action and indeed should they loose their medicals through a needless change in regulation. There is a human rights issue for taking a livelihood away from a person who has successfully completed training and is working without problems in that environment.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

MED.A.010 (on page 3)
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
‘Colour safe’ means the ability of an applicant to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights.

MED.B.070 Colour Vision (on page 16)
(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.
(b) Examination
(1) Applicants shall pass the ishihara test for initial issue of a medical certificate.
(2) Applicants who fail to obtain a satisfactory result in the ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
(c) In the case of class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours, or be colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit.
(d) In the case of class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception of colours, their flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.

Section 1 Specific requirements are as 2close post

2close

9th Jun 2008, 21:56

Hi troops,

I've extracted all of the relevant sections of the NPA below.

I leave it to you to interpret those sections as you wish but I think I would agree with Telboy - the end of deviations for Class 1 medicals is now upon us.

2close

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2008-17

C. DRAFT OPINION AND DECISION PART MEDICAL

I Draft Opinion Part Medical

Annex II to the Implementing Regulation

PART MEDICAL

SUBPART A - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Section 1 - General

MED.A.010 Definitions

For the purposes of this Part, the following definitions apply:

‘Colour safe’ means the ability of an applicant to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights.

MED.A.020 Medical certification

(c) Applicants for and holders of a private pilot licence (PPL) shall hold a valid class 2 medical certificate.

(e) If a night flying qualification is added to a PPL or LPL, the pilot shall be colour safe.

(f) Applicants for and holders of a commercial pilot licence (CPL), a multicrew pilot licence (MPL), or an airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) shall hold a valid class 1 medical certificate.

(h) A pilot shall not hold more than one valid medical certificate at any time.

MED.A.045 Limitations to medical certificates

(a) Limitations to class 1 and class 2 medical certificates

(1) When, in accordance with the aeromedical examinations and assessments, the applicant does not fully comply with the requirements for the relevant class of medical certificate but is considered to be not likely to jeopardise flight safety the AeMC or AME shall:

(i) in the case of applicants for a class 1 medical certificate refer the decision on fitness of the applicant to the licensing authority as indicated in Subpart B, except those requiring a limitation related only to the use of corrective lenses;

(ii) in the case of applicants for a class 2 medical certificate, evaluate whether the applicant is able to perform their duties safely when complying with one or more limitations endorsed on the medical certificate, and issue the medical certificate with limitation(s) as necessary.

(2) When assessing whether a limitation is necessary, particular consideration shall be given to:

(i) whether accredited medical opinion indicates that in special circumstances the applicant’s failure to meet any requirement, whether numerical or otherwise, is such that exercise of the privileges of the licence applied for is not likely to jeopardise flight safety;

(ii) the applicant’s ability, skill and experience relevant to the operation to be performed.

(c) Limitation codes

(1) Operational multipilot limitation (OML)

(2) Operational Safety Pilot Limitation (OSL).

(3) Other limitations may consist of:

(vi) a restriction to operate only without passengers (OPL) in the case of PPL or LPL;

(viii) a restriction to operate during day only (VCL); or

(4) Any other limitation may be imposed on the holder of a medical certificate if required to ensure flight safety.

(d) Any limitation imposed on the holder of a medical certificate shall be specified therein.

Subpart B - REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAL CERTIFICATES

Section 1 - General

MED.B.070 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

(b) Examination

(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.

(2) Applicants who fail to obtain a satisfactory result in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.

(c) In the case of class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit.

(d) In the case of class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception of colours, their flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.

II Draft Decision AMC and GM for PartMedical

AMC / GM to PARTMEDICAL

SUBPART A - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Section 1 - General

AMC to MED.A.045

Limitations to class 1, class 2 and LPL medical certificates

(a) An AeMC or AME may refer the decision on fitness of the applicant to the licensing authority in borderline cases or where fitness is in doubt.

(b) In cases where a fit assessment can only be considered with a limitation, the AeMC, AME or the licensing authority should evaluate the medical condition of the applicant in consultation with flight operations and other experts if necessary.

Subpart B - REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAL CERTIFICATES

Section 1 - Specific requirements for class 1 and class 2 medical certificates

Chapter A - AMC for Class 1 medical certificates

AMC A to MED B.070

COLOUR VISION class 1 medical certificates

1. At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

2. The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

3. Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

(i) Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the clour match is trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less, or by

(ii) Lantern testing. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

Chapter B - AMC for Class 2 medical certificates

AMC B to MED B.070

COLOUR VISION class 2 medical certificates

1. At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

2. The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

Neo_RS14

10th Jun 2008, 09:03

Blinkz: I would of thought the standard JAR lanterns only (Beynes, HW, Spectrolux). But, I imagine these regulations are drafted to include the results from CAD testing, and probably the anomaloscope too.

A big thanks to 2close and Telboy for their input on this, I'd be inclined to agree with you both in that if there ever was a time to be prepared to stand up and have your say, now would be it. I would also agree that this could be a human rights issue, at times like this, we cannot forget how things are elsewhere in the world for people with our dreaded infliction...because after drawing that comparison, we really begin to realise how (ahem) 'messed up' things are for us :ugh:

‘Colour safe’ means the ability of an applicant to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights

Hmmm, well I guess the FAA must have thought something similar to this when they devised the very fair, practical and succesful system of Tower Signal Light testing...afterall, what actual air navigation or aviation coloured lights are we tested on in JAA colour perception tests? Surely that is the ONLY way to assess whether a candidate is fit/unfit, to see whether he can succesfully identify actual aviation lights, rather than via largely academic tests. Sure, use the tests for screening and assessment, fair enough....but to put the final stamp (colour unsafe) on an individual based SOLELY on these tests, without giving the person an opportunity to decipher real aviation signals, especially when this takes place everyday elsewhere in the world, seems grossly unfair to me. In fact I'd say it even goes beyond being merely unfair now, and that it actually constitutes discrimination.

I mean what is it about the air over the US and Australia that differs from our Euro air, where in theirs CVDs are able to fly professionally quite safely, and without any accidents solely casued by CVD, yet in Europe, the air is different and it's not safe for us to do so....I've never been able to work this one out.

The fun continues :D

Back to flying

10th Jun 2008, 14:25

Hi all..

Does anybody knows what JAA exactly means by the next phrase?

"At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication."

clinical indication?? what´s that?

Also, who has an answer for my next two questions:

If you do not pass Ishihara´s but passed an approved JAA lantern "x" (as colour safe), will they make you pass that lantern test again or any other test every time they decide to test you on colour vision?

Next one:

If you passed an approved JAA lantern "x" and the mentioned new testing comes over (i.e CAD). If you do not pass new "CAD" but passed an approved JAA lantern "x" at your initial medical check, will they make you colour unsafe? :eek:

Thanks
BTF

TelBoy

10th Jun 2008, 14:59

BTF

You only (usually) need to pass an approved colour vision test at the initial medical and will never have to take another.

It is seen that CVD is an inherited trait that does not change with age. In fact colour vision for everyone can change with age, but that bit is ignored and as it is usually a yellow deficiency, would not show at ishihara or probably the lanterns. Interestingley, it would in the new CAD test!!

If the examiner feels there are clinical grounds that you might have diminished colour vision say because of disease or poisining etc then they will retest you, but I think it is very rare.

If you have passed the colour vision of your initial class 1 then you will not have to take any more tests when the CAD is introduced. If you failed all the CV tests, you should be allowed to try the CAD when it comes in which if you pass will remove colour vision restrictions.

I did touch upon yellow dficiencies. These are not screened by ishihara or lanterns so someone with a yellow or blue problem can pass - at the moment! The new CAD test will show these as well as red/green. In fact the CAA have told me that they are looking to replace ishihara with a shortened version on the CAD. The CAA do however not see yellow or blue as critical in aviation! humm taxiway lights??

PPRuNeUser0161

12th Jun 2008, 11:43

Neo
The number of CVD pilots flying in the states would be in the thousands. I personally don't think that ICAO can apply enough pressure to force the FAA to change its stance on CV testing. Australia is similar, I think we only need one other ICAO member state on board and the pressure will be firmly on the UK CAA and ICAO to stop discriminating against those who have a very common disadvantage. We need to make sure that the design of aircraft and aviation infrastructure is such that colour perception is taken out of the equasion. If you think about it we are very close to that situation now.

Colour vision varies under ambient conditions even for those with "normal" colour vision. The manufacturers should be given criteria that the design of aircraft instrumentation must comply with. If they want to see the misreading of colour causing accidents then colour code the flight-deck and take out the raw data. See what happens then.

Overdrive

12th Jun 2008, 18:30

I tell you what would kill the landing light problem stone dead for ever. The green lights (or when showing green)... stick a cheap, semi-circular dark blue filter over half of the green lamp, or a just wedge of coloured self-adhesive cellophane. to make a turquoisey blue. Then both the red-green area guys, and those with the very rare blue trouble would be proveably 100% fine. In fact a 120 degree filter would be enough.

In discussions years back, the idea of changing lamp colours was raised. The CAA didn't mention cost, but did say words to the effect that the instinctive perception and understanding of the meaning of red and green is so entrenched as to be unopen to question, which has some validity.

On a global or even country scale this would seem a huge undertaking, but in fact would be no more than a few quid per lamp. The bureaucracy, communication and attendant faffing is another matter.

It's very difficult to explain to many colour-normal people that in most situations, colour deficiency is not a problem. Glass cockpits are such a situation I believe, but that's a discussion for later... 'cos I am about to eat!

TelBoy

12th Jun 2008, 22:53

Yep - we even buy colour TV's

PPRuNeUser0161

13th Jun 2008, 01:01

Overdrive
The meaning of Red and Green generally is entrenched. But this is aviation and we are professionals. Rules change all the time. I can tell you that to research and justify to ICAO a CAD based colour vision test that is not going to fix the problem and will be very expensive. The fact that the Papi is red and white is an example that we are adaptable, easy just change the rules and send a letter to every pilot, done. The light signals are used so often that most pilots have forgotten what they mean and the lamps in the towers are covered with dust.

If they were serious about red and green the Papi system would have been designed to show 4 greens when "on-slope". But the designers knew that green and red are easily mixed up even for colour normal’s under some conditions and therefore the approach would not be fool-proof, which it isn’t anyway. They have designed the Papi to show both colours together so that you can see which is which even in dusty conditions and this reduces the risk of a mix up. If you see all one colour then you better check the radalt because you screwed it up before you got to the Papi. Remember the Papi is for within 5nm unless you've got an ILS (7nm).

Better still get rid of the Papi and stick with the Vasi, it's a far better system, more expensive but very reliable and does not discriminate. I see we provide wheel chair access to toilets for those who cannot walk and subsidise dogs for those who cannot see, why not make the workplace colour vision friendly?:ugh:

Neo_RS14

13th Jun 2008, 13:31

Some very good points you've raised there guys. Sadly they are highly unlikely (at this point in time imo) to even consider changing the colours of any approach lighting systems. I take your point about equality in the workplace too Soup Nazi, you are quite right. The thing is, despite what the academic tests deem us, we are (probably 99% of the time) fit for work on a professional flight deck anyway (statement based on the thousands of pilots passing the tower signal test). Now I know that ££££'s have been spent to research this area and to ultimately engineer a new colour perception testing method which will be more fair than previous contraptions...and I'm sure in light of this, many medical professionals in the industry are probably thinking "Christ! What more do they want?"...But if they were to look at it from our point of view, a study uncovered several core areas which are vital, in terms of the pilot being able to correctly discern the colours presented to them...Surely it is only right then, for the CVD candidate to be assessed for fitness by sitting some test which is based on these core areas (physically), and thus is directly relevant to/and reflective of "the tasks of an airman".

The test should basically replicate the pilot on the flight deck, perceiving these lights as they appear in reality, not in the form of little flashing lights on a screen, or tiny lights at a distance which have had the wavelengths altered. The emphasis should be on real world testing, we should be moving away from academic testing for practical tasks. Esepcially if the costs of implementing such a system are going to be high anyway, why not get our heads together and re-think the best way to do this for good. Ha, I wrote that as if I have a say in the matter, I wish I did.

I know it could be done, a practical solution to this lies out there waiting to be discovered, something convenient for all involved. Its just a matter of a willingness to find the solution.

Soup Nazi, coming back to the first point you made there, where you approximated that we only need one more ICAO state to come on board with a more positive approach to CVD before the new understanding of the condition can spread globally...How certain are you of this? I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you wrote.

The UK could potentially be that nation, if that is the case. I mean we're currently the only state in JAA land allowing CVD deviations right? And if it were up to the UK alone, we would probably keep those deviations for good. Surely this demonstrates some understanding of the reality of the condition, and that it's actually not really a flight safety hazard. If only we could show them that many of us are safe to fly at night too. A new test/practical demonstration would be the answer, but is that likely to come into fruition after all the endeavours to bring out the CAD:confused: Well who cares what is likely, it's what is RIGHT that is important.

tarmac-

17th Jun 2008, 10:21

Hi guys..Sorry to jump right into the middle of a pritty interesting session going on here, however I myself have been noted CVD over here in New Zealand.. However I know myself I am only just colour blind, seeing as I can read 12-13 isihara plates no worries from the 15 they test. I think now that I have found the online plates, I can see where I've gone wrong :ugh:

My question;

I have been to 2 different optomerists, both only just ruling me out. Now , do they generally hold onto your eye record, or foward this to the CAA, bearing in mind that I have not done a full medical as yet, just the Medical eye test and have not given them any doctors contact details etc.

Secondly, how often will I need to get this Colour Vision test done, seeing as I am keen to go get yet another test, and get the peice of paper I need.

Thanky-you

**edit**

Oh and also, do you think it is wise to call the CAA, give them my details, request if they have received any details from my "doctor" which I havnt seen obviously, or the optomitrist, and will they give this information out to me without to much of a drama...... Im really wanting to give this whole flying career a good shot, so need to get this stuff sorted first seeing as it could also be the end.

....continue :ok:

Overdrive

17th Jun 2008, 11:39

You would have to check with the NZ CAA regs, can't say I know for sure if/how they vary from the UK, but...

I doubt general optometrists would send records of results anywhere of their own volition, why would they? The CAA will want things done in their own way, which would mean Ishihara testing by an Aviation Medical Examiner or other approved facility (as part of a medical or separately). If this is failed, then lantern or other tests are done as required by level of licence sought, once only (almost certainly at CAA medical HQ). The result from this stands throughout your career. For this reason, arm yourself fully and thoroughly before undertaking any officially recorded testing. Read this long and comprehensive thread through too.

I wouldn't tell the CAA about anything that's occured in your testing so far, it's irrelevant to their process, but I would go online to their website for the details and info. If you have to speak to them by phone, just ask for the help you need in a general way, no personal details required...

tarmac-

17th Jun 2008, 20:29

Cheers bud..

As far as i know over here, the holmes wright lattern test does not give you a Unrestricted Class 1 Med, instead a Class 2 only for VFR, which is no good, hence if I can pass these Ishihara's, im pritty much sorted... Over in your country, is a eye test required yearly as apart of the full medical?(a standard eye test for eye sight including the Ishihara's) I really dont want to pass one year, then after completeing my CPL get stung by failling the Ishihara's rendering the whole process a waste... I guess if it did come down to that, I could always try get a Medical Converted from another country as other guys seem to be doing

:}

Neo_RS14

18th Jun 2008, 09:27

Hi Tarmac,

What you've expressed there is a common fear of a CVD individual, as some countries do require some kind of colour assessment at renewals, which really does suck! (yes that is a technical term lol) Currently in the UK, we are not re-tested at renewals, as sensibly our deficiencies are deemed to be congenital and with us for life, which obviously is the case. In the States, they test at renewals, but if you have been succesful, you will have evidence of your success to present to the AME. I'm sorry but i really don't know the regulations in NZ, but I understand they are one of the less tolerant countries in this area. Best of luck with it mate.

tarmac-

18th Jun 2008, 10:14

Yeah, its not really a nice feeling to have it constantly lingering around in the back of my mind...

Anyway, i've decided to go for a retest this Friday, Get a medical done, and fire it off to the CAA.. If all CAA testing agencies use a 24 slide Ishihara, then I think I may just memorise the ones which are borderline for me, and be done with it, as any future test *should* be the same.. Worst case, move to australia, complete my CPL there, fly to which every country has a lattern test that I can pass, get my medical coverted and hopefully that will sort any problems ; lets hope it doesnt come down to it.

Will keep ya'll posted. :)

zacokeeffe

21st Jun 2008, 13:19

Hi all

I have an appointment on Tuesday in Holland to do the nagel anomaloscope. Just wondering has anyone done one of these and what is involved. Is there anyway to prepare for it? Also if I was within the allowed range would this mean I would be entitled to an unrestricted Class One?

Thanks

Zac

2close

21st Jun 2008, 13:27

Hi Zac,

The Nagel is by far the most difficult test to pass and many colour normal persons fail to reach the JAA Pass Standard.

There is nothing you can do to prepare for it.

You look through an eyepiece at a split field circle and the objective is to match the top and bottom semi-circles.

Even when you've matched them, you only have to move your eye a fraction and the semi-circles look different, in exactly the same way as an image on a computer monitor looks different when you view it from different angles. So, unles you know exactly where your eye is supposed to be in the first place you are immediately disadvantaged.

Sorry to be the bearer of such negative information.

2close

Overdrive

21st Jun 2008, 13:48

Sorry to be the bearer of such negative information.

No, It's all good info 2close.

The Nagel test sounds to be almost irrelevant to most humans if it's as you say, except for finding people for the World Exceptional Vision Championships....

TelBoy

21st Jun 2008, 15:58

I have personally taken the Nagel twice at two different places using two different devices. Both are as said matching the top and bottom semi-circles.

The first device was like a microscope on its own. There are two knobs on each side to twist to get the colours to match. I found it VERY difficult to operate. The second was a computer controled scope. The computer gives you choices and you have an appropriate button to press. After the test the operator set the computer to show me what a "colour normal" would see. To ME it was a distinct red top and green bottom, but this is MY view of it - others will see it differently.

Hope this helps, but it is a very hard test.

Good luck for Tuesday and all the best for your future flying.

Neo_RS14

21st Jun 2008, 21:44

LOL Overdrive.

Yep, I've had a go on the 'scope too, may as well state my experience of it.

To be honest, I found it impossible. I'll explain...What happens when you look directly at a light bulb? yes that's right, you immediately get an after image, a blurry type thing in your field of vision...What happens when you look into a scope type device which inside is brightly illuminated, and you are situated in a dark room...hey, that's right...you get an after image. For me, this after image I incurred when looking into the anolaloscope made it impossible for me to give any good responses, as the blur tainted my view of the semi circles...the examiner was actually intrigued enough to invite me back for a re-test whenever I'm next in the area...I hope to take them up on this, but I'm not really looking forward to it, as unlike many other people, i found the test quite pointless, as I found the after image caused by the scope, caused me to give a grossly inaccurate response...as to how this can be the flagship of colour vision testing, I have no clue...doesn't say a lot for the area really, and that's not to discredit the individuals working in this area, I know they're well qualified and experienced individuals...I just find the tests are somewhat inappropriate.

2close

24th Jun 2008, 22:43

Well there are avenues there Soup Nazi, and there is one party of people from this forum whom are gathering together information for some type of legal challenge I believe, hopefully they will see our posts and see fit to comment here. But they have already spoke about it on previous pages in this thread.

Whilst I cannot make any specific comments regarding the above, I can go so far as to say that, following many months of research, preparation and discussion the advice has now been received at conference and the green light has been given.

I will go so far as to say though, that our numbers are growing and that we are gaining international support. Nevertheless, we are always eager to gain additional support, especially from our friends in mainland Europe.

If you now wish to join us or should anyone merely want any further information please contact me via PM.

All the best,

2close

katsogr

24th Jun 2008, 23:18

Hi guys,

sorry for my late reply ( especially at Neo), but it's an exam period for me and things are really stressed out.

@ soup nazi , Greece is a full JAA country so whatever applies in G.Britain sould also apply in Greece as well. We have 3 AMC's here which can issue a class 1 medical. 2private clinics and the HAF hospital which is also responsible for the applicants of the Air Force.

What's funny about it is that only 1 AMC had a lantern test and i had to travel 400km from Athens to get it done.So i went over and took the test.They gave me a paper verifying that I successfully completed the test. several months later(for personal reasons) I went to another AMC and completed the rest of the medical.

I have to say saomething to allt he new people reading this thread.
For me this forum worked two ways, one, it got me very well informed and I knew when someone was telling me crap, but on the other hand it was adding to the stress. So take the tests, and if you fail then come back here and search for more options, and above all, DO NOT give up.

take care all

Neo_RS14

26th Jun 2008, 13:39

No problem Katsogr, we all know what it's like to be that busy. Thanks for telling us a bit more about your experience.:ok:

Which lantern test did you take out of interest? Well done for passing, and on receiving a full class 1. I bet that's an amazing feeling.

keeffer

1st Jul 2008, 13:12

Hi Everyone

I was wondering if anyone had information regarding the Spectrolux test. I was wondering where is it possible to do it and what does it involve? Is it easier than the HW lantern test? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Keeffer

Shunter

1st Jul 2008, 21:25

Whether it's easier or not depends on how much you know. That sounds stupid, but it's sadly the case. If you do the H/W at Gatwick, they deliberately fail to mention the most critical aspect of the test; that the hue shade) of the colours will change during the test. Greens, Reds and Whites can be light or dark... By not telling you this it becomes more of a mental test than a colour test.

Having done both I would say they're fairly similar, but that key piece of knowledge makes all the difference. I failed the H/W at Gatwick, almost certainly by not knowing about the hue changes, yet when I took the Spectrolux it was explained fully in advance. I'd take a bet on passing the H/W now I know how it works. In fact, I'm at the Belgrano in a couple of weeks; since I seem to have made something of an impression with the medical crew I might just see if they'll let me have a go. For research purposes of course...

There used to be 2 Spec lanterns available (that I know of). 1 was in Dubendorf, the other at Spiez; both in Switzerland. I'm told the former is no longer available (shame really - it's a great street to dance down on the way to the local bar after passing:)). Both are/were the responsibility of Swiss Aeromedical. There are several forum members who have been to Spiez recently, some with very positive results (ie. passed). It's not nearly as easy to get to as Dubendorf unfortunately, but still accessible thanks to Switzerland having a transport system 1000x better than the UK.

I'm sure some of our similarly affected colleagues will be along shortly with further Spiez details. Best of luck if you decide to go there.

Overdrive

3rd Jul 2008, 16:08

Hi C-Hutch. Welcome to the frustrating world of "alternative" colour vision in aviation :)

The lens(es) you mention, I do have some experience. I'll be interested to see whether anyone else will post, I'm the only person I've ever met that tried one, though I've "heard" of others.

The trial for me back in the mid 'nineties, was a single semi-rigid contact lens worn in one eye, called the X-Chrom (of American manufacture, but issued to me in the UK). Basically, it had a small coloured area in the centre (which will be red or green depending on the deficiency). If you close the other eye when wearing it, it is essentially like looking through a coloured filter. When both eyes are open, the composite view as produced in the brain is such that everything appears as normal with the exception that anything in your "problem" colour is largely enhanced to a sort of neon effect.

I can say without any doubt that in my case it completely cured any problem of indentifying colours. This was true also for lights. The effect was less pronounced than for solid colours, less enhancing I might describe it, but it was 100% effective. Alas, the CAA in the UK would not accept the lens as a fix to issue a Class 1 medical, the reason being principally a concern that it may reduce night vision.

I could go on, and I will post more detail if you are interested. First though, I'd check with the current regs & requirements in SA before you go further down that route.

Posting this reminds me: any problem of distinguishing the very rarely used red & green lamps in aviation is simply cured with a pair of hand-held red and green coloured filters. Pity it's not allowed... glasses are :ugh:

Shunter

3rd Jul 2008, 16:53

I've tried the lenses and the specs. You can easily pass the Ishihara test (and the tougher one, whose name escapes me) with the correct lens. They do however make everything look rather different, and in such context are more of a hindrance than a help. The optometrist I visited (in Pontefract, Yorkshire) made me go outside and take a walk up and down the high street, looking in windows at common products. It was wierd as fùck!

I don't know about SA, but JAA don't permit such lenses and I can understand why to be honest. They'll get you through the tests, yes. Will they make you safer to fly an aeroplane? No. You're perfectly capable of doing that already; the science and statistics prove that. But hey, when did aviation ever let the facts get in the way of good old discriminatory legislation?

If I were you I'd speak to the SA CAA, see what options are available if you fail the initial colour test. Do they have lantern testing? Do they have any kind of practical test, like the FAA lightgun? I'd only look into lenses if a) all other avenues fail, and b) they're actually permitted by the SA CAA. Either way I certainly wouldn't fly with them!

Shunter

3rd Jul 2008, 17:06

You lucky boy! This straight from the SA CAA website...
4.5 PRACTICAL FLIGHT TESTS
In some cases, it will be necessary to perform a practical medical flight test with an applicant to determine medical fitness and ability to control the aircraft e.g. pilots with monocular vision, disabled pilots, colour vision appeals etc. In these cases, the medical examiner must refer the case to the panel or to the CAA to arrange for a flight test with a CAA flight inspector.Seems it's just Europe that has its head stuck up its arse. Practical tests are usually just that, practical, hence not a problem for all but the most serious CVDs. Note that the vast, vast majority of CVD sufferers have only a mild problem which will not bother them during a practical test.

TelBoy

4th Jul 2008, 16:12

If only the CAA Medical Dept would accept practical flight tests we would all be a lot better off.In my last discussion with the CAA optometrist I asked if they would accept a practical flight test conducted with a CAA authorised examiner to demonstrate that I could perform the colour critical tasks that were identified in their own research conducted at Farnborough. The answer was of course NO!Their argument against practical testing is that it is not uniform and conditions will vary from day to day, which will be a disadvantage to some applicants. This is why the FAA will allow a single retake on the tower signal test to eliminate practical problems of the day.I guess that this is only the opinion of the Medical dept as I’m sure if they walked through their glass doors to the other side of the building the officials of Flight Crew Licensing will surly endorse the use of practical flight tests – just imagine a CPL from a book!

2close

7th Jul 2008, 18:00

If anyone out there hasn't taken the time to read the Denison and Pape cases from Australia, I would recommend you do so.

What an absolutely damning indictment of the colour vision policies of certain countries, which were systematically destroyed by expert testimony.

The rational, objective opinion of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal panel was a delight to read and the critical dismissal of the CAA's expert witnesses' obviously biased research study (mmmmm......deja vu?) was quite humourous, in a perverse sort of way.

But please, don't take my word for it. Google them and read them for yourselves.

Even if you can't Google them, you'll be hearing of them soon, in any case.

2close

ST-EX

8th Jul 2008, 21:51

Hi everyone,
It's finally happened-through the post today, I got my new medical and licence-unrestricted! After a lot of stress and money spent, I am now apparently safe to fly at night(!)
The short story is that after failing the lanterns at Gatwick, I went to Spiez, Switzerland and took the Spectrolux test, passed this and faxed the CAA my results. They have now issued me with a new medical and I can continue with ATPL.
Ok, now the long story(for anyone who wants the gory details)! While doing my PPL, I went to Gatwick with the aim of getting a class 1. I had failed the Ishara test at my local optician, so I took the lantern test at Gatwick. I was shocked when I was told that I'd failed. I had apparently made mistakes seeing the difference between green and white at a distance. I was pretty devastated and was convinced that I would not be able to pursue a career as a pilot.
After trying to get over it and spurred on by the fact that I was enjoying my PPL so much, I started researching on the internet and found this fantastic forum. I read about people in similar situations who had tried the Spectrolux and Nagel tests. I called Dubendorf-only to find they no longer did the Spectrolux test and they referred me to Spiez. I booked myself in to do it in Spiez, after trawling the forums on any info on the Spectrolux test. I stayed overnight in London in a travelodge just next to London city airport-then flew out the next morning with Swiss to Basel. If anyone's thinking of doing the same thing, beware that Basel's train station is not at the airport, it is a 20 minute bus journey to the centre. I got a train that went to Spiez via Berne. Got to Spiez at 13:00-my appointment was at 13:30! It was pouring down with rain and I had no idea where the optician was located. Thankfully, I had typed in the address into google maps and actually printed out-I asked some passersby-a word of warning, nobody there spoke english! Maybe I was just very unlucky, but they looked at me blankly when I started in English. Fortunately, I am a fluent French speaker and this really helped! German is the main language used in this region-the streets don't seem to have signs, so I had to ask people. I eventually found it-a small opticians place located on the first floor of an apartment. I was 10 minutes late, but it was pretty busy so that wasn't a problem. The receptionists spoke no English, so again, be prepared. After some eye tests with Dr Kopp(who does speak English), he informed me that out of the people who failed the lantern tests at Gatwick, only 1 in 10 passed the Spectrolux test! This was not good news.
The test itself consists of sitting at one end of a room and looking at a box with two lights, one on top of the other. They can be red, green or white combinations and you have to say what colour you think they are. They appear for about a second, then disappear-which is when you name the colours. There are no mistakes allowed. The colours can be different hues-so you can have a very light green, or a very light red, for example. I was really nervous, but was amazed when I was told that I'd passed!
After the test, we did a Nagel test to see what my problem had been at Gatwick. I have a mild green defeciency which is why I had problems with the light greens and whites. But as I had passed the Spectrolux, this was no problem! I payed 150 swiss francs for the tests and was told they would write to me with my results which I could then send to the CAA. I wanted to take photos of the outside of the opticians to help others recognise it-but was in a huge rush to get my train and flight back home. Sorry! Anyway, I sent the CAA my results and now have my licence and medical unrestricted, so job done! Here are the details of the optician:
· Dr. med. B. Kopp
Augenarzt FMH
Oberexperte BAZL
Thunstrasse 2
3700 Spiez
Tel: +41 33/654 70 20
Fax: +41 33/654 70 79
Please only contact them to book an appointement and not for queries or questions, they are really busy and I would hate to see them turning people away due to a tidal wave of questions about the Spectrolux. I faxed them a polite letter detailing my situation and they called me to arrange the booking.
Anyway, big thank you to Shunter and Telboy for their very helpful advice, really appreciated it. Best of luck to anyone thinking of doing the same thing!:ok:

Ponte

9th Jul 2008, 18:33

Hi there,

sorry if this is a repost but I've run searches in forum and found nothing.

Does anyone know if there's anyplace in portugal to run

holmes-wright lantern
spectrolux
anomaloscope

exams?

I've failed beynes lantern :ugh:

thanks in advance

regards and best luck to all

TelBoy

10th Jul 2008, 06:28

You will only find spectrolux in Switzerland at Spiez as post above. They also have an anomalascope. As for HW I do not know in Portugal, but the UK CAA do have it.Hope this helps

Ponte

12th Jul 2008, 17:32

ST-EX:

"The short story is that after failing the lanterns at Gatwick, I went to Spiez, Switzerland and took the Spectrolux test, passed this and faxed the CAA my results. They have now issued me with a new medical and I can continue with ATPL."

which lantern tests did you fail?
Had CAA already issued an certificate with color unsafe or was the process in stand by? They accepted without restrictions swiss exams?

thanks, I'm going to city uni in london next week to make all the exams (except spectrolux, but I think it's alike holmes-wright). I failed ishihara and beynes lanern...:ugh:

thanks for your post :ok:

regards

Ponte

13th Jul 2008, 13:18

hi ST-EX (http://www.pprune.org/forums/members/132156-st-ex)

I've heard that holmes-wright was much alike spectrolux.
In this case, what you are saying might not confirm that.
Did you notice any difference?

Holmes wright has 2 lamps displayed at the same time each instance for about 1-2 secs.

Beynes has only one.

Can you confirm you (probalby) did also holmes-wright at gatwick?

regards and thanks for your report

Ponte

14th Jul 2008, 09:28

Yes, I understant that, but in that case, spectrolux and holmes-wright might be very different, or else...ST-EX (http://www.pprune.org/forums/members/132156-st-ex) got a lot of luck :)

ST-EX

14th Jul 2008, 14:48

As Shunter said, did the two lanterns at Gatwick-Holmes and Beynes. Was it like the Spectrolux? Er.. well, it's a lantern, so the principle is the same and the aim is to answer what colours you see, so in those respects I guess it's pretty similar. I have no idea what the technical differences are between the two lanterns though!
Colour perception varies between individuals, so I cannot answer whether the test is 'easier' or 'harder'. For me, personally, it was easier as I passed it! Other people may find it harder. Bottom line is, if you have failed at Gatwick and you're determined enough, you have an option to try Spiez where you may (or may not) pass the Spectrolux.

Shunter

14th Jul 2008, 20:31

Holmes-Wright and Spectrolux are very similar. They both display lights in pairs. The both use red, green and white. They both change the hue (shade) of the colour as the test progresses.

I did the same as ST-EX, failed both at Gatwick then passed the Spectrolux in Switzerland. Personally I feel that it was the knowledge of how the lantern worked which helped me pass the test. If you don't realise the colours change in hue, it's twice as difficult. Without trying them one after another it's difficult to say for sure if one is easier than the other.

Ponte

14th Jul 2008, 20:58

That's exactly what I needed to know, since I'm goind to London to the city uni to run holmes-wright.

Thanks guys,

regards

Strobe lights

16th Jul 2008, 08:28

Hello. Just a good question mainly for all CVD´s that have managed to get the so wanted JAA land First Class Medical Certificate passing one lantern after failing some other lantern at some other place.
Imagine that you have to renew your medical but you are in a different JAA country from the one of your initial exam and it has a different colour vision test. What will happen? For example, this Dr. (AME) can test you on CVD with Ishihara´s if he wants to, right? Then you will not pass and then? What would you do? Has anybody gone already over a situation like this?
I know that as per JAR colour vision is tested at initial only but a Dr. might test you at any time, right?

Hope to hear good answers.

Regards,
SL

Shunter

16th Jul 2008, 18:33

It is considered a facet which does not change with age. The fact that you have an unrestricted medical is testament to the fact that you have at some point passed an approved colour vision test. If they do decide to test you, simply be upfront about it and tell them you have a slight deficiency, but took this test, that test, it cost you a large amount of time and money, but you reached the required standard.

If you've had an unrestricted medical and been flying with it, it's very difficult for them to take it away unless they have a damn good safety reason for doing so. I would say the likelihood of it happening would be slim to say the least.

Ponte

26th Jul 2008, 14:21

Shunter,

I've been in London, city uni and failed holmes and aviation lights.
I've passed Nagel anomaloscope, farnsworth D15 and city uni test, 2nd edition.

I'd like to go for Nagel in a certified AME since I don't think I can pass the spectrolux because my defect is with green (light and dark greens).

My diagnosis is:

Mild/Moderate deuteranomalous trichromatism
description (http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhd3zs4t_3cvkh9gns&hl=en)

Does anyone have the same problem and managed to pass spectrolux?
Does anyone knows any AME CAA certified to do nagel in copenhagen?
Any other helpful tips?

Thanks again guys

TelBoy

27th Jul 2008, 02:52

You can do both the Nagel and Spectrolux at Spiez in Switzerland.Hope this helps.

colourblindgeek

7th Aug 2008, 11:44

Windforce.
I can't remember the exact distance, but certainly felt closer than Gatwick's Beyne Lantern. I reckon on 3 metres.

The key difference for me was that the lights themselves look significantly bigger and thus appear much clearer and easier to see.
If you are protanomolous, I believe you have less chance. A mild deutanomolous appears to have more chance. The City report confirms this.
I am a very mild Protanomolous and scored 11 out of 12 on the first run and 12 out of 12 on the second run. That is a fail!

I presume you have already been to Gatwick to do Holmes Wright, Beyne?

In the City University report, it gives you more details of the distances and aperatures

http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/members/j.l.barbur/JAR_colour_study.pdf

Best regards

colourblindgeek

8th Aug 2008, 08:22

Windforce.
You have to explore every avenue. You are lucky, you have time on your side. I'm 35 and have been battling this ludicrous situation since the age of 28 when I discovered that ishihara plates are only one of the tests that the CAA use. I know I am a 'very mild' protanomolous.
Ask yourself this question.
Are you colourBLIND? Do you see in black and white? No, I didnt think so.
Have you ever flown in a light aircraft above an airfield and thought.... "look at all those different coloured lights". I do all the time. I then ask, why is it that I can't pass the lantern test, but I can see all the lights on a runway.
Simple. The CAA and JAA use lantern tests to decide whether that make you fit to be a pilot. Their rules - their game.
If you want my opinion, you should sit the Spectrolux. Otherwise you will spend your life wondering. I am in no doubt that I can pass the spectrolux. If I can get 11 out of 12 on the first run and 12 out of 12 on my second run, then if I do a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th run then law of averages says I have a pretty good chance of getting 2 runs correct.
I just need to justify yet again to Mrs M that I need to spend another £160 getting to the ar** end of Switzerland and back to play by the JAA rules.
And if you fail, then you join the group of individuals who are not prepared to sit back and watch the dreams of hundreds of young men shattered by antiquated rules. The CAA do want to introduce a new test but the guidelines and rules have not been decided/thought of/published. But then I am of the firm belief that practical tests are the only solution.

Spectrolux, JFDI as they say. You have to - otherwise you'll always wonder what if? I sleep at night knowing that I have done everything possible so far.
Oh - and if you thought the Beynes was 'nearly' passable then you could ask for a retest. Send me a Private Message if you want some more help.

Shunter

8th Aug 2008, 08:42

windforce, I was in the same boat. Same diagnosis at city uni, everything.

I found the Spectrolux a lot easier than the Beynes and HW. Yes, it was the last chance saloon but fortunately I passed it. As I keep telling people, by far the most critical part of the test is knowing that the colour hues (shades) change during the test. Almost everyone on here has been to Gatwick, NOT known this and subsequently failed the tests. I've taken a HW test recently and had no problem passing it, so I'm in no doubt that the psychological factor is far more of a barrier than the colours themselves.

It's logical isn't it? You take a test, and all they tell you is, "The lights might be red, green or white". So you see a colour, and you think, "that looks like a light green to me, but I just saw a green a moment ago and it didn't look like that. Therefore logic dictates it must be white". Wrong. Failed.

You CAN retake HW and Beynes tests, just not at Gatwick. That's not a JAR rule, just some stupid little CAA policy. There is nothing in JAR-FCL3 which refers to whether retests are or aren't allowed, and since in JAR-land everything not expressly prohibited is permitted, retakes are perfectly acceptable under the current rules. Mind you, isn't this EASA bollocks coming in round about now?

I'd have a crack at the Spectrolux if I were you, but don't get yourself wound up over it. Get over there the day before and get a good night's kip, turn up fresh & relaxed.

colourblindgeek

8th Aug 2008, 13:36

And do read some of Shunters earlier threads about hotels. It still cracks me up picturing him in his bermudas with all the naked Swiss around him!

Shunter is right about the hues. I still think that the variation in hue on spectrolux is more definative than on any others - again maybe because the lights are bigger.

So basically they will show you a bright green, a darker green, a bright white, a dark white, a bright red and a dark red. They do this in pretty much any combination and you just have to call green, red or white.

Read the city paper linked earlier on. Read it all the way through and you will be as prepared as you possible can. Take Shunters advice - stay over if you can, or at least make sure that the whole day is relaxing and that you are not tired, hung over etc....

Good luck

ST-EX

9th Aug 2008, 12:41

Windforce,
I completely agree with Shunter's advice-stay overnight, get a get rest and just get it over with. The longer you leave it, the more it becomes a big deal and you will just stress yourself out and perform badly. The optician in Spiez is a very nice guy, he will put you at ease and has seen many pilots try these tests, so try not to worry.
If you're thinking of doing it, call them or fax them now-you will have about a months waiting time so be ready for that. They will also do a Nagel test to determine what the problem was-bite the bullet and get it over with. You will know one way or another-best of luck:ok:

Need money

27th Aug 2008, 10:05

Has anyone out there passed the colour vision test (of whatever method by hook or by crook !), and subsequently failed at renewal....... be that an actual fail or failing the test but having the medical passed as it is not a retest pass / fail item (if that makes sense)....

I know the theory of once passed - should stay passed (as it is not something we grow in / out of per Gatwick) - but just interested to know any practical examples ?

Hope that makes sense.

Shunter

27th Aug 2008, 11:12

I'm not aware of anyone who, once having passed an approved colour vision test at an approved colour vision testing facility with an approved optometrist has subsequently had their colour-safe status revoked.

As you say, it's a facet considered not to change with age. They use this justification to prevent you from taking retests of the lanterns at Gatwick. They can't have it both ways. If you've passed, you've passed!

benjamino8888

27th Aug 2008, 13:03

hello
i want to go and do the spectrolux in switzerland
has any one got the address for it??

Shunter

27th Aug 2008, 17:03

hello. i want to go and do the spectrolux in switzerland. has any one got the address for it?? A quick use of the PPRuNe search facility is all you need...

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/229604-collective-color-blindness-thread-part-2-a-19.html#post4008406

AMEandPPL - quite a number of us on here have personal experience of the "CAD" test, and opinions vary. Personally I feel it's an improvement on the current lantern disco-light farce, but what it retains in similarity to the lanterns is its irrelevancy. It can pinpoint the nature and extent of one's CVD very well, but there seems to have been little in terms of research as to how this relates to one's practical colour requirements in order to discharge their duties as a professional pilot. Practical, demonstrated ability is the only fair way to deal with this. The FAA realised this years ago.

The CAD test is being pushed by the CAA at ICAO level, but I don't see the FAA wearing that one. They've got thousands of pilots flying around on SODAs (demonstrated ability certifications). For them to adopt a new test which those SODA holders would fail would be simply ridiculous, putting them in a, "one minute you're safe, the next minute you're not", situation.

Incidentally, I have an unrestricted Class 1 medical. It did however take me over 10 years of banging my head on a brick wall, a lot of research and a lot of money to get it. Needless to say I still remain absolutely livid that I was denied careers in both the RAF and professional civil aviation by irrelevant and unscientific tests which the CAA's medical head has in person described to me as, "not fit for purpose".

AMEandPPL

27th Aug 2008, 20:55

Thanks for posting that up AMEandPPL

You are very welcome, the least I can do ! I'm happy to pass on the latest official thinking, even if it doesn't get any more people actually flying just yet !
Must admit that this is one area I tend to see from a different perspective from most of you. Through nothing more than good fortune, I am not CVD. The nearest I get to it is seeing the (approx) 1 : 15 young male SPL candidates who cannot read straight through the series in my Ishihara book ! My heart usually sinks when I have to explain to them what probably lies ahead !
Anyway, thanks for your comment; it's nice to feel appreciated, even if only by some. Good luck to you all.

benjamino8888

28th Aug 2008, 04:41

id just like to add my story onto this

i have never noticed or had cause for concern about my colour vision until i relised i wanted to be a pilot. i made the first step by seeing an aviation doctor whom did some basic tests. this included giving me the ishiara plates. i subsiquently failed these but when i told him i did not notice he began pointing colours out around the room and asking what they were. his answer was your problem doesnt seem to be noticable and i should be fine with the lantens at gatwick.
i failed both lantens but only slightly i.e i can tell easily the differnce between red/green and red/ white. but on a few occasions when the hues changed i got some green/white wrong. now i couldnt help but think if the lights were just one metre closer i could see them as they seemed a little blurred at a distance.
i wont give up because even though i accept i have a problem i know it will not affect my ability to recognise the actual signal lights used by aircraft. i have spent hours in an ATC tower and can perfectly distingusih all the runway and taxi lights. i have been in the cockpit a few times and have no problem recognising the approach lights.
what the CAA are doing is discriminating against people that could clearly do the job. the only way i will give up is if i practically prove im unsafe i.e im in a cockpit actually looking at lights i need to do the job flying in an aircraft with an examiner with me asking me to identify the lights.

now i have read very helpful threads on the spectrolux but what i want to know it how far away is the spectrolux from yourself when you take the test and are the lights bigger that the holmes wright?
and also as a last resort does anyone have any more info on SODAs and where to take this test?

hope someone can help!:ok:

belowradar

28th Aug 2008, 08:46

XpertHR > Article > Colour vision requirement discriminated against men (http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/66079/colour-vision-requirement-discriminated-against-men.aspx)

Recent judgement in favour of a CVD police officer who has CVD and was removed from duty. He won his case for indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex bias (more men suffer from CVD than women).

This means that a precedent has been set in UK law which means that discrimination due to CVD is indirect sex discrimination !:ok:

I recommend any pilot who is discriminated against to check their home insurance or employment insurance cover to see if they are covered for legal costs and if they are

1 - Lodge an appeal with CAA to remove CVD restrictions on license
2 - If not successful at appeal take CAA to court using insurance policy to cover costs, claim indirect discrimination (and cite above precedent)

You will win !! it is purely a matter of cost hence check insurance cover. We need all pilots to now take action as we have a solid legal basis for winning and having these arcane restrictions removed.

Shunter

28th Aug 2008, 11:13

That is indeed a very interesting piece of information. There is already some legal action being pursued on the matter, so he respective forum member(s) might find this useful.

The CAA use the catch-all justification of "safety", however they have never provided any evidence to justify their ultra-conservative stance. There has only ever been one aviation accident in which CVD was cited as a possible issue, but pilot fatigue (a much more dangerous condition) and failure to follow SOPs were clearly far greater contributing factors. Some argue that the FAA system is too lax, but a tentative link to a statistic of 1 is hardly a solid grounding of evidence. Whether it is or isn't, its base in practical, relevant, appropriate testing is far more substantial in terms of the application of fairness and common sense. If there really was a valid safety concern, we wouldn't be in the position we are in today, with potentially hundreds of long-haul commercial pilots from other ICAO states (who could never pass our ludicrous CVD tests yet are declared safe by their own state) flying in and out of JAR-land on a daily basis.

The difficulty for the authorities is providing solid, scientific, peer-reviewed benchmarks in terms of practical colour vision standards required for flight crew to safely discharge their duties. I don't envy this task, but in order to ever construct an appropriate and relevant colour vision evaluation system it is something which must be done. In the absence of such research it is unfair, and almost certainly illegal, to deny CVD pilots the opportunity to prove in a practical, appropriate and relevant fashion that their disability does not prevent them from being a safe commercial pilot.

AMEandPPL

28th Aug 2008, 13:30

I am debating going down to see what my results would be, before heading off to CAA land, or indeed elsewhere

Not sure if that implies that you already know you have some sort of CVD !

If not, why not just ask your GP to take you through the Ishihara book ? Could save a lot of time and travelling expenses if your CV were normal !

AMEandPPL

28th Aug 2008, 14:19

Fine ! In which case, look here for contact details :

Colour Vision Clinic - City University London (http://www.city.ac.uk/optometry/public_clinic/colour_vision_clinic.html)

robert f jones

28th Aug 2008, 20:11

In 1950 I failed the colour vision test with the Ishihara plates, but managed the light check. 45 years of flying, 14,000 hours plus 4000 hours simulator instructing, no incidents and now retired, I am entitled to ask on behalf of so called "colour deficient people", how in gods name do (the CAA) still cling on to a 60 year old system ? Do we still test pilots on wind driven instuments. Time to move on I believe, if that is at all possible.

2close

28th Aug 2008, 21:14

Hi RFJ and welcome to the mad-house,

I would be interested to learn what you flew, in what capacity and between what years.

As you took the lantern test well before Holmes-Wright came into play, do you recall what test you took?

This information could prove very useful to our campaign and please feel free to contact me by PM.

Best Regards,

2close

AMEandPPL

28th Aug 2008, 21:27

In 1950 I failed the colour vision test with the Ishihara plates, but managed the light check

A perfect description of what is still officially known today as "colour deficient, SAFE". Class 1, and flying career, permitted.

2close

28th Aug 2008, 21:28

Webster v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is now established case law in Sex Discrimination.

There are two other cases presently going on in Scotland with McCullie v Strathclyde Police and Dixon v Stratchlyde Police; the latter of the two is being contested by the police on grounds of it being outside the time barred period.

There is an impending Class Action on grounds of Disability and Sex Discrimination as well as breach of Human Rights and expert Counsel's advice has been received in this respect (at considerable expense). Any persons interested in joining should contact me by PM.

2close

robert f jones

29th Aug 2008, 08:42

I passed the lantern test in 1955, 3 lights - red,green,white. They showed a combination of 2 , red/green or white/green etc. "mild red/green deficiency"
Aircraft : F/O DC3, Viking, Hermes, DC4, Britannia, BAC1-11.
Captain : All the Beechcraft aircraft from small single to King Air (Short Bros)
Captain/Trainer BAC1-11.
Simulator : BAC1-11 and as panel operator, B747-200 for EL AL.
Don Everall/Air Safari 1958 - 1961. BUA 1961 - 1963 Redundant due loss of trooping contract. 1963 - 1966 Short Bros. Back to BUA in 1966. Then Bcal until 1987. BA until Jan 1990. Birmingham European 1990 - 1993.
Flight Safety Boeing/Alteon until 2001 as panel operator on B747-200 with EL AL.
Not many hours compared to my colleagues but I many hours sim instructing on the 1-11 and then the B74. Trust this helps your cause.

Neo_RS14

29th Aug 2008, 10:51

posted by AMEandPPL

Anyway, thanks for your comment; it's nice to feel appreciated, even if only by some. Good luck to you all.

You're quite welcome, I think I can safely speak for all the chaps on here when I say we appreciate being kept in the loop on the official standpoint.:ok:

Benjamino8888 - the Spectrolux is a shorter distance from you than the other lanterns, I think it's about 3m away.

Robert f Jones, thanks for sharing. It's always great to hear of someone with this harmless but damning infliction that has made it :)

That's very interesting about the sex discrimination precedent, it will be interesting to see how this develops.

Another great post there by Shunter:D, I could not agree with your sentiments. It is without question unfair, unjust and illegal to judge somoene as unfit without having the necessary system to demonstrate practically that the candidate is not safe for commercial flight. Take me out on to an airfield or the like, and give me real life aviation colours to discern, if I make a mistake, I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the right man for the job.

shgsaint

29th Aug 2008, 15:25

Well I've finally taken the plunge and booked my Class 1 at Gatwick. After years (literally) of putting it off !!!

I have a couple of quick questions however:

1. Regarding the lantern test that I may have to do; will the lights be either green, red or white? What I mean is I know that the hue apparently changes so would they be gits and put on one green light above another green light below but have them in different hues? Trying to confuse me.... Or would it simply be; one light will be either red, green or white and the other light will be one of the other two left?

i.e. Top light red, thus bottom light will be either green or white.

2. If I do fail, (touch wood!) can I go to Switzerland and get a JAA class 1 over there? Would I have to declare that I failed over here and would it restrict me flying GB reg aircraft? Is a JAA class 1 as simple as that. Once you've got it, irrespective of in what country and after a few attempts you have it and it's job done?

I'm trying to go into it as prepared as possible!!

Many thanks,

SHG.

colourblindgeek

29th Aug 2008, 19:38

There are two lantern tests at Gatwick.

Holmes wright - two lights, one above the other. Alternates Green, White and Red with different hues. That means that it could put a red at the bottom and swap a light green for a dark white. It is designed to catch you out but you cant plan for that except to know that the hues change.

The Beyne lantern - flashes one light at a time. A red, dirty white, green, blue yellow/orange. The white can look like green or the yellow orange. It is not a clear bright white.

If you want a practice, go to City Uni, who will do a comprehensive assessment, although they do have Holmes Wright, they dont have the Beyne.

What City will do is give you a really accurate understanding of your type of CVD. My understanding is that any protanomolous, even very mild like me, will always fail the lanterns. If you are dutanomolous, you have a chance of passing. Mine is very mild protan, but I still failed the Spectrolux by 1 - i.e. 23 out of 14. It can still catch you out too. The lights are bigger, so I found it easier. A protanomolous will really fluff the Holmes Wright.

I have a PPL, and love flying at dusk with a 'colour normal' instructor, just to remind me that I have extremely mild CVD and I am not colourblind.

Keep us posted. If you fail, then send me a private message. We need as many people to battle against the CAA on this subject.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I personnally never want to see any young mans dream shattered by these antiquated and irrelevant rules and I will battle this until the day I cannot climb into an aircraft.

Also, my thanks to everyone that has posted in the last few days. It is fantastic to see this activity again.

colourblindgeek

29th Aug 2008, 19:52

"If I do fail, (touch wood!) can I go to Switzerland and get a JAA class 1 over there? Would I have to declare that I failed over here and would it restrict me flying GB reg aircraft? Is a JAA class 1 as simple as that. Once you've got it, irrespective of in what country and after a few attempts you have it and it's job done? "

Regarding failing - cross that bridge when you come to it! You can take the test in Switzerland. Make sure they are aware it is for a JAA licence, and you should bring the results back to the CAA and they should (!) accept this as a pass. Many have done so, therefore I see no reason that they cannot accept this. You will not be restricted to flying any aircraft. As far as I know, it is considered job done.

shgsaint

29th Aug 2008, 19:57

Thanks for the response colourblindgeek.

I don't think I will have time to go up to city uni. It might be worth while looking into that and practicing before I go to the CAA. Every little bit helps I guess.

Thanks for the explaination on the H/W lantern but you do you know if they would shine two greens, reds or whites at the same time? But both in different hues? So you might get one light green on the top and a darker green on the bottom. Or would it be simply be red on top or bottom and the other light would only be white or green?

I think i'm mild dutanomolous so there might be chance!! (where's the praying smiley!!)

It's good to know I could get a JAA class 1 somewhere else and flash it at the CAA saying look what i got!!! :}

I will let you know the results as soon as I have them!

Cheers.

Belgianboy

29th Aug 2008, 20:23

Be careful, I just tested the electronic Ishiara with 100% success, altough, in a former life as a Merchant marine officer, I experienced trouble when passing the paper version. bear in mind, that most people are not rejected for uncorrect reading of numerals but for reading numerals where you shouldn't see any. As you will note the plates which are not showing a numeralshow x. On the official Ishiara plates, the x is never located where the numerals are on other plates. The numerals and the x are present to assist a colour blind examiner when the plates are shown at random. If you carefully look at the location of his fingers hiding the marks, you know if you are entitled to read something or not.

I passed lantern tests( I don't know which ones) without problems as the contrast is much greater than on the paper plate.

My twopences worth.

Regards

Belgianboy

Neo_RS14

30th Aug 2008, 11:17

Shgsaint,

I'm sorry to say that yes you will probably get two greens of different shades at the same time, and reds and whites etc...As colourblindgeek said, it is designed to try and catch you out. We're talking about the Holmes-Wright here, as this is the only lantern there that has two simulatneous appearing lights.

TelBoy

30th Aug 2008, 14:55

Anyone seen this from Aviation House http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med_ColourVision.pdf

Does it mean they will not accept the spectrolux any more? might be worth checking with them before going!

Also looks like the CAD is just around the corner - more stupid tests.

Neo_RS14

30th Aug 2008, 22:24

Sure, they are not looking to just fail all cvds, as clearly some people with the condition pass the tests. But, then again....maybe these people who pass the lantern tests only fail one or two plates on the Ishihara test...Over the last year, I have encountered 2 people that passed a lantern at LGW, both of them only failed the Ishihara on a couple of plates.

"Oh dear I fail 1 or 2 pages of the Ishihara book, I have CVD! I can't be a commercial pilot:ugh:"

Well, actually my friend according to Ishihara's standards, your colour vision is acceptable as 'Normal', providing you make no more than 2 mistakes (or is it 3?:confused: I forget) on the first 15 plates of the 24 plate set. Oh well, what does old Ishihara know anyway, he only designed the best and most widely used CVD screening tool known to man.

So, seeing as you've only made 1 or 2 mistakes (and are colour normal) you may as well go and take the tests at the CAA, you'll probably pass them. Then again, out of a study group of 24 colour normals, 12 of them failed the Beynes! So even though you have good colour vision, 12 people who passed all the Ishihara plates failed one of the lanterns, so I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

To be fair, out of that study group of 24 colour normals, they ALL passed the HW type A....however 3 also failed the Swiss Spectrolux, and 12 of them failed the Cadillac of CVD testing devices, the Nagel Anomaloscope. So basically, the Beynes, which is by word of mouth the 'New, Improved, Easier Lantern', is actually as hard as the Anomaloscope....nice one.

This is really strange, 12 people with so called 'Normal' colour vision couldn't meet the JAR standards for commercial flight....Guess you just have to have that extra special something over here, that uhhhhh 'ow do you say, je ne sais quois?!

I'm not coming down on the folks at the CAA before anyone says so, as I know that they are an absolute first class bunch of people:ok: They do their job, and they do their job well.

But the rules some of us find ourselves surrounded by, and the supposed attemtps to alleviate us of them, leave something to be desired.

Thank God for the CAD test coming in soon, a fair, practical, aviation environment based test, things are looking up, money well spent! :}

Sacky

31st Aug 2008, 13:27

So I'm coming up to my Class 1 medical soon, and I understand that they test for colour blindness. Although I have never been officially diagnosed with colour blindness I am aware that I have often had difficulty distinguishing reds and greens when they are close together.

After some research I came across the Ishihara test (which is apparently the same test used in Class 1 Medical Examinations). While doing these tests on the internet I failed almost every one, not boding well for the medical.

So if I do fail the Ishihara test in my medical, what are the options (I'm based in Australia by the way)? I hear theres a lantern test I can do, but how hard is that when compared with the Ishihara test? And If I fail that what next, give up? Has anyone been through a similar situation?

B2N2

31st Aug 2008, 13:47

This is what a Google search turned up for you:

(6) A person must demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion in item
1.39 of table 67.150 by:
(a) in daylight, or artificial light of similar luminosity, readily
identifying a series of pseudo-isochromatic plates of the Ishihara
24-plate type, making no more than 2 errors; or
(b) for somebody who makes more than 2 errors in a test mentioned
in paragraph (a), readily identifying aviation coloured lights
displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour-perception lantern,
making:
(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or
(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of
lights; or
(c) for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly
identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by
CASA, that simulates an operational situation.

The full document is here:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate/dame/080r0201.pdf
Here is an article that might be of interest to you:
Predicting Farnsworth Lantern success with a six-plate series of the ishihara Pseudoisochromatic plates | Military Medicine | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200112/ai_n9009350)

Sacky

31st Aug 2008, 14:01

Thanks for that, does anyone have a video of the lantern test being done?

EDIT: Also since Class 1 medical examinations have to be done every year, does this mean I'll have to redo the colour blindness tests each year?

shgsaint

31st Aug 2008, 16:11

Hi Sacky,

I've just found a nice site that is worth a look.
Ishihara Plates Color Blindness Test in a Leaflet (http://www.colblindor.com/2007/02/15/ishihara-plates-color-blindness-test-in-a-leaflet/)

There's a nice flash test about halfway down. I have a bit of difficulty on the plates but if I look up at them, i.e. tilt the screen back, I can see the numbers more easily.

I've heard that people that pass the lanterns are ony people that fail one or two Ishiara plates. However I know a ATC'er that can't do the Ishiara plates but passed the lanterns so i'm not sure what to think at the minute.

I believe those with red deficiency suffer worse than those with green deficiency. I'm not sure how you would go about it though as Australia is pretty isolated down there. Perhaps the only alternative would be for you to go to the States and get an FAA class 1 after passing a SODA ("Something" Of Demonstrated Ability) where you can demonstrate you can see different lamp signals at an airport. Once you have that you might be able to convert it to an Aussie Aviation Authority Class 1.

Good luck. :ok:

PPRuNeUser0161

1st Sep 2008, 08:17

Sacky
I had the same situation as you. I can read up to 9 Ishihara plates depending on the lighting sometimes more. I sat the last chance lantern test at the Melbourne School of Optometry (I had to request this test through CASA) and passed. This test was similar to the farnsworth however it only gives red and white lights. It was over ten years ago now and I have heard the practical test at the field is also an option now and is probably more common. Whatever you do don't rush in, find out as much info as you can before any test, if you are going to do the practical test ask the guys at the tower to give a run-through a few times in advance. This may be organised through your flying school. The extra effort may be the difference in career as pilot or career as something else. Remember you only have to pass it once and you only get one chance to pass. Contact me by PM if you want any further info.

Good Luck

2close

2nd Sep 2008, 12:51

Sorry AMEandPPL,

I cannot agree that the CAD Test is a fair and practical aviation based test.

It is as relevant to aviation as fishing nets are to parachuting.

It is nothing more than a test aimed at academically identifying whether someone has a CVD or not and it may be very good at doing that but the fact remains that it has no relevance to actual flying abilities.

There has been absolutely no correlation whatsoever between performance on the test and practical flying performance. Not one test has been conducted outside the examination room.

Does this sound like a really professionally conducted study?......I think not.

To my mind, the CAD Test is and always has been nothing more than a tool for certain individuals to gain adademic qualfication and professional accolade amongst similar minded 'defenders of the standard'. It is yet another tool for them to protect their empires (and their pensions)

Regardless of whether they introduce it or not, the fact still remains, this issue is still discrimination.

Sorry to pull the soap-box back out but this issue really annoys me. I have never desired and do not want an airline career and in all probability it would be too late for me to do so in any case. I am infuriated though that career aspirations are denied to thousands of young men throughout the world on a daily basis by a VERY small group of individuals who hide behind convoluted academic data, quoting an unsustainable flight safety argument whilst at the same time refusing to accept the mathematical statistical FACTS from the USA, Canada and Australia which clearly disprove their weak argument.

And what is more, they do not even have the moral fibre to stand up and argue the point........I wonder why? Any ideas, folks?

Back under stone.

2close

belowradar

3rd Sep 2008, 21:59

NEO RS214

going into such investment to devise another test along purely academic lines was a really poor (and excruciatingly unfair) decision.

Absolutely agree with 2 close comments and above comment but what a pity that CAA didn't actually follow standard academic practices properly.

Any academic would start from a logical basis of studying the actual real world risk and quantify it first. Not merely devise lovely computer programme to replace a very reliable Ishihara test book. Lets get to the root of the issue not merely the symptoms.

We know we have CVD but we disagree that we are unable to safely fly an aircraft.

Neo_RS14

4th Sep 2008, 13:54

Yep, I hear ya belowradar.

But I do not know whether it was actually the CAA that made this decision, or whether their hands are tied by the JAA as to what they can do etc...I'm really not pointing the finger here, I'm not looking to blame anyone, just to establish what the current state of affairs is, and how we could possibly move things in a more worthwhile direction, should the potential to do so arise.

I really think that there is hope yet. The powers that be, wouldn't have to discard the CAD test and all that's been invested in it's development, it could still be used to assess CVD. However, to give the unfit/fit final stamp a practical/real world based test would be required. This would bring us inline with other developed countries across the globe...who realised the farcity of CVD in professional flight many years ago.

So if we could ALL agree the need for something like this to be in place, then it would just be a matter of devising such a test, and I can imagine that's quite daunting for the said organisations. Obviously they do not all agree with the tower signal test, and maybe they think a practical 'in the cockpit' type test is too costly and impractical, afterall, it's much easier to just test the subjects in-house.

I really think though that we need to start practical testing asap, if we don't do it now, we will end up doing it sometime in the future anyway, so why not make the change sooner rather than later. They do it abroad, they have no safety issues, their systems work, what are we so afraid of??? Come on, this is the 21st century, let's innovate! CVD pilots are flying into our airports Europe wide anyhow on the basis of passing practical tests abroad, so really how different will it be to just adopt such testing here? There's been no safety issues due to foreign CVD pilots in Europe so far.

Seriously, I just don't get it. I really don't, it's so dissappointing.

To prevent someone from following their dreams on the basis of some computer screen/lantern test, and not give them any opportunity to prove themselves in anything remotely close to a real world environment, is flat out unfair, and this needs rectifying immediately.

It makes me cringe to think of all the poor people who've had to just give up on this, and go into something they didn't enjoy doing, for the remainder of their lives, always looking to the sky hearing the thunder of jets above, and 'sighing'...as they are reminded of their failed attempts to be fairly assessed fit for flight...or if we carry on as is, they'll simply be reminded that 'The computer said NO'.

Bealzebub

4th Sep 2008, 14:18

Having read through the many pages on this thread, it seems to be that a "practical" test would be more relevant ? Where such tests are undertaken it seems to involve lights being shone from control towers. I am not convinced such tests have any real world relevance at all these days.

Of more concern is the fact that all modern flight decks utilize CRT or LCD displays for primary flight instrumentation and navigation displays. The subtelty of colour interpretation is particularly important with these displays. In situations where a failure occurs to a colour gun or transmitter in such displays, the resulting hues can give problems to people with "normal" colour perception.

It may well be that new tests or existing lantern tests do allow for better colour vision test discrimination, however the importance of good colour perception should not be lightly dismissed from a safety point of view no matter what other countries may do, or however it may dissappoint.

Shunter

4th Sep 2008, 14:41

Bealzebub - noone is contesting the fact that you need good colour vision in order to safely fly an aircraft. There are numerous situations where it is neccessary to be able to reliably and accurately differenciate colours.

However good and perfect are 2 very different things. The vast, vast majority of people having CVD only have a mild problem. Severe CVD is extremely rare. Don't forget that people with perfect colour vision routinely fail lantern tests!!

I have to say that I don't think your faulty glass cockpit scenario holds water. "What Ifs" aren't really a very scientific way of addressing the issue.

belowradar

4th Sep 2008, 19:38

Bealzebub

however the importance of good colour perception should not be lightly dismissed from a safety point of view no matter what other countries may do, or however it may dissappoint.

lets actually start positively analysing and quantifying what the perceived actual safety problem is before we start devising tests to tell us what we already know.

Yes I am CVD but what is the related safety problem - nobody has actually proved any safety related risk at all (FACT).

No multiple crashes on our roads every night at traffic lights !! Lets get our heads out of the sand and take a more practical approach to this.

Not unreasonable to ask CAA to justify and prove the actual safety facts (unfortunately as they have not quantified the risk they can't and won't).

As for glass cockpits give me a break ! have flown G1000 and others and no problems FACT !!

colourblindgeek

4th Sep 2008, 21:07

Neo_RS14

5th Sep 2008, 11:50

Beazlebub,

The tower signal test is not the only possible practical test that could be employed here, if it was brain stormed a number of possible methods could be devised. This isn't rocket science. Although you think the tower signal test isn't really relevant anymore, it remains a part of current aviation, and therefore must be adhered to and understood. As a CVD I would rather be tested on a real world occurring tower signal light than a artificial laboratory constructed lantern light, and besides....why are there not reams and reams of safety incidents in FAA territory based on the long term use of this test, if the allegations that it is not sufficient are indeed true?????

I'll tell you why, because despite the test's simplicity, it is an effective means of assessing whether a person has enough coulour vision to safely perform the duties of an airman. If you read the thread in it's entirety, you'd learn that as a follow up test to the tower signal test, they'd have an 'in cockpit' test to verify the subject could recognise all the other lights used in aviation...they found after many years, that everyone who passed the tower signal test, passed the 'in cockpit' test...so it was abandoned.

The ability to discern the colours displayed by glass cockpit instrumentation is obviously critical. I've seen the weather radar and other graphical displays in an airliner, and have wondered why we aren't tested on something like this....why not have a real weather radar display, and some other controls in the AMC and test people on this? That I would happily label 'practical', as long as it was a genuine control, not a graphical reconstruction. Nice and easy, no need to take a trip down to an airfield, no need for a check ride/flight, and it relates to the real world.

the resulting hues can give problems to people with "normal" colour perception.

Yes, I can imagine. You see an individual's own unique perception also is a major contributor to what colours they identify, hence the disputes that go on between colour normals over what colour something is...My father works in an environment where colour coding is critical, and he's told me of the numerous disputes over what colour something is or isn't between colour normals there.

As we should all be aware by now if contributing towards this thread, colour normals fail the lantern tests...not just by one or two fails which are deemed 'one offs', or 'freak'.....but 50% of a control group of colour normals failing the Beynes, and Anomaloscope.

It makes you wonder, if colour normals regularly fail the tests, what chance has a CVD person have:confused: You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to work out the chance is bloody slim!

however the importance of good colour perception should not be lightly dismissed from a safety point of view no matter what other countries may do, or however it may dissappoint.

Why would you think anyone contributing on this thread, or at least the regulars, would 'lightly dismiss' the safety issues of implementing a practical colour vision test? Clearly that is of paramount importance, and has been echoed in the majority of the posts on here. As I've said so many times, let us have a go at a practical test, and on failing that we would be content that we couldn't meet the standards requried by modern aviation, on the basis of the test material being directly related to the duties of an airman.

Otherwise, let me get my own group of seasoned full time commerical pilots holding current class one medicals together, and I'll start putting them through JAR colour vision tests, and Boy, you watch those failure figures rise.

See what you're saying by making people who fail the Ishihara test face the lanterns, is "this is the standard you must meet in order to be deemed colour safe", but it is my own contention, that if you made EVERY professional pilot candidate face the lanterns, many of them would fail.

So according to the tests done in the area, 50% of colour normals failed 2 of the CV tests, so you could argue that it is possible that around 50% of pilots receving their class one medicals are actually colour-unsafe!?!?!:\

2close

6th Sep 2008, 12:22

Otherwise, let me get my own group of seasoned full time commerical pilots holding current class one medicals together, and I'll start putting them through JAR colour vision tests, and Boy, you watch those failure figures rise.

See what you're saying by making people who fail the Ishihara test face the lanterns, is "this is the standard you must meet in order to be deemed colour safe", but it is my own contention, that if you made EVERY professional pilot candidate face the lanterns, many of them would fail.

So according to the tests done in the area, 50% of colour normals failed 2 of the CV tests, so you could argue that it is possible that around 50% of pilots receving their class one medicals are actually colour-unsafe!?!?!

Hitting nail on head here.

The word 'Nepotism' springs to mind. Despite evidence which supports the Health & Safety Executive publishing a document which clearly states that CVD can develop with age the authorities still choose not to re-test individuals as they get older. Why? Can you imagine the major JAA carriers putting up with senior crew having their medicals pulled? The Old Boy net certainly protects its own and wouldn't allow that.

This goes hand in hand with the UK decision to permit 2 x flight crew members with Operational Multi-Pilot Limitations on their medicals to operate simultaneously on the flight deck of a multi-crew aircraft, quoting as the reason the statistical probability of multiple medical incapacitation. Yet those very same statistics don't apply to CVD (?) and they won't permit even one CVD person to operate on the multi-crew flight deck, despite a lack of any evidence to support any hazard to flight safety and statistical probability in favour of permitting such.

:ugh: :mad: :*

2close

6th Sep 2008, 12:35

Dear AMEandPPL
Please do not drop out of this thread. Your input is valued greatly. You have given some very valid arguements both ways. Yes, some have disagreed with some of your arguments, but the fact is that your input is from a different perspective than most on this thread, but your contrasting angle helps to balance the overall picture.

Please continue to support this thread with any input you feel is valuable.

Thank you.

Ditto, x lots.

Your input is valued highly and I did not mean to offend.

Only by discussing, possibly disagreeing and reaching compromise (or something similar) can we ever move forward on this.

It's also healthy that Bealzebub posts here with an argument against ours as this provides us a focal point for discussion. One sided arguments rarely move anywhere, let alone forward.

shgsaint

6th Sep 2008, 13:24

I've come across this site which has so far been quite interesting.

http://www.colblindor.com/rgb-anomaloscope-color-blindness-test/

There was another Ishihara test of which I was fine with. However the point needs to be made that viewed through RGB an Ishihara plate is a lot different than through a printed CMYK plate.

The RGB anomaloscope test was interesting too. I'd advise people to have a look at it and see what their results are.

This was my result:
Thank you for taking the test.
Matching only a few values around the center means you are not colorblind or suffering just a very mild form of it.
The longer the line the stronger your color blindness is.

Thus with regards to this test i'm 'colour normal!' :ugh:

Now if the CAA tested us through an RGB computer screen........I wonder how that would affect results???

An interesting website none the less.

Cheers.

SHG

Neo_RS14

8th Sep 2008, 13:37

This goes hand in hand with the UK decision to permit 2 x flight crew members with Operational Multi-Pilot Limitations on their medicals to operate simultaneously on the flight deck of a multi-crew aircraft, quoting as the reason the statistical probability of multiple medical incapacitation. Yet those very same statistics don't apply to CVD (?) and they won't permit even one CVD person to operate on the multi-crew flight deck, despite a lack of any evidence to support any hazard to flight safety and statistical probability in favour of permitting such.

Yes, this also puzzles me. It's fine for two pilots whom could potentially be incapacitated by an underlying health condition to form a flight crew, but an individual found to be "colour-unsafe" may not form part of a flight crew at all (with an OML), presumably as they are too risky (based on what evidence?) and like the 12 colour-normals in the study who are also "colour-unsafe" probably see red as green etc etc...:ugh:

Originally Posted by 2close
Your input is valued highly and I did not mean to offend.

Only by discussing, possibly disagreeing and reaching compromise (or something similar) can we ever move forward on this.

It's also healthy that Bealzebub posts here with an argument against ours as this provides us a focal point for discussion. One sided arguments rarely move anywhere, let alone forward

I could not agree more. Temperatures run a bit high on this thread at times, but that's only because of how passionate people are about this issue, which most of us have had to live much of our lives with. But without opposing viewpoints, we would really be going nowhere fast.

So please don't be put off by any heated comments, your views and opinions are valued highly.

Shgsaint

Thanks for posting that link, I took the anomaloscope test and at first thought like yourself I'd been classed as colour-normal....however, it depends on the line you get drawn on the graph at the end, as everyone gets the same message at the end of the test. I took the test and got a fairly horizontal line with a slight dip in the middle, a colour normal then took the test and got a tiny dot of a line.

I see the site owner promotes the use of the term colour-blind, I personally don't like the term at all. It couldn't be further from the truth for most of us...I imagine even the rarer dichromats have a fairly practical comprehension of colour for everyday life.

In fact, as a child I wondered what it would be like to be 'colour-blind', funny how I was actually colour-blind myself all along. Maybe that explains to a 'colour-normal' how what we see is actually probably not at all very dissimilar to what they see themselves. It's only during the tests where the difference can be noticed.

shgsaint

8th Sep 2008, 16:48

I took the test and got a fairly horizontal line with a slight dip in the middle, a colour normal then took the test and got a tiny dot of a line.

Ah sorry Neo if I wasn't too clear,

My result was exactly that of a colour normal..... the result was indeed a tiny dot of a line.

Strange. :rolleyes:

PPRuNeUser0161

9th Sep 2008, 12:48

shgsaint
Took that test, it shows that I am red difficient, huge news! The thing about colorvision is that each CVD is an individual and sees his own set of colors. Testing color for the issue of an aviation medical is in my view a complete waste of time. It should only be done if the authority wishes to categorise the amount of pilots flying in the various categories for the purpose of gathering statistics.

I have flown all sorts of aircraft (18 years as an ATPL) including EFIS and I can tell you it has made not one bit of difference to me. Lets take for instance the WX Radar, very pretty all lit up like that, Black and Red = dont go there, Yellow = Caution and green = not as bad as yellow.

It does not display variations in hue. They are different and the CVD person knows the meaning of each as he sees them because he has seen the test mode and he has read the book.

Ther are hundreds if not thousands more like me. The CAA are saying if you dont pass at Ishihara then you must pass X lantern. That is so rediculous. Why not start with the lantern for everybody if its the bottom line? What a lowsy bunch of academics full of their own self importance, chances are they are frustrated pilots that didn't have the nuts to make it in this industry and want to get at those who do.

The fact is if a new benchmark for colour perception required for avaitaion is implemented they will never be able to re-test anyone who is currently flying unrestricted because the fact is they may fail the new test. Color defficiencies vary so infinetely that I dont think a test can be devised that will be consistantly failed by those who cannot read the tower lights and consistantly passed by those who can.

The only test with any relevance is the practical test for the perception of tower lights, even that could be made reduntant if they were prepared to think outside the square a little. EFIS systems are designed with color to look pretty and anyone who has flown one knows that all information is backed up by raw data. It has te be, if the sun gets on a screen it looks different, you still need the raw data.

Bealzebub

10th Sep 2008, 14:05

It is good that you all have seen EFIS displays and colour radars, but what you probably haven't seen is these same displays when a colour generator (gun) fails ? The difficulties that then be caused are quite profound. I have only seen this situation on rare occaissions so you could be wholly forgiven for having no personal experience.

On a distantly related theme, my wife who flies as a cabin crew trainer for another airline recently had a case where a steward was asked to bring an oxygen cylinder where a passenger had collapsed. He returned with a fire extingusher ! At the subsequent debrief it transpired that notwithstanding the obvious differences he admitted he was "colour blind" ?

I appreciate that bringing these comments and examples into this particular "lions den" is probably futile, but it serves to highlight the point that there are valid concerns that may eventually be overcome, but are not simply satisfied by the "FACT: FACT: FACT" merchants.

Neo_RS14

10th Sep 2008, 14:27

No worries at all shgsaint, I am the first one to admit that I am a bit quick to pounce (sticking with the lions metaphor;)) when discussing this subject, but I genuinely was taken aback by those remarks. But as said previously, only by things being said that not all agree with, do we ever stand a chance of moving things forward.

Yes Bezalebub, I can even recall cabin crew wannabes posting on this thread and enquiring about the CVD restrictions on them. I guess the situation you've highlighted is perhaps a reason for why they aren't so quick to employ CVD people.

But to be honest, the incident you've recalled for us in my own humble opinion, sounds more like an 'in the heat of the moment' error, where nerves are going, adrenaline is pumping, and the guy just grabs what he recognises as an oxygen cylinder, rather than properly looking at it at all, as the most obvious thing other than colour difference would of been the assembly for releasing the gas. I think he made this obvious mistake, and tried to cover his back by saying he is colour blind, thinking they will go easier on him, as it's a disability.

What colour are o2 tanks out of interest? I'm assuming the fire extinguishers are red:confused:

shgsaint

10th Sep 2008, 15:23

I sympathise with the poor lad.

Paint the thing bright yellow or yellowy green and it may be easier to distinguish. However if the O2 bottle is a dark green then I can see how the mistake could of been made. Especially in the rush and if the cabin lights were dimmed during a night flight.

During very dark environments I think it's is very hard to tell the difference between red and dark green....even to normal colour vision people.

I'm sure it was a very embarrassing moment for him. :uhoh:

belowradar

10th Sep 2008, 15:45

Bealzebub -
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 690

It is good that you all have seen EFIS displays and colour radars, but what you probably haven't seen is these same displays when a colour generator (gun) fails ? The difficulties that then be caused are quite profound.

Your comments appear to be ever more strange ??

Forgive me but if a gun fails won't that screw things up for everyone CVD or not? again you just don't appear to get the fundamental points made by myself and many others which are as follows (pay attention now...)

There has been NO analysis of CVD that has proven any verifiable safety problem (CAA are too damn stupid and lazy to prove and verify what the actual safety problems are)

There are many CVD pilots flying commercially every day of the week without any problems.

I just wonder why you are on this thread and what you hope to achieve from your posts ??:confused:

Shunter

10th Sep 2008, 18:12

On a distantly related theme, my wife who flies as a cabin crew trainer for another airline recently had a case where a steward was asked to bring an oxygen cylinder where a passenger had collapsed. He returned with a fire extingusher ! At the subsequent debrief it transpired that notwithstanding the obvious differences he admitted he was "colour blind" ?That's nothing to do with CVD, that's simply incompetence, brain fart, whatever.... Like the Mrs who just put the olive oil in the fridge because she reached mental overload cooking a rather complicated Thai curry. Do you seriously think that CVD prevents you from telling the difference between red and green? We may not see them exactly as you do, but we're still perfectly capable of telling the difference. Do you have a CVD problem? No? Well then frankly old bean you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You might (and might is the appropriate word) stand a slightly better chance than us at telling the difference between a very, very, very, very light green and a very dirty white, but all this EFIS stuff is quite simply a load of bollocks.

Neo_RS14

10th Sep 2008, 23:39

Bealzebub, I can understand your concern...and I'm assuming I was correct in my assumption that red is the colour of aircraft fire extinguishers (in-line with other uniform designations)...if o2 tanks are green, well...I have to say, unless you have monochromatic vision (black n' white) mistaking bold green with bold red in whatever lighting conditions, is unheard of...it just hasn't happened...if it had, similar confusion would be occurring all the time, and obviously not just in aviationl...just think...8-12% of men have CVD....if it really was a major safety issue how often would we be hearing about the errors? At least a few times a year globally.

Originally posted by Bealzebub
There are also very obvious and fundamental differences between the two items as well. However as you say "in the heat of the moment" it simply becomes another piece in the error chain.

Thanks, I see you know where I'm coming from with my opinion on this. It's unfortunate that the cabin crew member involved resorted to such desperate measures rather than admitting that he made a simple but crucial mistake.

I can imagine what it must seem like to colour-normals, "Oh these colour blind chaps flying planes!?!?! Good heavens!"...It must seem so risky to you. You're not to blame, it's just poor education of what CVD actually involves which is the reason for such intolerant attitudes. The phrase "colour-blind" doesn't help, another antiquated thorn in the sides of all of us lot.

Colour blind....Seriously...it is EXTREMELY rare...personally, I have heard of one single case of it in my entire life. Yet, the majority of us CVD folk must be tainted with the same brush nonetheless. Again, no-ones' fault, but things can definitley be done to improve the situation.

Knowledge is power.

Bealzebub

11th Sep 2008, 00:48

I just wonder why you are on this thread and what you hope to achieve from your posts ??

My first post on this thread was over 2 years ago. Number 110 I think ? It became interesting when my son was certified as CVD during a class 2 medical (around post 206). He then had to have the lantern tests conducted at the CAA at Gatwick. He has just recently obtained his class 1.

I follow this thread out of interest, and occaissionaly take part to interject a viewpoint that may not always be welcome or appreciated, but is nevertheless valid as the de facto situation bears out. This is an open thread for discussion not a private meeting, or closed support group. My posts set out to achieve nothing other than to show an interest and offer alternative food for thought. What do you hope to achieve from your posts ? Beyond the same format for discussion, I doubt an internet forum will really achieve much.

TelBoy

11th Sep 2008, 06:35

As far as I am aware, all cabin crew need to pass the ishihara test so the crew member refered to would be colour normal - just like the pilots.

Neo_RS14

11th Sep 2008, 11:03

but it is not that unreasonable to expect some scientific fact and risk related evidence to back up their position

Indeed. But, still waiting for it!

Here's a thread on an optical forum describing the CAD test, it includes some quotes from Adrian Chorley.
UK Review of Electronic Colour Blindness Test - Contact Lenses Forum - Lens 101 (http://www.lens101.com/september-2006/1494-uk-review-electronic-colour-blindness-test.html)

...to develop a computer-based colour assessment and diagnosis (CAD) test that aims to be "fair and task-related", says CAA optometrist Adrian Chorley...

Task related? How's that then?

The most colour-critical task found so far concerns the precision approach path indicator (PAPI), which uses red and white lights to guide the pilot on the correct runway approach angle, but there are others, mainly outside the cockpit, he adds.

Exactly, so how come they abandoned the PAPI simulator that was also produce of the collaboration with City Uni? As I said earlier, I've met many CVD guys involved in aviation at some level, and none of them whatsoever had issues with the PAPI lights. If that is the most critical task, then surely the new test should eb based on this. And then maybe have some reference to other aviation lighting, such as runway, taxiway and parking bay lighting.

I have no confidence in the CAD test as a diagnostic tool at all unfortunately, as it uses averages to come to its conclusion. I myself took a version of the test at City Uni, and was utterly exhausted and found myself clicking the wrong button even though my eyes had seen the square change direction. The brain tries to automate basic motor movements to cut us some slack when we're fatigued, and I know I made loads of incorrect inputs during my test because of this.

I'm just so dissappointed that for a brief moment, everyone was onside. Both the authorities and the individuals were in agreeance that there needed to be a better fairer method of colour vision assessment....but then they started leaning towards some other academic crap, when clearly practical testing is efficient and SAFE the world over.:{

ST-EX

11th Sep 2008, 14:13

Hi everyone,
I have a little question. Is there a difference between class 1 colour testing and class 2? The reason I ask is that I failed the Ishara, lanterns etc at Gatwick and decided to do a class 2 medical. I went to Switzerland and took a Spectrolux test and passed that-gave results to CAA and now have an unrestricted class 2 and PPL licence. I have now booked myself in for a class 1 at Gatwick, but I asked if there would be any further tests because of this. They said there may be but am awaiting a call back form them to confirm. As you can imagine, I'm now quite worried, having gone all the way to Switzerland and having spent a lot of money. Does anybody have any written legislation that I can quote that specifies that I can only be tested once if I passed?
Thanks for any feedback. This thread is fantastic and a great help:ok:
Alex

ST-EX

11th Sep 2008, 14:24

Hi everybody-sorry for posting the above question, I have just been called back by the CAA and I won't be subjected to further colour vision testing, thank god!:ok:
Best of luck to everybody going through the nightmare of being a so-called 'colour unsafe'!

2close

14th Sep 2008, 09:49

I'm glad that the subject of fire extinguishers has been brought up.

During my days with a certain UK based aviation regulator I was doing some work with fire extinguishers and discovered that BCF Extinguishers (as used in aircraft and which have been banned virtually everywhere else) are extremely hazardous, even deadly, when used in confined spaces - as discovered by the now deceased Israeli tank crew. The first aid treatment is to remove to fresh air immediately - this is slightly difficult at FL 350.

The chances are that if you do use a BCF extinguisher on board an aircraft with a fire you are going to have some very ill people on board, if not dead. Yes, of course the other option is not a particularly desirable situation but fires can be extinguished by other means. Portable, hand held fire extinguishers are about as much use as a chocolate teapot at fighting anything other than the smallest of fires so a CO2 jobby would be just as useful as BCF and a lot safer.

So I raised the question with said regulator - why are BCF extinguishers still used on aircraft? The answer - (paraphrasing) 'They're lighter and cheaper in terms of weight versus effectiveness.'

So a good CO2 extinguisher would be just as effective but heavier and you would probably have to lose one revenue earning seat off each aircraft. Heaven forbid that to be the case. BCF is not the best option when all factors are taken into consideration but it is by far the cheapest.

Give me a 5kg CO2 extinguisher any day over BCF. I will survive a lungful of CO2 but don't fancy my chances with BCF.

Oxygen cylinders are black with a white band, BCF extinguishers are green (quite bright usually) with big letters BCF on them. There is no CVD condition that would confuse black/white with green, not even monochromacy, and BCF is usually quite easy to read, even for dyslexics. The quoted case is clearly one of decision error when faced with a stressful situation, although why on earth the CA would choose to use CVD as an excuse is beyond me, probably to avoid being labelled Tit Of The Month.

What's the point of this revelation? It goes to show that safety (of passengers) may be compromised where cost is involved.

If you could prove that CVD pilots were cheaper to 'maintain' than colour normal pilots you'd all be flying for airlines tomorrow.(Tongue in Cheek)

Onto the subject of avionics and colour displays, or any coloured items on the aircraft for that matter. Who works on aircraft? B1 A&P and B2 Avionics Licenced Aircraft Engineers. How are the instruments coloured displays checked, to ensure colours are correct? By the B2 LAE I imagine. Who changes the coloured lenses of external aircraft lights and the flight deck instrumentation. The B1 LAE? Who drives the B-747 from the stand to maintenance hangars via the lit taxiways at night and back to the stand to park the aircraft using the red/green parking lights that the CAA Study reckons is safety CRITICAL? Company authorised B1 engineers usually. I don't know of any carrier which uses its flight crews for maintenance tasks.

Who doesn't have to undergo any form of medical testing by the CAA, including colour vision testing? Licenced Aircraft Engineers!! The CAA is quite happy for potentially CVD LAEs to drive heavy aircraft at night on airports and for potentially CVD LAEs to certify coloured displays as fit for use.

Which CAA Med Dept personnel are ATPL holders? The only one down at Gatwick with any heavy aircraft experience I'm aware of is RH, who took a sabbatical in 2006 to fly 757s for Globespan for 6 months. He may have got his 500 hours Multi-Crew experience in during that time. JF left the CAA in 2005 to fly for FlyBe (IIRC). There may be others, admittedly, but I can't say I was ever aware of anyone leaving to fly for airlines other than those mentioned above.

Personally, I feel that, given the CAA's arguments on this issue, commercial aviation experience would have to be an absolute necessity for any senior post holder. How can you justify any practical operational decision when you have no first hand knowledge of that environment yourself?

Check please!

Coat, Hat.....Whooosh........back under stone!

2close

14th Sep 2008, 09:56

ST-EX.

Let me get this right.

You went to Switzerland for a JAA Class 2 medical, failed the Ishihara but passed the Spectrolux and now hold an unrestricted JAA Class 2 medical.

You are booked in for a JAA Class 1 medical at Gatwick and you have been informed (verbally) by the CAA that you will not have to undergo any further colour vision testing.

Could you please contact me by PM.

Cheers,

2close

2close

15th Sep 2008, 14:12

No, he's not. The official word from his PS at Clarence House is that he is NOT CVD.

Somewhat contradictory to the statement on the The Royalist website and in many other media articles.

The Royalist - Colour Blindness Robs William of His Army Dream (http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/1056/1/)

This article also identifies that he may have undergone Laser Surgery - another absolute No-No in professional flying (in the UK at least).

Look, good luck to HRH - I personally wish him all the best and I sincerely hope he has a great career.

However, I do not believe the official word. I think this is a genuine case of goalpost shifting on the part of the civil servants / MOD. Let's face facts, there was always going to be one rule for one and another rule for the others. Could you honestly ever imagine any of our civil servants ever refusing HRH his desire to fly operationally or even professionally in civvy street?

Best get David Icke on the case. Maybe there's something in the royal DNA which can alter CVD genes.

Poof - bang goes me knighthood!! At least I won't have to keep checking the honours lists twice a year from now on.

Sacky

16th Sep 2008, 14:04

Well I failed the Ishihara test today, a shame because the rest of my medical was immaculate, and now I've got to make a booking for the farnsworth lantern test, has anyone done this test and failed the ishihara? Can anyone give an indepth description of what its actually like? How far away are the dots (for instance on a computer screen how large would they be)? Do they change hues/contrast? Whats the pass rate in Australia for this and what is considered a pass?

Need money

18th Sep 2008, 15:00

Soup Nazi:

If you were in any doubt before attending Gatwick for your first attempt - I would start off with this :

Amazon.co.uk: Ishihara's Tests for Colour Blindness: S. Ishihara: Books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ishiharas-Tests-Colour-Blindness-Ishihara/dp/0718600797)

:ok:

2close

19th Sep 2008, 18:19

And at the same time, buy yourself a sash to wear to Gatwick which states 'I've learned the Ishihara Plates', which has just about the same effect as publishing your intentions on these pages..........;);)

inverted123

21st Sep 2008, 23:07

Hi Sacky, dont worry to much I cannot read all the Ishihara plates I was sent to the college of optometry in Carlton Melbourne about 10 yrs now and done a color evaluation, you will do the Ishihara again to confirm your weakness,you will also do a few color arrangement tests and the Farnsworth lantern. The doctor told me i had a very mild green weakness, I did pass the farnsworth lantern and was given NO restrictions on my class 1 medical up to and including ATPL, now having flown commercial for some ten years now with no problems.
The farnsworth lantern is about 2 mtrs from you,you will be shown the colors you will see prior to the test, you will have one run of different colors and if you make no mistakes you pass, but if you do make up to 2 errors and no more you will be given 2 more runs and are not allowed to make anymore than 1 error in each run to pass.The test is not easy but remember your first thoughts of what colors you see will more than likely be the right ones, i found them very helpful and do not set out to fail you, i do have friends who have not passed the farnsworth and have restrictions on the medical, they hold commercial and NVFR and instructor ratings so dont worry to much if you want to have a career in aviation you most probably will acheive this, good luck let me know how you go:ok:

2close

22nd Sep 2008, 18:10

Don't forget guys, that the UK CAA with its allies in ICAO is trying to achieve world domination by having its CAD test mandated across ALL ICAO member states and not just EASA.

The USA FAA has already officially stated that it is abandoning the Farnsworth within the next two years, quite possibly in favour of the CAD and I heard a whisper that Australian CASA may be trying to follow suit, despite their previous defeat in the discrimination Courts.

Neo_RS14

23rd Sep 2008, 13:40

Search the CVD thread mate (Collective Colour Vision Thread...).

I'm pretty sure you can do an IMC, even an IR, but obviously you are restricted to day-flight only. I'm not 100% I'm afraid, but definitley worth sifting through the CV thread.

All the best

Sacky

24th Sep 2008, 09:25

Well I failed the farnsworth and I suppose the other colour vision tests they gave me. Apparently I have Deuteranopia, which means I am missing the green cone from my eyes. This is quite servere colour blindness... and will in all likelyhood prevent me from pursueing in aviation. So I just have 2 questions to ask:
1. Is there any other options available to me now this has happened?
2. Why do aviation signals rely primarily on red and green when green colour blindness is the most common form? Why not red and blue?

Neo_RS14

24th Sep 2008, 11:17

Hi Sacky,

What exact tests where performed on you?

To be honest I have little confidence in lantern tests to diagnose whether someone is a "trichromat or dichromat"....and the D-15 type test (matching coloured dots in a line) I can't really comment on as i've never taken it.

In all, CVD is a very difficult thing to asses the extent of, and in my own view, the anomaloscope is the only thing which comes close to a real diagnosis.

If you can take a test on a Nagel Anomaloscope, or maybe the software version, perhaps you could write to the institution with your result and see if they will consider it.

Can't hurt to pursue all avenues. Don't give up mate.

Neo

Sacky

24th Sep 2008, 11:33

The tests they performed were:

Ishihara
D15
Nagel Anomaloscope
Farnsworth Lantern

I don't think theres many tests left to fail... unless Australia offers some kind of practical signal test.

fireoff

25th Sep 2008, 17:55

Hi there guys,
I'm 16 and was going to start a PPL soon but I hit a speedbump:ugh:. I wear glasses and was aware of certain vision standards and I think I may be outside those standards which are holding me back. If ye could look at this eye test from an ophthalmologist I went to recently and tell me what ye think my chances are of being a pilot. Thanks:

Vision:
Vision right with +5.00 DS is 6/6
'' left '' +4.50 DS is 6/6

Colour vision: normal with isihara an each eye

Cover Test: No phoria with glasses

Alternating cover test: small esophoria measuring 5 dioptres

Field of Vision (Humphrey's): Normal

Fundoscopy: Normal each eye.

Sean

2close

26th Sep 2008, 06:25

"Use the Nagel Anomaloscope as the test standard"

Not a chance. The number of failures amongst current pilots would be astronomical, at the current pass standard. Achieving +/- 4 units on the test standard is no mean achievement; I am -6 on Nagel and only fail the Ishihara by 1 - 2 plates but I am unable to see clearly the microscopic lights on the lanterns any longer (age, I'm afraid, has caused a condition known as 'scatter') so the authorities deem me unsafe (despite having deemed me safe 16 years ago when I COULD see the latern lights).

shgsaint

29th Sep 2008, 16:08

I just thought I would share my good news..... I'm now an official holder of a JAA / CAA Class 1 Medical Certificate. Without any restrictions!!! :)

I always thought that I may have a slight colour vision deficiency so I booked my eye tests first so I could clarify if it was ever going to be a problem. I passed the Ishihara plates with I think probably 1 error or confusion. I didn't need to take any further tests and went on to score pretty well with the remainder eye tests To the point where the opthamologist said that I had the best vision out of every one that had turned up that day. :cool:

With me passing the area I thought I would struggle on, I continued on with the medical and seemed to be perfectly normal with the remainder tests. Hearing, cardiology etc.

This is obviously very satisfying news for me and confirms that my previous suspicions were probably exaggerated and in fact my colour vision was pretty normal and most importantly good enough to pass the class 1.

I would like to wish everybody else good luck with their endeavours in this area and would encourage anyone who thinks they suffer with CVD to research it as much as possible. I thought it would always get in the way of my dreams.... only to be told that my vision was perfectly normal... if not better than average.

Good luck guys. :ok:

FlyEJF

29th Sep 2008, 18:35

Hi Guys,

Has anyone else had trouble booking a Lantern Test with the CAA recently? I first phoned the CAA on the 1st Sept and was informed that the Beynes Lantern was away and wouldn't be back until mid Sept. I phoned again on 15th Sept but it still hadn't been returned. I phoned again today and was told that the Lantern was in France and that it wouldn't be back before the end of October.:ugh:

It's a good job that i don't need the test done that quickly.

Anyone else having trouble booking?

Ed

Shunter

30th Sep 2008, 02:38

This "new test" isn't approved for anything yet, so at the present time it remains nothing other than an expensive computer game. This was what it looked like in development: A new web-based colour vision test (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/colourtest.html)

As mentioned, there are other places you can go, Glasgow being one. Plenty of euro city-break opportunities too :)

colourblindgeek

1st Oct 2008, 14:38

Well I guess the Beynes lantern didnt take itself on a holiday to Cannes, so I'd say it was back at the manufacturer having a service - i.e. putting some nice new bulbs that are white rather than dirty cream and green rather than an 'off white mint colour'.

Perhaps someone thought they hadn't got it serviced within the manufacturers specified intervals and therefore based their appeal on it! So maybe someone at the CAA thought it might be time to get it looked at!

Just a thought!!

Sacky

5th Oct 2008, 06:22

So let's say I do pass the practical signal light test, while failing the ishihara and the general colour vision test at the optometrist, am I still eligible to get a job in aviation (for example Qantas)? Or will deuteranopia permanently prevent me from doing that despite the lack of restrictions on my license? Will I ever be able to do military aviation with that?

TelBoy

28th Oct 2008, 20:47

The Holmes Wright test, you sit 5 metres away from the box. It shows you two lights one above the other. They can be White, Green or Red. The lights are VERY small ( just over 1mm I think ) and they show them for 3 seconds. They do change the Hue (taking colour out is the best way for me to describe it) and it is generally the white and green we mix up. There is nothing in real life that you could compare, but try to think of looking at traffic lights at a few miles and you won't be far off. All the very best to you mate.

AMEandPPL

29th Oct 2008, 23:05

Was commented upon in post # 985 above. Then also re-posted the link. I presumed that the poster had deleted it; why should anyone else do so ? Relevant to the thread, and specifically mentions pilots.

Conventional medical wisdom is still that the colour vision with which you are born stays with you for life. Period.

2close

30th Oct 2008, 05:59

I don't know about anyone else but I think I'll borrow AME&PPL's HGV for collecting the salt, after reading the article from Sanjeev's Miracle Cure for CVD.

You can also rub some soggy Darjeeling tealeaves on your chin to remove unwanted facial hair (for the ladies, of course).

I am a great believer in some natural remedies and I think in the western world we put far too much faith in our 'medicinal' cures but I cannot see how this can regenerate non-existent cones.

Best check the small print (in bright green on a bright red background ;) ) but I suspect you will have to part with a significant amount of cash before you get to that stage.

Oh, well, back to Cynics Corner.

2close
(Oh, I wish that I could say that the Med was that sunny!!!)

AMEandPPL

30th Oct 2008, 23:35

I dont know how else I could have shown people what these people were offering

There probably isn't a way you can do that directly. Strange, when you consider all the advertising that goes on here, around the pages and also in links. But we mere plebs mustn't argue, just obey.

But brighter readers will be able to work out the proprietor's name from Hawk's post; and the subject is about an alleged cure for colour blindness. Those same brighter readers would then only need to
"Google" those terms . . . . . . and hey, presto !

Anyone who finds the site, and then wants to discuss its content in general terms - well, I can't see how Mme Moderatrix could possibly object to that. CVD, and all its ramifications for pilots is, after all, precisely what this thread is all about.

Happy googling !

2close

31st Oct 2008, 06:55

Hawk I posted this link so us CVD people could at least look at what people around the world claim or say they can do to help us, I am sure that we all stand in hope that one day some cure will arise.
I dont know how else I could have shown people what these people were offering and for us to investigate into them further. Regards inverted123

Good points.

We do need all the help we can get, especially when faced with dealing with a very small but powerful (medically speaking) group of persons who appear to be more interested in protecting their own 'empires' and furthering their own careers than they are in ensuring flight safety standards.

The unquestionable data from the USA, Canada and Australia reveals how 'dangerous' CVD pilots really are :rolleyes: - in fact, it is quite interesting to note that each of these countries permits CVD pilots to fly commercially (in Australia, at night also) yet, statistically, over the same time period their safety records are far better than those of many other countries, including certain JAA member states.

Yet they choose to ignore that data in favour of their own very flawed, archaic and biased arguments.

Soapbox back under stone.....whoosh....gone!!!

2close
(Sunny today!! :O)

2close

1st Nov 2008, 16:50

The problem is that certain egoes and ambitions are bigger than the rights of the minority.

Why William?

We have it official in writing from Clarence House that HRH is NOT CVD. You should know by now that Royalty is exempt certain medical conditions and even if such a condition did manifest itself upon the Royal personage it would be ordered, by Royal Command, to vanquish itself onto some other lowly serf.........even if that didn't work there will always be a knighthood hungry medic somewhere willing to perjure himself for the sake of the Crown. :rolleyes:

Oh bugger.........there goes my Knighthood, around the same U-bend as my Peerage. :ouch: Will I never learn?

I just wish that one of them had the b*****ks to tell the truth. More chance knitting a suit of armour out of fog!!

2close

Todays METAR from the Med - Sunny and warm again!!!

2close

7th Nov 2008, 21:36

Not like you to mince your words, Shunter.

Get off the fence, for God's sake.....however, very succintly put......and damn accurate as well.

Did you know that if you rub a ripe, red tomato into your left testicle anti-clockwise whilst simultaneously stroking the right one in a clockwise direction with an under-ripe, green tomato this is an instant cure for all forms of colour blindness.......or as you may have noticed, it's all :mad:!!

inverted123

7th Nov 2008, 23:34

Why dont we do some investigating into this practice that have these claims of "CURE" for us CVD people, I think there are to many people out there claiming a treatment being "Corrective lenses" or other ways to treat us, these treatments may allow us to pass the ishihara tests but thats it,they certainly dont give us even close to Normal Color Vision while they line there pockets with large amounts of money at our expense.Until Authorities permit any such use they are useless to us.
( Sick of being taken for a ride) :mad:

2close

8th Nov 2008, 06:22

The whole CVD issue in CAT is a complete farce. It has been suggested that you can learn the Ishihara Plates and whilst some time back I would not have condoned this I am now of the opinion that, if the authorities wish to insist on implementing another pointless and irrelevant test then it's fair game for anyone else to use whatever means they have at their disposal to get through the medical.

Why pointless and irrelevant you may ask? Well, the UK CAA reckons the new CAD Test will permit approximately 30% of present failures to pass. Really!!! So that means that, by the waving of a magic multi-coloured wand 30% of presently UNSAFE wannabee pilots instantly become SAFE commercial pilots. There is only one way to describe this - TOTAL BO***CKS!

I know for a fact that there are individuals out there already flying commercially who have used certain means to get through the tests and I once knew a RAF FJ pilot who got through the CVD tests for aircrew selection by 'the Ways and Means Act" - well done that man - and he told me this face to face in his front room and that he was far from being alone. Then you only have to look at the miraculous recovery of our future king :rolleyes:

It is a load of crap and the powers that be know it.

But there are individuals out there with a vested interest in the status quo and indeed the new CAD test who potentially stand to gain far too much personally, professionally, academically or even financially, for them to back down at the 11th hour and change the system, present or proposed, even though they know full well that the systems are wrong. :ugh: I am sorry if this offends but my feeling is that the CAD Test is seriously flawed and is being pushed through as the result of nothing more than academic egoes. I have been made privy to certain information which I cannot repeat on these pages but it qualifies my statement perfectly.

Right, I now have to go fly eager young wannabee pilots around the skies at 150 kts +.

Soapbox away.....lift stone....under I go!!

2close

Jetblue190

14th Nov 2008, 00:34

Hey guys

I just went to get my student medical certificate. The only problem is I failed my color vision test. In order to get rid of the night flying restriction I have to either take the light gun test or any of the other tests. Im a little worried about the light gun test because you can only take it twice. If you fail both times the restriction will never be lifted. Im probably going to go with the farnsworth lantern test. Any suggestions?

2close

14th Nov 2008, 19:44

I'm presuming 'Candyland' is the USA?

TelBoy

20th Nov 2008, 23:14

jetblue - I cannot say about the falant as I have not taken it, but the Tower Signal Test you will get two official turns at. You are of course free to ask the tower at any time for the light signals.

The official FAA stance is that if you are undergoing pilot training AND have a limited medical they will (and need to) authorise a signal test. Most people do pass this test as most CVD poilots CAN distinguish aviation colours as used!!

If you (when you) pass the tower signal test you get a letter from the FAA which will act as your colour (color) vision test for your medical - it is called a letter of evidance. I do not know if the falant gives the same - I would sugest you phone the FAA, they are VERY helpful and from my own experiences with them, on your side.

All the best mate. I would say get that letter ASAP as it has been said that the FAA might take the new CAA CAD test as standard and that is guaranteed to F*** most of you in the free USA as it will do us here in JAA land (just like our present tests). Might seem a bit harsh, but I am English and have an FAA ticket and unrestricted medical (thanks to the Tower Signal Test), but restricted to sweet FA in my home land for no reason!!

Good flying mate - this will NOT beat you where you are.

FlyEJF

2nd Dec 2008, 21:50

I was also told the very same thing regarding not being able to be a pilot because I was red/green colour blind. It's nonsense, the people testing you at school should be better informed. Incidentally, I have just returned from Gatwick today and I'm glad to say that I passed the Lantern test. I only needed to do the Beynes Lantern as I identified all or most of the colours correctly.

Ed

2close

3rd Dec 2008, 06:50

Ed,

Please clarify whether you identified ALL or MOST of the colours correctly.

There is a significant difference.

Please use PM if you would prefer.

Cheers,

2close

Rasco

3rd Dec 2008, 10:04

Hi guys!

You've heard the story... I want to fly commcercially but I have a slight color deficiency. I'm a 21 year old Swedish citizen at the moment living and working in norway. I've known since my first school medical ~10 years ago that I was "color blind".

I want a JAA and FAA class 1, of course.

My story follows...

*Oslo, Norway
Holmes Wright - I was offered a test off the record(I think).
FAIL - Failed on 3 lanterns, all being light green that I thought was white. The test was done at approx. 6 meters in a lightened room.

*Stockholm, Sweden
Went home to Sweden to do the full JAA class 1 medical, but doing the eye exam first if I'd fail.

Ishihara - FAIL- Just saw maybe 50% of the numbers.
Anomaloscope - PASS - The examiner said it was rather strange but I did match the colors within the range of passing the test.
Holmes Wright - FAIL - As I knew what went wrong in Oslo i tried to "compensate" and twist the colors I saw. This time around it went even worse. I mixed up a few of the lanterns and got even more answers wrong than last time. The test was done at maybe 5 meter in a darkened room.

Anyways, I was declared as color unsafe. The examiner was really friendly and co-operative. He said that he thought I had an unusual color deficiency but told me to think about another career. So here I am, 2 hours after the failure knowing that "my color unsafe paper" is on its way to the swedish aviation authorities. I've read a couple of really inspiring stories in this thread, Blinkz for example, and I do hope I could do the same thing.

I will in a short future do the FAA tests as I believe I have a shot at getting the FAA Class 1 and starting my career in the states. My plan was from the first start to get all my certificates in the US and then convert them to JAA when I got home. But to do so I would of course need my JAA Class 1.

As all boys with dreams I will continue my journey. But what's the next step? Trying another JAA country? After reading through this thread I have a clue about the different ways on how to get through this net. I just want to share my journey with you guys.

Thanks for this awesome source of info and inspiration! :)

Cheers!

/Oscar

2close

3rd Dec 2008, 10:15

Rasco,

If you pass the Anomaloscope within the stated parameters then that is accepted as a pass under JARs and no other tests are required.

If you have met the pass criteria below for Nagel's Anomaloscope then you have been stiffed my friend and you need to get on to the authority asap!!

JAR–FCL 3.345 Colour perception

(See Appendix 14 to Subpart C)

(a) Normal colour perception is defined as the ability to pass Ishihara’s test or to pass Nagel’s anomaloscope as a normal trichromate (see
paragraph 1 Appendix 14 to Subpart C).

Appendix 14 to Subparts B and C

Colour perception
(See JAR–FCL 3.225 and 3.345)

1 The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is to be considered passed if the first 15 plates are identified without error, without uncertainty or hesitation (less than 3 seconds per plate). These plates shall be presented randomly. For lighting conditions see the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine.

2 Those failing the Ishihara test shall be examined either by:

(a) Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the colour match is trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less, or by

(b) Lantern testing. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with lanterns acceptable to the AMS such as Holmes Wright, Beynes, or Spectrolux.

[Amdt. 3, 01.06.03]

PM me your e-mail and I will send you a copy of FCL3.

Hope this helps and good luck

2close

Rasco

3rd Dec 2008, 12:16

2close. Now I'm seriously confused, though excited. I'm thinking if I really did pass the anamaloscope, or if I missunderstood my examiner. I'm almost sure I passed since I think I remember him saying it was strange that I passed it. ANYHOW, I had to do the HW lantern aswell and after that he clearly stated to me that I'm color unsafe.

I'll dig into this matter right awat. Calling them right now.

Rasco

3rd Dec 2008, 13:13

I just spoke with my examiner regarding my anamaloscopy. He told me that he just did a brief examination with the anamaloscope and not a full one. I told him that I understood what he was saying but I asked him if it was possible to hear my "score" and told him "I've heard that you should have something within 4 something-something". He answered that I was within the range, but that my score on the HW Lantern, which he said was the more imporant test, was so bad that I was nothing but color unsafe. The thing is that I didn't trust my eyes when I did the Holmes Wright lanterns. Stupid as I was, whenever I had a lantern with less hue, I within the 5 seconds tried to do the "I-know-the-for-me-almost-white-hue-should-be-light-green-but-someone-mentioned-on-PPRuNe-in-a-thread-that-white-looked-like-beige-no ****-that-is-really-white-Oscar-You-Stupid-****"-calculation. My color confidence is bad(thanks to all the people that say that I'm color blind). I should've trusted my eyes.

I didn't want to sound like I questioned the examiners competence, but he sounded a bit offended when I called him. He told me that he understood my dream of flying but that I should let this go and read medicine (I mentioned that becoming a doctor was my backup plan if I wasn't able to fly commercially).

Germany (or whatever other JAA-certified country) here I come!???? :confused:
What's next...?

FlyEJF

3rd Dec 2008, 13:21

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be a bit vague. The reason I said all or most is that I don't actually know what the pass criteria was or how many I got right. If the criteria were to pass them all then I assume that I got them all right. I guess I should have asked but all I was thinking at the time was "excellent, I’ve passed". There was one light, which I said, was orange but it was very close to a red so I wasn't sure whether I got that one right.

For those of you who don't know, the Beynes test that I did involved identifying the colour of a single lamp. The lamp was turned on for 1 sec and then off again. I had to reply within one sec and only first answers were taken. There were 5 colours - red, green, orange, blue and white. The white was more like the yellow of a light bulb.

I only took the Beynes test and found it easier than I thought it was going to be. I only fail 3 or 4 of the Ishihara plates btw.

Hope that clarifies matters.

2close

3rd Dec 2008, 14:13

Rasco,

Forget your examiner's over-inflated ego (bloody offended indeed - who the :mad: do these people think they are!!).

JARs are simple and explicit - if you fail Ishihara you only have to pass EITHER the Nagel Anomaloscope OR the Holmes-Wright, NOT both.

When you passed the one he should NOT have tested you on the other.

Get a copy of the Nagel results, come to the UK with them, present them to the UK CAA at your Class One Medical and you will be passed.

:* Ever so 'slightly' enraged!!!!! :*

Roll on the bloody (in more ways than one!) revolution - there won't be enough lamp-posts to go around!!! ;)

2close

C172 Hawk XP

17th Dec 2008, 14:49

OK, I plead guilty ! Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't understand american acronyms !

Could someone please explain to me what's meant by :

ASVAB
WOFS
AFAST
and
SOL

Sounds to me as if you are mildly colour deficient (as tested by Ishihara, etc) but have been deemed safe by Lantern test (s). That would be my interpretation of
I've always been able to pass the FAA first class medical because the flight surgeon always gave me a secondary test
If that's the case, once deemed colour safe to issue a class 1 then further testing should not be required. So, something odd seems to have happened here !

2close

18th Dec 2008, 09:00

This thread is predominately populated by Europeans who are generally shafted up the ricker by antiquated, irrelevant and discriminatory JAA (and soon EASA) rules and not many (if any) who would be able to help you with the US Armed Forces protocols.

I would suggest one of the US Military Blogs as a better source of info.

Good luck with your quest and if you do find the answer please be sure to post it here. :ok:

HTH

2close

fireoff

23rd Dec 2008, 00:20

Hi All,
I'm 16 and recently started flying lessons. After school I hope to pursue a career in aviation as a pilot...1 problem...my eyes.

I am on the border - Here are the results from a recent ophthamologist exam:

Vision:
Right with +5.00 DS is 6/6
Left with +4.50 DS is 6/6

Colour vision - Normal with isihara in each eye

Cover Test - No phoria with glasses

Alternating cover test - Small esophoria mesauring 5 dioptres

Field of Vision (Humphrey's) - Normal (with a copy)

Fundoscopy - Normal each eye

Now I don't really know what all that means but maybe someone out there might decipher it please? Also as an ophthamologist is of a higher "rank" persay than a doctor in terms of the eye will the doctor doing the medical look at my results and say "okay he knows best and has wriiten and signed it" (my ophthamologist is known throughout Ireland by eye specialists and doctors) or will they say "no we're doing it again and what we say goes"? All advice and answers will be gladly appreciated.

Many Thanks,
Fireoff

C172 Hawk XP

29th Dec 2008, 20:26

this thread was about improving eyesight by other means than the use of specs

Yes, true . . . . . . but ALL other aspects of vision too. The thread title is "VISION THREAD (other than colour vision)".

It now runs to thirty-three pages. Is it any wonder that newcomers can't be bothered to plough right through everything from the beginning ?

Might there just be some mileage in allowing certain OCULAR related topics to be self-contained threads ?

#646 above, topic of Exotropia, would be a very good candidate. Nothing to do with visual acuity, lenses or glasses at all.

Chucky333

4th Jan 2009, 22:55

Happy New Year All !!!

Ok, its been a very long time since I have been on this forum, but I have now decided its time to take the plunge and have my Colour Vision Assessment at Gatwick.
I knew from a very early age that I was colourblind and having had to receive the news that I couldn't become a pilot devastated me and I put the idea right out of my head.
Anyway to cut a long story short, I have decided to have the test done to determine if my degree of colour deficiency will affect me from pursuing my dream of becoming a commercial pilot.
I have got my assessment booked on Tuesday and I have mixed emotions. On one hand im nervous because I dont want to hear the bad news and the other hand im excited just incase I pass and can finally take a big leap into the world of Aviation.

I will keep you all informed on my progress !!!

Wish me luck !!!:cool:

2close

5th Jan 2009, 20:05

Chucky,

There is an absolute wealth of information regarding these test that can be gleaned from the guys on these pages and I just wish you had given us a tad more notice that you were doing your test tomorrow.

Personally, I would postpone tomorrow's test (unexpected case of the lurgy) for a few weeks and listen to what the people here have to say.

You may be pleasantly surprised at the eventual outcome. ;)

However, if you decide to go ahead, I wish you all the best.

2close

Chucky333

6th Jan 2009, 16:54

Hello All

Thanks for everyones support, I only just read the messages and judging my some of the context, I looked a little too late.
Unfortunately I failed my Colour Vision Assessment today at Gatwick.

Ishihara Plates - 2 Correct
Beyne Lantern - 3 Incorrect
Holmes Wright Lantern - I lost count how many I got wrong !!!

Well, I had a feeling I would fail the Ishihara Plates because I have come across these before.
However, the first part of the Beyne Lantern test went really well and I was thinking how easy the test was. But on coming to the last couple of lights, I seriously struggled.
The Holmes Wright Lantern test was the last test I did.
When the optician gave me a demonstration of how the test worked, I thought that it looked difficult enough, but he then informs me that the lights are on demo mode and will be much dimmer !!!
And much dimmer they were, this test was a complete nightmare and I knew I had failed after a couple of lights.

On a brighter note, I was informed that there was a new test coming in which hadn't yet been approved by City University. I am holding hope that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel after all.

Although I am obviously disheartened, I am NOT going to give up the fight to become a commercial pilot !!!

WE WILL ALL MAKE OUR DREAM COME TRUE !!!

Regards

Chucky.:)

colourblindgeek

6th Jan 2009, 22:02

Chucky

Look at this as the beginning - not the end. Welcome to the Club! Where roses are green, violets are red and we are all white with envy towards those with the ability to pass ishihara plates.

Let me be clear. The above is a joke. I can see red, green, white, yellow and blue as clearly as my Flying Instructor when we are in the sky. He cant understand why I am classed as unsafe!

There are a few (understatement!) people here waiting to hear about the so-called CAD test. This is the one developed by City Uni that has been sitting at the CAA for many months. It was due to be available from November 2008 but despite many attempts for a date, it still remains a complete mystery to the point of being imaginery.

I hope to god that your comment about awaiting City Approval was incorrect as the rest of us have all been led to believe that City have done their bit and are simply waiting for the CAA to approve it.

But when?

So they said that it will soon be available. Get back to them my friend. Ask them for a release date for that new test. They've given you half the information but as usual its a "we'll see".

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

We will all happily support you through this dilema. There are other options still for you. Spectrolux, FAA. You could even go to City Uni to get a really good understanding of your CVD. With CVD you can still work in the industry.

I know I'm absolutely borderline, but need to do the Spectrolux again in the hope that my 23/24 becomes 24/24. That involves a £200 round trip to Zurich.

But get back to the CAA first. When is the CAD test due?

Good luck

Let the pink mist come down and use your anger to show your orange side.

2close

6th Jan 2009, 22:43

The issue as I understand it with the CAD test (a test that you can actually pass by closing your eyes and guessing - very accurate that!!) is that not all EASA member states have approved it.

This is hardly surprising when you look at the sample of test subjects and the nature of the testing - all laboratory testing and ZERO practical correlation. The proverbial academic's wet dream.

Apparently, on good information, there is also an opinion amongst other EASA member states that the current CVD requirements are excessive and should be relaxed. It is the UK with certain backing from a rather large international civil aviation organisation (which must remain nameless) which is stamping its feet to get its way to maintain the status quo; this is hardly surprising considering the egg that will be spread right across the faces of certain individuals if they don't get the CAD accepted across the board.

Saying that, knowing the way the back corridors of arm-twisting work it is probably only a matter of time before they get their way.

Rasco

28th Jan 2009, 10:42

Thanks windforce, I'll look it up, and maybe you could pm me when you know? :) I know it's a hard one. But I've passed it one time in Sweden (matching range of 3). But the AME tested me on the H/W aswell which I failed brutally, therefore he told me that I'm nothing but colour unsafe. I've taken contact with the swedish authorities to look at my case so we'll see what happens. :bored:

Anyways, I would like to have another go at it(for obvious reasons) in another JAA-land. I just hope it wasn't only luck that gave a matching range within the parmeters for passing the test.

When I talked to one of the authority-guys he said that the JAA-rules we have today regarding CVD wasn't good since it just says that you're colour safe if you pass ONE of the 4 extra tests (Beynes, H/W, Spectro and Anomalo.). The new "european" rules, as he called them, will work the other way around. Saying that if you fail ONE of the 4 extra tests you're declared as colour UNSAFE. I don't now when those rules will imply. But it doesn't sound good for the future. :uhoh:

My spirit is still up though, and I hope yours is to! :ok:

TelBoy

28th Jan 2009, 22:48

Rasco

Fact is if you have passed a JAA colour vision test (1 of the 4 or ishihara of course) then you are colour safe and that is that. If you can give the CAA proof that you have passed one of the tests they will class you as colour safe.

The only problem (fight) is when you have failed one of the tests at Gatwick and pass it somewhere else, but the same rule will apply.

I don't know about Sweeden, but JAR's are just that - go to the courts if needed.

Happy flying mate and all the best to you.

Telboy

Rasco

29th Jan 2009, 09:05

TelBoy

I understand what you are saying. But I did the anomaloscope at the same time as the H/W and even though it says (=3 scale units) on my anomaloscope result the conclusion of the extended colour vision examination is that I'm colour unsafe. So I don't have just one paper saying that I passed the anomaloscope, just a paper showing my results and a conclusion stating that I'm a colour retard.

The swedish CAA said they would have another look at my case and take contact with me within a month. So I'm waiting at the moment. But from what I heard from the CAA-guy and since I fail more than half of the Ishihara plates and failed the H/W(badly) I'm pretty sure they won't change their minds.

It's really annoying to know that if I would only have had an anomaloscope examination they would see me as colour safe.

We'll see what happens. If there's a will there's a way, right? :)

Cheers

2close

29th Jan 2009, 12:49

I know we've been over this ground before but the PRESENT rules are clear - you are only required to pass ONE of the tests.

Therefore, you have fulfilled JARs and the doc has got it wrong!!

Now, if the rules change under EASA so that if you FAIL any one of the battery of tests you are out then that will throw a spanner in the works.

If you read FARs carefully this is the present system in the USA but they don't actually implement it that way. FARs state that you fail if you fail any one of the battery of tests but in fact they apply the opposite, by passing anyone who passes any one of the tests.

If the powers that be implement this and a CVD test at every medical this could seriously cause problems for anyone currently flying having passed just one of the tests.

llobregat

30th Jan 2009, 22:59

Anybody knows the Ishihara plates version at Gatwick?

2close

30th Jan 2009, 23:30

24 Plate, as per JARs.

Gavin Smith

3rd Feb 2009, 19:21

Towards the end of last year I took my class 1 medical at Gatwick and failed the ishihara plates followed by the lantern test (my prescription wasn't 100% but don't think I would of passed it anyway). I was told by a friend of a friend who is a pilot that he flew with a colourblind pilot from the UK as he went to get a faa certificate.
Can anyone tell me if this is possible. I had a quick look and found that the colour blindness test is less strict than the CAA but is there anyway of finding out in the uk rather than having to make a special expensive trip to the US only to find out that I cannot become a pilot.
Also does it restrict me to working in America and there not living in the UK?
Thanks in advance.

2close

3rd Feb 2009, 20:24

First of all, there are stacks of FAA AMEs in the UK who can test you, without having to go to the USA.

Next, how many errors did you make on Ishihara? FARs require no more than 6 errors on the 24 plate version (although the manufacturer states a maximumof 2 errors). So, if you make more than 6 errors you will also fail Ishihara for the FAA.

Alternative testing for the FAA is different to that for JAA. The UK uses the Beyne and Holmes-Wright Lantern Tests, which you have already failed. The other tests accepted are the Anomaloscope (forget it!) and the Spectrolux, presently only available in Switzerland.

The FAA uses the Farnsworth Lantern Test, which can be arranged in the UK, or a Colour Signal Lamp Test but this is a practical test at an aerodrome and must be conducted in the USA. The FAA intends to do away with these alternatives in the foreseeable future.

You will not be permitted to fly UK registered aircraft commercially with FAA licences but there are many countries (outside the EU) that do recognise FAA licences.

There is a great deal of information in these pages and whilst there may seem a lot to trawl through it may be worth your while - you'll soon be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

HTH

2close

llobregat

7th Feb 2009, 22:15

1 mistake at ishihara, 1 mistake first round beyne, no mistake second round=> class 1 no restriction

2close

7th Feb 2009, 22:24

llobregat.

Very interesting. Where did you do your test, when you were given a second shot at Beynes?

2close

8th Feb 2009, 10:58

llobregat, when did you do it?

TelBoy, what do you make of this? More shifting of goalposts?

TelBoy

8th Feb 2009, 15:36

The JAA bible on opthalmology http://www.jaat.eu/licensing/manual_2006/Chapter%2013%20-%20OPHTHALMOLOGY%20Amdt%205.pdf does allow a retest on Beyne if one mistake is made. A few retests on Holmes Wright and no retests on Spectrolux. It does of course say the lantern tests can be retaken after 6 months!!

Still 1 mistake at ishihara is NORMAL colour vision by definition of the manufacturer so in reality llobregat should not have been subjected to these pointless tests.

Congratulations llobregat I hope all goes well in your future flying.

Tel

llobregat

8th Feb 2009, 18:23

In January. According to the document linked by TelBoy it was normal. I made a mistake at the first round, had the right to take a second round and did it with no mistakes=> colour safe.
There is a difference between another round and retaking it.

Pass criteria:
No mistakes - the subject is passed as ‘colour vision safe’.
Two or more mistakes - the subject is failed as ‘colour vision unsafe’.
Only one mistake - a second run of 12 lights is permitted. If no mistakes are made on the
second run, the subject is passed as ‘colour vision safe’.
The lantern-tests may be retaken after 6 months

2close

8th Feb 2009, 18:33

This is just crystal clear evidence of what total borlox the CVD testing regime is.

You fail Beynes in July twice - you are colour unsafe. You go back in January and ditto. You go back the following July and pass it on the second run - lo and behold you are miraculously cured and are now colour safe (a bit like our future monarch!)!

Even worse, you could lose several years of potential fulfilling career building.

W :mad: S

TelBoy

8th Feb 2009, 22:44

The fact that there is more than one acceptable lantern test in my view makes them all NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

If for example you fail one or both lanterns at Gatwick and then pass a different approved lantern, you are suddenley fit, just goes to show they do not fill their purpose. If you fail one - you should fail all and therefore only need one in the first place!!

The JAA manual I linked to does indicate that they acknowledge colour vision testing is shall we say "far from satisfactory". The fact that countries such as the US and Australia have a far less stringent testing than ours and no CVD related accedents just goes to show.

Indeed I have said all along that we all do flight tests to show that we can DEMONSTRATE the ability for the rating or licence we are seeking, so the flight tests should be representative of the skills needed. If we are capable we pass if not we fail - a great step forward for flight saftey and an end to this sham system we are in at present.

Rant over - happy flying everyone.

Sacky

23rd Feb 2009, 04:56

Just a quick question... Is there a specific reason ICAO doesn't accept colour correction lenses for commercial operations like they do with myopia correction lenses?

2close

23rd Feb 2009, 07:53

Tis nowt to do with ICAO.

The only ICAO requirement is that you can safely recognise aviation signal colours.

There is no reason whatsover why an individual could not wear colour corrective lenses AND carry a spare set in the cockpit.

The problem with the NAA's is that they make broad sweeping statements which they believe are justified by who they are - they have made a statement regarding colour corrective lenses but provided ZERO evidence to back those statements up.

The 'blame' lies at the doorstep of the individual aviation authorities; more importantly the eye specialists working for them who are highly protective of their empire. Every time we chip away at the edges of their practice that removes a little bit more of their raison d'etre and lessens their justification for existence (and salary).

At risk of repeating msyelf, I understand (on very good authority) that the majority of JAA Medics are in favour of relaxing colour vision limits but certain vocal minorities, backed by a big international organisation, are rocking the boat.

2close

Sacky

23rd Feb 2009, 07:59

The 'blame' lies at the doorstep of the individual aviation authorities; more importantly the eye specialists working for them who are highly protective of their empire. Every time we chip away at the edges of their practice that removes a little bit more of their raison d'etre and lessens their justification for existence (and salary).

Is there anything colour blind people can do? Contacting their local ministries for transport? Or is it all just wasted paper in the end?

2close

26th Feb 2009, 17:38

There is a benchmark 'normal' score and the subject's score must be within 4 units of this benchmark, e.g. the 'normal' is 32 so the subject's limits are 28 - 36.

2close

26th Feb 2009, 17:42

Danielm,

There is an eye specialist company based at Coventry Airport which I believe has a FALANT. They did when I spoke to them a few months back.

The FAA will accept their results - you DO NOT have to travel to the USA for this test.

2close

26th Feb 2009, 18:27

That is how it was explained to me by an Optometrist, however, the information below makes it seem a lot less uncertain.

JAR FCL 3
Appendix 14 to Subparts B and C - Colour perception
(See JAR–FCL 3.225 and 3.345)

1. The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is to be considered passed if the first 15 plates are identified without error, without uncertainty or hesitation (less than 3 seconds per plate). These plates shall be presented randomly. For lighting conditions see the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine.

2. Those failing the Ishihara test shall be examined either by:

(a) Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the colour match is trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less, or by

(b) Lantern testing. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with lanterns acceptable to the AMS such as Holmes Wright, Beynes, or Spectrolux.

JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine

d) Nagel Anomaloscope

The Nagel anomaloscope is a spectroscopic device designed to evaluate the Rayleigh equation. It presents a circulair split field viewed through a telescope-like device. The upper half field is a spectral yellow-green (545 nm) and spectral red (670 nm). The luminance of the pure yellow lower half field may be adjusted from dark to bright.
Measurement requires a trained and experienced examiner. The instrument is adjusted by means of two knobs on the sides of the device for a normal match. (yellow=15, red-green=40). The examination starts with a three-minute adaptation period where the evaluee looks at the screen in front. The evaluee is asked to describe the appearance of the colours seen in the instrument.
Different matches are offered to the evaluee and he or she is asked to describe the appearance of the colours seen. The matches are: 73/15; 73/6, 60/6, 20/15.
If the normal match and only the normal one is accepted, the range is evaluated. The examiner changes the red-green ratio in small increments around the match point asking each time: Is this a match. The evaluee is asked to adjust the knob controlling the luminance of the test field. In this fashion the match centre and matching range are determined and recorded.
If the normal match is not accepted and after the special matches are offered, the yellow-green knob is set in increments of ten until the full range of possible matches is evaluated and the matching range is evaluated as described above.
Between each trial the evaluee must readapt at the screen in front.
An applicant is considered to be colour safe if he/she has shown to be a normal trichromat.]

In summary, a vast amount of work still has to be done in order to establish which colour vision deficiencies can be accepted without loss of safety. Firstly, the colorimetric properties of all colours in use have to be determined, a task recently made even more difficult by the introduction of the colour displays. Secondly, one has to analyse how the identification and discrimination of these colours is influenced by the different types of deficiencies and, finally, it must be decided if an existing or future colour vision test can effectively divide applicants into ‘colour safe’ and ‘colour unsafe’ groups.

Make of that lot what you will.....:confused:....:zzz:.......Good luck!!!

2close

2close

26th Feb 2009, 18:48

No worries - always willing to help where I can.

BTW, say hi to the clangers for me :\

2close

28th Feb 2009, 10:23

Rayleigh --- Dynamic --- 6 Test

Right - CMP,50 SR,05 to 95
AQ,19.0 B,15 to AQ,0.05 B,15

Left - CMP, 50 SR,04 to 96
AQ, 24.0 B,15 to AQ,0.04 B,15

Any help on these results will be greatly appreciated ....

I'm afraid it's not good news - it looks as if you've only got a few weeks left..........but look on the bright side, we've found a buyer for your boots!! :ok:

Seriously though, I can't help with those numbers - I would suggest speaking to a specialist (City University or any other School of Optomtetry should be able to help) but please post the results here when you have them for our general education.

PPRuNeUser0161

17th Mar 2009, 10:30

Chaps in OZ
I can confirm that the VICTORIAN COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY are undertaking colour vision testing for the issue of the Class 1 medical. They have three tests in the following order;

Ishihara Plates
Farnsworth Lantern
Modified Aviation Signal Lantern (I think its a Modified Farnsworth)

To those who have done the practical test at the aerodrome and failed, it seems you will not be considered for the Modified Lantern (enquire anyway). I am not sure if you can do the practical test at the aerodrome if you fail the Modified Lantern (find out first). I passed the MASL about 12 years ago, for me it was much easier than the Farnsworth although I am not sure of the specifics of this test currently. It might be worth enquiring if you can do the tests for your own benefit before a formal sitting for your Class 1.

Clinical Servcies - Eligibility - Victorian College of Optometry - Melbourne, Australia (http://www.vco.org.au/clinical-services/service/service-vfc-colour.htm)
Ph (03) 9349 7400

SN

redsnail

31st Mar 2009, 12:23

I know several colour blind people who are pilots in Australia.
There is a thread about it in the "medical" forum.

Australia's rules about colour blindness are pretty sensible, however, if you want to fly internationally, you may find a problem. I vaguely remember seeing my friend's ATPL with "only valid for Australian FIR" or something in it.

Rules change, best ask CASA (http://www.casa.gov.au/avmed/medreq.htm) directly.

L-Band

31st Mar 2009, 19:33

Over here in the good old UK, colour blindness is allowed for flying however your driving license is pulled. Had a ground engineer that could not drive airside due to no driving license, easy with his pilots license started up the aircraft and taxiied it from the north side to the south side of the airport so he could carry out his work, good old Brits eh:ok:

Nunc

31st Mar 2009, 19:50

Contact CASA and get a list of DAME's (Doctors who do pilot medicals) and go see one. The DAME will be able to advise you on what restrictions your colour blindness will result in and take it from there. Good luck with it, I hope there is an opening somewhere for you.

Blues&twos

31st Mar 2009, 20:26

Over here in the good old UK, colour blindness is allowed for flying however your driving license is pulled.

I'm pretty certain that's not right re: driving licence.

You have to notify the DVLA if you have a visual impairment, but this doesn't include long/short sightedness or colour blindness.

Edited to add link: Driving eyesight requirements : Directgov - Motoring (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/LearningToDriveOrRide/DG_4022529)

(Sorry, this doesn't help the original poster with their query)!

rioncentu

31st Mar 2009, 22:20

Wannabe

I have red/green colour deficiency - The most common form.

I have CPL. My medical is endorsed "Valid in Australian Airspace Only" and I understand I am not able to go further than CPL.

I would not be able to get a Grade 2 medical to be a controller.

I understand you can go to the "Lantern test" and prove your ability on a case by case basis if you want to.

I was told in primary school (late 1970's) that I could not fly for the RAAF or Commercially. So I gave up.

Only to start in 2000 and have never looked back !! I think things have changed a lot in those 30 years.

But yes I understand I would not be able to fly in the US.

Cheers

drunkensailor

31st Mar 2009, 22:57

Wannabe, don't rule it out.
speak with a dame and apply for a class one medical before throwing any money at flying. there are many different scales of colour vision defiencies protanopia and dueteranopia being the most common. In a medical they will thrust the ishihara book before you which will if like me will seem like nothing but dots.
from there you can get sent to an opthalmologist for the farnsworth lantern test. If you fail that, you can contact Avmed and arrange to conduct a field lights test where they take you to an airfield and fire the light gun at you from the tower whilst supervised by casa rep.
If you fail this test, you can still fly commercially in aust only
keep in mind though that QF have their own policies on the colour vision standard and may retest you to get their own result.

The door ain't shut till you get the tests done to find where you are placed. don't give up until every avenue afforded by Dr Arthur Pape (http://www.vfcev.de/content/eng-articles/publishedarticles/001/001.htm) has been exhausted and then fight some more.
Good luck
:ok:

airman1

31st Mar 2009, 23:08

What rioncentu has stated above is pretty much rite, however there is 3 tests that CASA use to see the degree of a pilots colour blindness. Just because you can’t see those ridiculous plates that DAME gives you doesnt mean you can’t see the red and green traffic lights at an intersection!:E

Steps 1 - you can attempt a Farnsworth lantern test (pretty difficult to pass in my opion if you have no colour issues at all anyway)
Step 2 - Visit a UNI in melb that will perform an extremely in-depth set of colour vision tests and see the exact severity of your colour vision problem.
Step 3 - You can sit a Practical lantern test. The tower flashing a series of red/green/white lights at different distances.

If you fail step 1 or 2 (but you can’t do both you either have to choose to do the Farnsworth lantern test or the UNI testing) you can attemp on to test 3. If you pass any of the above you will be issued with a medical with no colour vision restrictions. To my knowledge australia is the only country that offers the further testing to prove your colour vision! (But keep a copy of the Practical latern test form FAA will in some cases accept this as a pass) I think it depends on the serverity ie red/green or yellow/ blue i think it is:ugh:

If you are the unlucky few that can’t get the restriction removed then you can still hold a CPL and MECIR but can’t be issued an ATPL. If you did the ATPL subjects an airline would hire you but u would never get a command. I have had several mates who have had these issues and 2 of them fly for major carries. The others are just bush pilots at heart anyway! One doctor told my mate you are so colour blind I am surprised you can tell the difference between red and green traffic lights! He now holds an ATPL and has a command on a heavy jet don’t let it get you down .......go and do the other tests and go from there!

Good Luck:ok:

zagno83

7th Apr 2009, 17:04

I obtained a couple of years ago a JAA class 1.....it is now expired, if i wanna renew it do i have to re do the colour tests??

Thanx a lot and good luck to all.
:ok:

2close

7th Apr 2009, 17:10

Depends on how long ago your Class 1 expired, where you took the original medical and what tests you took then.

If you give a little more information, I can answer your question.

Cheers,

2close

2close

7th Apr 2009, 17:26

Okey dokey, I'll assume no restrictions on it so, as it has lapsed by less than 5 years you can revalidate it with any JAA approved Aeromedical Examiner in any country and it is a simple revalidation examination.

If it had lapsed by more than 5 years and you have to go back to an Aeromedical Centre for an Extended Medical.

More than 10 years and it is back to the AMC for an Initial Medical again!!

HTH

2close

zagno83

7th Apr 2009, 17:33

....2 close you are very knoledgeable and kind answering my stupid q's....
beers on me if You swing by the US ok??? :ok:

it has been less than 5 years i'm sure about that, and i have no limitations on it, so i can go in any med.center in EU and renew it, but i have to retake the ishiara plates and eventually other test like lantern??? or not???

I hope this may help other folcks too

Later all

2close

7th Apr 2009, 18:57

...2 close you are very knoledgeable and kind answering my stupid q's....beers on me if You swing by the US ok???

I'm also ruggedly handsome and a total chick magnet..........:mad: came the cry from the shadows.....OK, so I'm a one eyed dwarf with body odour and broken teeth!!

But get the beer on ice, I'm on the way!! Never pass a free beer!!;)

In answer to your question, if you have an unrestricted JAA medical, which I presume is on the basis of having previously passed a Holmes-Wright, Beynes or Spectrolux Lantern Test or a Nagel Anomaloscope then the answer is No, at no time are you required to retake any colour vision test unless there are clinical grounds for doing so. If you need a copy of the appropriate JARs drop me a PM with your e-mail and I'll send you a copy. Always handy to have in case you come across a jobsworth doc who doesn't know the rules.

There are 3 x JAA AMEs listed on the UK CAA website in the USA in Tyler, Texas, Arizona and Florida. Follow the link and scroll to the bottom.

AME Search Results | Medical | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=49&pagetype=65&appid=21&mode=list&county=Non-UK&postcode=USA)

Hope this helps and looking forward to the beer.......aaaaaaaahhhhh......beeeeeerrrrr!!!

2close

TelBoy

16th Apr 2009, 11:50

I have been in recent discussions with our friends at Aviation House and they tell me that the CAD test IF certified will not be acceptable for about another two years. They expect it to be under EASA when they take control of FCL.

Now the CAA DO have the CAD test at Aviation House (I have taken it there) they did also tell me that they have a pass/fail criteria - they even told me they would look into my results and see if I passed it, however they seem to have now backtracked on that!!

There is more behind the CAD than is immediately obvious. The CAA could certify it for UK use NOW, I'm sure it could go through JAA in a "reasonable" amount of time, however they have taken it to the ICAO. I do also understand that they have talked to the FAA about it. This could become a standard test for ALL ICAO states and could bugger the chances of the many who pass say the Tower Signal Test in the US (such as I did). There is also another version of the CAD test on the cards that will act as a screening test to do away with the ishihara - so ALL CV testing will be done via CAD!!!

In short the CAA have spent a lot of time, money and effort behind the CAD test and I'm sure they want a result from it. They have a lot to gain in prestige, financial gain and a defense from legal action taken against them.

My view the CAD is another useless academic wet dream that serves no purpose. Let pilots be pilots and demonstrate during practical tests that they can preform the duties that are required for the license or rating sought - seems a lot fairer and sensible method to me.

zagno83

19th Apr 2009, 15:27

TelBoy,

Good points....
Something is already changing in FAA land, under inputs from the NTSB the FAA is reviewing and reevaluating colour vision testing, however they are talking about "grandfathering" all the already issued SODA (tower signal test).....
Do You think something similar will happen with the CAD and EASA?
I do not think they will retest people and may be cancel, until then valid, first class....
Ani inputs?

Later guys.:sad:

TelBoy

23rd Apr 2009, 15:17

zagno,

I do understand that the FAA will give grandfather rights to us that have SODA/LOE from Tower Signal Test etc. Here in Europe things are not so simple. The EASA is a European wide agency that has rules written into European law. This makes it very difficult for one nation to stand out as ALL EU states are governed by European law above their own national laws.

For the UK we need to take a look back in history. Before the JAA we had 3 medicals just like in the US. Class 1 for CPL/ATPL class 2 for BCPL and class 3 for PPL.

You will see BCPL here, something that most newer members to aviation will not know about - this is the beginning of the modular v integrated training.

Back in the old days before JAA you either needed 700 hours to get CPL or go on an integrated course and get CPL in 200 hours. The BCPL allowed you do do instructing for pay - it was called the self improver method.

Now the class 1 medical could not have any limitations for colour vision put on it so C1 was out, but CVD people could have a class 2 with no night restriction and must fly with a radio. The UK was the only nation to have this. Now in JAA times with only 2 classes of medical the UK filed a deviation with the JAA to put a restriction on class 1 saying no public transport and no night (the radio bit seems to have been dropped) this gives us the same rights we always had in the UK and we are the only JAA nation to do this.

When EASA take over FCL - god knows what will happen with our restricted class 1 as in the UK we are only one nation against all the others. They do after all seem to want our IMC rating scrapped!!

However I am sure the EASA will tread carefully as all those people that have invested large amounts of money and now earn a living from instructing are likely to sue The arse of the EASA if they suddenly loose their livelihood, and bloody good luck to them.

Happy flying all:)

colourblindgeek

24th Apr 2009, 15:59

Let me go through your points.

1.) You can have a retest on the Beynes Lantern and Holmes Wright at Gatwick. I retook the Beynes Lantern last year - and failed. Just. But I'm sure they have withdrawn it for some reason (perhaps so badly in need of new bulbs it has been sent back to the manufacturer!). You can request a retest 6 months after your last test I believe. Ask for a retest and see if they'll give you a crack at the CAD test. And please let us know what you were allowed to take. Also, if they do Beyne, can you find out if it has been serviced recently

2.) So you are going to Spiez! I do need to book in here too, I have had too many work pressures to find the time. I have taken the Spectrolux before in Dubendorf. I scored 11 out of 12 on the first run and 12 out of 12 on the second run. A fail. I'm a mild protanomolous, so struggled with the dark white and the bright green.
Roughly, you sit 2 metres from the Spectrolux. The aperatures are bigger than the Beynes lantern so it should appear 'easier'. It was for me.
You get shown 2 lights, one above the other. They are either red, white or gree, with two different intensities (i.e. bright red, dim red, bright green, dim green, bright white, dim white).
You cant prepare, but the basics will help. Be well hydrated, well slept.
Good luck in Spiez. Have you actually booked? How long ahead were they booking?
Cedar has gone quiet - kind of, but PM me and I'll explain. The best thing you can do to help, is to keep us all informed of your progress and experiences with Gatwick regarding Beynes and CAD; as well as your (hopefully) successful trip to Spiez.

Good luck. We're all behind you!

TelBoy

25th Apr 2009, 06:51

The CAA do NOT like to give lantern retests after 6 months and will come out with a load of BS to try and stop you. Fact is the Beyne has been sent and returned for service - so you DID take the test on a faulty machine!!! just be a pain and they will retest you. Last i knew the HW had not had anything done for over 20 years. You can FOI the CAA to get exact dates etc.

The spectrolux to point out has 12 sets of colours and these are repeated twice without stopping - so you are shown 24 sets straight off, the second set of 12 being the same as the first set of 12.

For those that have booked at Spiez - how did you contact them, I have only got the answerphone message in German - I don't speak German, but understand that it is just giving times etc.

Could those that have taken the spectrolux at Spiez please post your experiences.

Donalk

26th Apr 2009, 14:41

Everyting you need to know is in here-You'll also need to know her refractive error
http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/220545-vision-thread-other-than-colour-vision.html

suddste

27th Apr 2009, 19:49

Hello,

I've been looking around PPRuNe for a long time, this is kind of my first time posting, because i'm not sure how to post the correct question and where.

Anyway, years ago I had a standard eye test at an optician, not an AME at Gatwick or anything like that, just at a normal optician. I was tested, all was fine, I remember I did ok at the examination, but they did say that I probably wasn't good enough to be an RAF or military pilot for sure, that was fine, because I don't want to go into millitary, what I want to do is be an commercial airline pilot, in which they said that they don't properly know about this one.

They said the results were like this: I am fine with actual vision, no problems there, but they said there there was a 'slight' problem with my colour vision. I can usually read the Ishihara plates, but if I remember correctly, I used the struggle quite a bit at on the last few in the book. I reckon I got more right than wrong though.

What I want to know is if it is possible to get the Class 1 medical (from what I understand that is what is needed to be a commercial airline pilot) with this colour vision problem, and weather it is possible to use glasses to use to become an airline pilot.

Thanks,
Stephen

nannodnai

28th Apr 2009, 21:45

Look here in first instance
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med_ColourVision.pdf

I used to struggle quite a bit at on the last few in the book. I reckon I got more right than wrong though

On the Ishihara that would still be "colour deficient" ; you would then need lantern testing to assess if you were "safe" or "unsafe". Sounds as if you might be fairly borderline. Best to arrange an appointment to have it done at Gatwick . . . . . . only then will you really know.

suddste

28th Apr 2009, 21:53

ok, thanks for the reply, yeah it is very borderline, any idea what the lantern tests are like?

Or are there any pictures of it?

Thanks,
Stephen

colourblindgeek

29th Apr 2009, 08:20

Totally agree.

Just book a vision test at Gatwick. You don't need to do the whole medical if you just want the eye tests. Its the only way you'll find out.

Stress about it if you fail the lantern tests.

Lantern tests - in a nutshell.

1.) You sit
2.) They shine little lights (like LED's) in different colours 20 combinations
3.) You answer
4.) They pass or fail you

In the unlikely event you fail, then back to this forum to find out what to do next.

suddste

29th Apr 2009, 10:00

Ok, thanks for the help. I'll do the lantern test and see what happens. From what I understand it seems that they are just solid colours instead of a mix like the Ishara plates?

Thanks,
Stephen

shgsaint

29th Apr 2009, 11:17

Hi Stephen,

I haven't posted on here in a while as I successfully jumped through the hoops at Gatwick. I believe I am a very, very mild Deuteranomaly sufferer meaning I can struggle with Green discrimination. Fortunately I managed to scrape through the Ishihara plates with I think 1 error or confusion (all that is allowed I believe). I didn't do the lantern but this is what I've heard about them so be careful.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as a plain Red, White & Green light being flashed at you. As previously mentioned two lights will be shown at a time on the Holmes-Wright.

I believe there is a filter over one of the light appatures (top one I think!) that makes that colour darker in hue than its bottom counterpart. So two Red lights might be shown but one will be quite bright and the other quite dark. They're still Red though. Two Green lights might be seen as one dark Green light and the other would be a bright Green and maybe confused as White.

The Green is very light in hue so can be confused as White. Especially when it hasn't be darkened. The White is a very 'dirty' white that looks more like Yellow under the darker filter. In some instances this darker White could be confused with a Yellow'y Green. I think some dark Reds could be confused with the dark Green.

I've done Railway signalmans lantern in Cardiff (Archer-Elliot I think) and passed that with no errors. That had Red, Green, Blue, Yellow and White lights I believe. Each light was show twice at a different intensity and hue.

As I said I never had to do the lantern test at Gatwick so can't speak from experience but I think it should help to know that the Green light is already very light in colour, the White is 'dirty' and some have said it's more Yellow'y. And the Red is simply Red. I don't believe the CAA try to trick you but knowing this in advanced may help.

I've visited the below website many times and I think it's a great source of information and gives you a few tests to see if you can determine how bad your colour vision is. I've done the tests quite a few times and it has always given me the same answer: You're not colour blind. :ok:
Colblindor — Color Blindness Viewed Through Colorblind Eyes (http://www.colblindor.com/)

The D-15 test is a great tool to use. I occasionally mix up 7 & 9.

Good luck,

SHG.

adwitiyagaur

29th Apr 2009, 18:39

Can somebody tell me when are the colour vision tests are done again by dgca after submitting the medical reports that i had passed to them...... plz reply soon

niallp

30th Apr 2009, 15:09

Hi, does anyone have any idea about the regulations for colour bling pilots in australia. I failed a jaa here in ireland so i want to move to australia or america however i'd prefer australia. I jus have no idea where to go from here. All i want to do is fly, i'm finished college with an engineering degree and just wnt to be a pilot. Jaa is reduculously strict so theres no hope for me in europe. Anyone with any information could you please please help me. thanks

2close

4th May 2009, 14:31

Hi troops,

Just to clarify colourblindgeek's comment on CEDAR having gone quiet.

He is correct of course but the reasoning behind that is that following very positive and favourable advice from Counsel, we need to cross one bridge at a time, the first being to exhaust all avenues of negotiation / appeal with the regulatory authorities.

We atempted to enter into negotiations with the UK CAA / EASA but were cynically dismissed out of hand. Their attitude will do them no favours whatsoever whilst our attempts at reasonable, rational discussion places us in a far more favourable light.

The next stage is to ensure that the statutory appeals process is followed. If this fails then we have the necessary trigger event to proceed the matter to the next stage on a significant number of grounds.

The appeals process is taking far longer than anticipated but once completed we will reconvene with a view to proceeding to the next stage.

We are aware that a large and growing number of people are affected by this process but please bear with us and we will get back to you asap.

Cheers,

2close

ROGER202

5th May 2009, 17:58

I had went for my medical @ Gatwick a couple of months ago. I was found to be CP4. I have had no problems with the colour vision cards in the past. I had to do colour assessment, the briefing I thought was rushed, i did'nt really know what was going on, something about colour not yellow or something. I am looking at appealing. If my appeal does not go well, i will have to wait for CAD...... anyone know when this date is?
If all else fails, where can I go from here with regards to gaining Class 1? .......... differnt country, europe, ireland??!

Cheers

Roger.

2close

5th May 2009, 19:15

If you genuinely believe the medical was rushed and that the procedures were not properly explained to you then you may have a statutory right of appeal under Regulation 6 (5) of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991.

(5) Any person who has failed any test or examination which he is required to pass before he is granted or may exercise the privileges of a personnel licence may within 14 days after being notified of his failure request that the Authority determine whether the test or examination was properly conducted.

Don't worry too much about the 14 days rule as I would bet good money that you weren't informed of your right of appeal, however, if you were informed then I'm afraid you would be unable to exercise this right.

You need to put your appeal in writing to the CAA Secretary & Legal Adviser, CAA, CAA House, 49 - 59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE.

It is also quite possible that the CAA Aeromedical Section may grant you another medical examination if you write to the Chief Medical Officer, explaining your complaint, however, I would still write to Legal asap to ensure the statutory right was covered, just in case the AMS refuses (they probably won't).

Good luck.

2close

nannodnai

5th May 2009, 19:20

I was found to be CP4

Can anyone explain what that means, please ?

I'm familiar with the words "colour deficient", "safe", and "unsafe" but I have not heard of this terminology before. Can colour deficiency now be given some kind of numerical grading ?

2close

5th May 2009, 19:33

CP = Colour Perceptiveness

CP2 - Grade 2 - Passes Ishihara = Normal

CP3 - Grade 3 - Fails Ishihara but passes alternative testing = Colour Safe

CP4 - Grade 4 - Fails Ishihara and alternative testing = Colour Unsafe

These grades were to the best of my knowledge originally applied by the military services but have now been adopted across the board. They are the only grades - for some reason no CP1.

HTH

2close

2close

5th May 2009, 22:53

That's interesting.

As an AME do you apply JAR-FCL 3 to the requirement that states "You shall conduct the colour vision tests in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions" which, in the case of the Ishihara 24 Plate Test, up to 2 errors is a PASS; or, do you follow the other contradictory instruction within JAR-FCL 3 which states that Ishihara shall be conducted with a Nil errors pass criteria?

These two requirements obviously contradict each other and I wonder what the opinion of the AME community on this debate is.

Look forward to your reply.

2close

2close

6th May 2009, 20:53

Back to the subject in hand, any viewpoint on my previous question regarding Ishihara testing by AMEs and the criteria laid down in JAR FCL 3?

2close

Ponte

6th May 2009, 21:02

Shunter (http://www.pprune.org/members/137650-shunter)

As you'll see from this page (http://myflightsurgeon.com/Farnsworth.html) yes, the hue does change. If you know this, you're half way to passing.

You could always buy yourself a "revision aid" (http://www.guldenophthalmics.com/ccp51/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F532085&rnd=8401556&rrc=N&affl=&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=Farnsworth_Lantern_Flashlight+&cat=&catstr=).

Great find!!!

Did you do it before spectrolux?

ScouseFlyer

10th May 2009, 14:57

Can assure you that can hold a JAR PPL and indeed IMCR with colour deficiency on a class 2 medical-limitation is that flight by day only-I unfortunately have a red/green colour deficiency and have held a licence for 5 years.

SF

TelBoy

10th May 2009, 16:59

In fact in the UK you can get a class 1 medical with no public transport and no night flight deviation on it.

Depends on flying he wants to do if NPPL or PPL is the right way for him to go, but colour vision deficiency will not stop him flying day on PPL and will not stop him getting an IMC rating.

You will find that instructors and clubs will not necessarily have the right information when it comes to medical issues.

Shunter

11th May 2009, 18:11

In actuality, most avenues are open to a colour restricted pilot. You can do a PPL, night rating (with instructor acting as safety pilot whilst you fly the P1 bits), IMC, CPL, IR, FI... the list goes on.

Instructors (and anyone else for that matter) are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the colour vision affair unless they've personally had experience of picking apart the ill-conceived, evidence-less, contradictory, swiss-cheese regulations. I spent a number of years doing so, and after spending thousands of pounds on the quest finally acquired a clean medical. The whole thing is bollocks, because the CAA have absolutely no idea what is and isn't safe in the context of safe operational requirements when it comes to colour vision. As a result we find ourselves guilty until proven innocent, with the CAA holding up the 'safety' card as their catch-all defence.... until someone sues the living daylights out of them... The sooner the better.

I'm not bitter, of course :hmm:

Ponte - no, I found that after my Spectrolux test. I almost certainly would have acquired one had I discovered it before. It's been mentioned by someone else that they found it useful for preparation, but everyone's different.

iranian_pilot

15th May 2009, 12:13

hi im new i haven't seen this posted anywhere before please help!

the CAA have this on there site

Distance Vision
Your visual acuity (measured by your ability to see, in this case, lines of letters on a chart at 6 metres) must be at least 6/9 in each eye separately and 6/6 using both eyes together, with or without glasses or contact lenses (correction). If you need correction the refractive error (the amount of correction) must not exceed +5.00 dioptres of long sight or -6.00 dioptres of short sight. This is in the most ametropic meridian (taking into account any astigmatism). Astigmatism must not exceed 2.00 dioptres. The difference in correction between each eye (anisometropia) must not be more than 2.00 dioptres. Your optometrist will be able to explain these terms. both my eyes are 4.5 which is fine and have stabled meaning wont change

i dont suffer from any ilnesses i havent been hospital in nearly 4, 5 years 1 problem is my eyes, i wear glasses making my vision perfect i have no problem no colour deficiency nothing, only problem is my astigmatism MY LEFT EYE 2.5 THIS EXCEEDS CLASS 1 SAYING 2. MY RIGHT IS 1.5 HOW UNLUCKY IS THAT !! im really scared in FAA they dont say anything about astigmatism. i dont know what to do is my dream over please help me. A DREAM TO LOSE IS LIKE LIFE JUST SWEPT AWAY.

I haven't failed anything i haven't been for a medical test but knowing this is like saying what the point what do i do are they very strict help!

Blues&twos

16th May 2009, 09:52

Gerald_83 - I'm still here....I too am surprised that your eye specialist has recommended surgery. I would consider this a last resort. (Of course he might be right in your case!)

Following a transplant there will be a long period of steroid eye drop treatment (rejection prevention). Extended use of steroid eye drops can cause cataracts to develop early, ultimately requiring further surgery. Even years after my corneal grafts (25+ now) my consultant has explained that there is still a possibility of graft rejection being initiated by other problems within the eye.

If there is any way to avoid surgery, avoid it!!

Cirrusly

19th May 2009, 08:43

I have a green colour vision deficiency but have an Australian Class 1 medical certificate. I have clearance by CASA to fly in Australian airspace only, but it is still a class 1 regardless. I was wondering if that would be an issue if I were to try and get an equivalent medical certificate in Canada?

PPRuNeUser0161

24th May 2009, 14:28

CRG
Forget it, stay in OZ. Period.

Go do the practical lantern or the tower lights test and get your restriction lifted. We are lucky enough to have the best when it comes to colour vision rules, lets hope it stays that way.

TelBoy

26th May 2009, 05:09

The City Uni in London have the Nagel, and the CAA will accept their results as they seem to be in bed together!

OZ8919

26th May 2009, 18:03

I just came across this thread and thought I would join pprune and respond.
To make it short I have kerataconus in both eyes, worse in the left and have had it for over 10 years. With the FAA I get an opthamologist report every year for my first class and have 20/20 in both. It is a major pain in the a but it has let me fly for a living. Last year I was unable to wear a rgp in my left comfortably and had one segment of an itac put in that eye. Now I can wear a rgp with no discomfort. The FAA had no problem and I was also in contact with the ALPA aeromedical people in Denver.

I continued to pursue a flying carrer in college because it was all I wanted to do, and I never wanted to look back and say I wish I had.

Phenom100

26th May 2009, 19:00

I'm still here too.

Let me update you as to what i have since found out.

Well it's been just over a year now since i found out i had Kera's, I passed my Class 1 Renewal last year (Nov) using Hard Lenses (glasses no longer work for me) My vision is now very poor without the Len's.

I had been in contact with the CAA early part of this year to find out if l could have the x linking done and keep my Class one:

They replied in writing saying they think it would be a good idea to have it done (would loose medical for min 3 months) and i would get it back providing no problems occur, They informed me that NO Class 1 holder has had the procedure done, so l would be the first.

I have just completed my FATPL and expect in the next few weeks to look closer into the X linking. Will keep you all informed.

I do know that if you don't have the initial Class one (obtained at Gatwick) and you have Kera's they will NOT issue you with one. That said, i had it, but it was not picked up on my initial, so it's worth a shot.

One you have it and meet the required vision all is good.

2close

27th May 2009, 14:12

CRG, Forget it, stay in OZ. Period.

Go do the practical lantern or the tower lights test and get your restriction lifted. We are lucky enough to have the best when it comes to colour vision rules, lets hope it stays that way.

Interesting.

Should Australia, the USA and Canada, to name but a few which have far more relaxed CVD standards than the UK and JAA land, move the goalposts and start removing the livelihoods of working commercial pilots they'd best have a big slush fund of cash ready to pay out the numeorus class action claims that will be flooding into their Courts.

I think this is one of the CAA's major stumbling blocks with their CAD Test, getting other countries to come on board, which MANY of them do not want to do! The CAD Test MAY be easier to pass than the Holmes-Wright or Beynes Tests but it is still far more restrictive than the Farnsworth or Spectrolux Tests and on that point MANY presently UN-RESTRICTED FAA, TC or CASA licenced CPL/ATPLs could potentially lose their jobs if they were forced into taking this new test. And you can't go issuing grandfather rights to existing licence holders because that immediately destroys the safety argument and makes a mockery out of testing.

Now, you may call me cynical and conspiratorial but does it not sound odd to anyone else that a major driving force behind the worldwide adoption of the CAD Test is the very same person who started the research project that resulted in the CAD Test being developed? A little food for thought..............

What really annoys me about this whole issue is that the authorities can not supply one item of substantiated evidence that CVD pilots pose any greater a risk than any non-CVD pilot. ALL they have to rely on are a battery of lab rat tests which only determine whether or not a person has CVD not whether or not they are safe to operate commercial aircraft in a highly regulated, radar-controlled and often very automated IFR flight environment. Oh, yes, and one non-fatal incident in amongst many hundreds of millions of flying hours which fails to identify CVD as the primary cause; in fact, if you read the whole report carefully (and not just the bits which support the anti-CVD argument) you will find many issues which question CVD as being the cause.

This whole debacle is all about elitism, kudos and job protectionism by a very small group of individuals and s** all to do with aviation safety; that's only my opinion, for what it's worth.

Rant over! Soapbox away. Hat, coat, TAXI!!!

Gerald_83

28th May 2009, 03:10

Thanks OZ8919 for sharing your experience with me. May you continue to fly for many years to come!

Nisar

28th May 2009, 13:46

I went for my initial class 1 at Gatwick this April and was told by the optometrist/optican that my eye sight was borderline even though I met the visual standards. She showed a topography map of my eyes and said my left eye has a rugby ball shape and the eye is steepening. The doctor advised me at the the end of the complete examination that I had to book another appointment and see an consultant opthamologist at Gatwick.

I went back last week and met the consultant who said that I had the big 'K' and that as I met the visual standards (with specs) and my condition was mild I was allowed a Class 1. He did however say that my condition may deteriorate over time and for the next few years I would have to renew the medical at Gatwick and see one of the consultant opthamologists at the same time.

I also asked him about X-linking but he said it was not his area of expertise and that the CAA did not allow it as it was experimental. His opinion was that as my condition is mild, I didn't need to consider this option yet but to continue to monitor it.

It's good news to hear after reading Danny C's post regarding the CAA and X-linking, I'll be looking out for your post on this.

gijoe

29th May 2009, 17:04

So where is this going then?

Colour-blindness research could clear more pilots to fly: UK CAA (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/29/327137/colour-blindness-research-could-clear-more-pilots-to-fly-uk.html)

It will be interesting to see if the CAA can persuade the ICAO authorities - the ones with powers in the lands that they control the airspace of (!) - to think along the same lines as them.

2close

3rd Jun 2009, 21:22

Its as if there is a standard for the hue of these lights. I'm not sure if there is a standard but if there is perhaps the CV tests should test only to that standard?

Yes, each aviation signal light colour has a design spectrum range that it must remain within.

But of course the super-intelligent people who design the lighting systems couldn't quite figure out that it may be a practical and safe idea to choose lights that aren't in close proximity to each other and to use colours which have dissimilar spectral properties.

So we have colours with very similar spectral properties and the Lantern Tests are designed to ensure that you are tested at those extremities.

So it was explained to me by an ex-spurt!

niallp

11th Jun 2009, 21:11

Hey has any1 heard anything about the new research done in london on colour vision testing? I read an article in flight international about a new way of testing and 35% more people with colour vision problems could meet minimum standars. The chief medical officer of the CAA said she was goin to the ICAO to promote theses findings. It never said how they were going to test people or when these new measures could be in place. Just wondering if any1 else heard about this and knows anything about it?

2close

12th Jun 2009, 18:23

The research study was done in two parts.

The fist part was conducted by Qinetiq at Farnborough who determined that the ONLY real colour critical tasks wer:

(a) Parking Stand lights - I have discussed this with a number of high hour long-haul flight crew who were highly sceptical of this finding, and;

(b) Precision Approach Path Indicator lighting systems

The second part of the study was undertaken by London City University Applied Visual Research Centre who conducted a series of laboratory tests with Colour Vision Deficient persons.

The net result was that a piece of software (CAD) has been developed which it is claimed can identify whether or not an individual's CVD is within limits for commercial aviation.

The CAD has been described by many as completely irrelevant and an 'academic's wet dream', which, when you consider the professional qualifications that some have gained and indeed may still stand to gain from it, could be seen to be a fair comment.

This project has probably cost the CAA a significant amount of PUBLIC funds, money which should have been spent on real aviation safety, and if the CAD does not gain acceptance throughout EASA or even the world then egg may be on faces. It has been rumoured that there is resistance to its introduction in some JAA member states,especially those that have a more enlightened view and do not consider CVD to be a significant hazard to flight safety.

What is of very significant importance is the statement that 35% extra examinees may become colour safe. Putting it simply, that means that they are colour safe now but just because there is a very flawed testing system they won't allow them to fly. So the system blanket prohibits everyone with even the mildest of CVD regardless of whether they pose a hazard to flight safety. You cannot move safety parameters on the basis of changing a test. That is absurd and you cannot have a more blatant example of positive discrimination than this. Despite the claims of certain persons that the Courts would never entertain such a claim.....well, let's see, shall me.

Hope this helps.

Bealzebub

12th Jun 2009, 19:45

You cannot move safety parameters on the basis of changing a test. That is absurd and you cannot have a more blatant example of positive discrimination than this.

So what is it you want? Everybody to agree with you that colour vision deficiency doesn't present a safety risk? The CAA are taking a viewpoint that by bringing in a more relevant testing regime there would be a greater chance of a candidate with a CVD achieving the new requisite standard for the issuance of a medical certificate. This suggests that elements of the current system could be disregarded in exchange for a more focused and colour perception relevant test. It is their job to discriminate, and anything that does so in a positive manner should surely be applauded rather than derided.

Colour perception is without doubt an important element in flight safety. Difficulties in the distinction between taxiway and runway lighting and the associated nuances at a busy airport, as well as colour gun failures in CRT tubes etc. Is important and relevant whatever you may think, or like to hear. It is also relevant that these standards are not something that is naturally degenerative, but perhaps compensated by correction and experience (such as for example, presbyopia.) This is something that would affect potential candidates at the front end of their would be careers.

If the CAA are moving towards a better or more updated system that will help more candidates achieve the standard, surely you would encourage such a use of "public funds," particularly since this particular "public" is the CAA's customers.

2close

12th Jun 2009, 21:28

Excellent, a counter argument. Welcome to the fray, Bealzebub.

But I can't agree with your argument at all.

Firstly I do not expect anyone to agree with me but what I do expect is for evidence to be provided to support an argument; that has not been achieved for the simple reason that there is no evidence available. The CVD argument is based on presumptions that CVD pilots are not safe and archaic rules (based themselves on even more archaic maritime laws). The immovable 'protectors of the standard' will not be swayed.

I presume you are familiar with the CAD test, in which case please explain how that test is in any way relevant to aviation safety. Even if it had some relevance, it is still possible to pass it by guessing. After all, you are only required to press one of four buttons and you could hit the right button every time without thinking about it. Statistically it is unlikely that anyone would pass in this manner but it is NOT impossible. Therefore, if any such possibility exists and the issue is SO safety critical then the test is flawed and CAN NOT be used. Any acceptance of any possibility of guesswork simply destroys the safety argument.

There has not been any risk assessment or safety analysis conducted in this area and not one single study of actual practical ability - in fact when confronted with such evidence the response was to refuse it for no other reason than it's not allowed under JARs. Several claims have been made regarding risk assessments but on each occasion when asked to present such they have been unable to do so.

The statistical data speaks for itself. The USA and Canada both permit CVD pilots to fly Public Transport operations by day and Australia by day and by night. The rules in Australia were changed as a result of Court action which examined the operational factors and concluded that the CVD standards were unnecessarily prescriptive and ordered the Australian CAA to change the rules - how many incidents have there been since then? Err, NONE!!

These countries also use CVD testing regimes which are not as stringent as JAA standards therefore as well as those pilots it identifies as CVD under its own standards it stands to reason, on a simple statistical balance of probability, that a number of non-CVD pilots (by the standards of their own country) operating foreign PT aircraft into JAA airspace do not meet JAA CVD standards. If anyone who fails to meet JAA standards presents such a risk to safety please explain to me why the JAA authorities permit these persons to operate aircraft in JAA airspace. It is ridiculous to state that these people are not safe enough to fly our 747s but they'll willingly let them fly 'dangerously' in JAA airspace in a foreign 747 because they've passed someone else's tests. That is ridiculous.

Despite all these CVD pilots flying PT operations, in over 4.5 BILLION flying hours in the last 20 years there has not been one single incident which has been solely attributable to CVD and only one where it MAY have been a contributory factor. The statistics are well within the JAA's own stated acceptable risk tolerances.

On your specific example, a written statement has been made that there have been numerous runway incursions by pilots failing to correctly identify runway lighting, however, what the author seems to have missed is that these have all been committed by colour 'normal' pilots.

And no, the CAA is not allowed to discriminate. I would have thought you would know that all public bodies have a duty not only NOT to discriminate but to take positive measures to actively ensure that no discrimination takes place and this must be clearly stated in policies, practices and procedures.

If I believed that there was a need for such prescriptive prohibition of CVD pilots flying PT aircraft at all times and that there was a relevant and robust method of CVD testing which was supported by a proper study involving real life testing with both Colour Normal and CVD pilots - there are enough of both - (and not lab rat examinations designed to facilitate the development of a particular irrelevant test) I would whole-heartedly support it but I genuinely feel that every aspect of this issue is flawed, from the overly prescriptive criteria, the complete lack of thought regarding operational limitations, the necessity for testing, the method of study and the type of test which has resulted.

I believe that the public funds could have been far more productively spent, even in this specific area.

But these are merely my opinions. You are of course entitled to yours.

Bealzebub

12th Jun 2009, 23:09

Much of the argument and reasoning is contained within the CAA's own proposal document which can be read here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf)

There is a valid argument in the need for CVD discrimination for the issuance of a class 1 medical certificate. In all aspects of medical certification there must be standards set that provide for an enhancement of safety. It is a fairly weak argument to simply suggest that the lack of an accident or incident is in itself sufficient cause to relax a certifying standard. Equally the argument that the majority of accidents or incidents involve those who do meet the standards is moot, since they are obviously either the only participants, or where permissable, in the vast majority.

I presume you are familiar with the CAD test, in which case please explain how that test is in any way relevant to aviation safety. Even if it had some relevance, it is still possible to pass it by guessing. After all, you are only required to press one of four buttons and you could hit the right button every time without thinking about it. Statistically it is unlikely that anyone would pass in this manner but it is NOT impossible. Therefore, if any such possibility exists and the issue is SO safety critical then the test is flawed and CAN NOT be used. Any acceptance of any possibility of guesswork simply destroys the safety argument.

The whole issue of colour perception is of relevance to aviation safety. To suggest it could be passed by guessing, is as you point out statistically minute, and therefore provides a high degree of discriminatory relevance. To suggest that any possibility of a single failure to successfully detect a weakness renders the whole process invalid, is very naive. There is no guarantee that a person assessed as fit on a medical examination will not suffer a cardiac arrest or a brain anurism the next day. Indeed such things have happened. However that does make the whole process of medical examinations redundant, simply on the basis that such screenings may not on occaissions be perfect.

These countries also use CVD testing regimes which are not as stringent as JAA standards therefore as well as those pilots it identifies as CVD under its own standards it stands to reason, on a simple statistical balance of probability, that a number of non-CVD pilots (by the standards of their own country) operating foreign PT aircraft into JAA airspace do not meet JAA CVD standards. If anyone who fails to meet JAA standards presents such a risk to safety please explain to me why the JAA authorities permit these persons to operate aircraft in JAA airspace. It is ridiculous to state that these people are not safe enough to fly our 747s but they'll willingly let them fly 'dangerously' in JAA airspace in a foreign 747 because they've passed someone else's tests. That is ridiculous.

Yes quite possibly, however the JAA also sets its own standards for pilot performance testing. It is quite conceivable that a few pilots operating into the jurisdiction might not satisfy the requirements of the JAA in those respects, even though they do in their own jurisdiction. Neverthleless the international rules of mutuality would suggest that this also happens on occaissions. It may be ridiculous, but that isn't an argument for any one state to lower its own minimum standards. Untill it becomes a focus for investigation, nobody is usually any the wiser.

And no, the CAA is not allowed to discriminate. I would have thought you would know that all public bodies have a duty not only NOT to discriminate but to take positive measures to actively ensure that no discrimination takes place and this must be clearly stated in policies, practices and procedures.

Oh but it is! Nobody is suggesting unlawful forms of negative discrimination such as race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. This is a regulatory authority that has a primary task of discriminating. To be clear we are talking about the primary use of the verb, to make or see a distinction, to show good judgement or taste. That is exactly what they required to do in the regulatory and statutory execution of their authority. It is what we as pilots do every day in every relevant decision we make.

As you say we are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect the longevity and robustness of your particular advocacy. However I feel this is a positive proposal from the CAA that is likely to benefit a number of CVD future candidates for certification.

2close

15th Jun 2009, 14:53

Oh but it is! Nobody is suggesting unlawful forms of negative discrimination such as race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.

Regrettably (as far as an officer of the CAA would be concerned) that is exactly what is being alleged and apart from clear UK case law in this area there is also an overwhelming agreement from Legal Counsel that the CAA is unlawfully discriminating in a number of areas, and we have spoken to a very significant number of solicitors and barristers on this matter.

Shunter

15th Jun 2009, 19:39

Again, you miss the point. The majority of JAA medical criteria are backed by evidence. There is plenty of evidence that being diabetic can lead to incapacitation, and is hence dangerous. There is plenty of evidence that heart problems can lead to incapacitation, and is hence dangerous. Pilots with poor general eyesight could easily misread the QNH on their altimeter and fly into a mountain, except such risks are brushed under the carpet due to the large number of pilots requiring corrective glasses, especially with age.

Let's take a soft target, CVD pilots; a small minority, easily victimised. Is there any evidence their disability presents a danger? No. Has such a disability ever been identified as the cause of an accident? Not really, the only accident ever vaguely attributed to CVD was found to be more likely caused by fatigue.

If anything, pilots with poor general eyesight are far more dangerous than CVD pilots but the political fallout from pursuing such a notion would be astronomical. If colour vision were something which degraded with age, the current situation would not exist.

I have no problem with evidence-based standards, but no such evidence exists in regard to colour vision. Fictional rules invented by ex-mil hooray henrys from yesteryear without any basis in fact are simply not acceptable in the modern world. If it poses a safety issue, prove it. If you can't provide the evidence, why are you enforcing it? I happen to have 1 ear bigger than the other; as far as the evidence is concerned that poses an equal threat to safety, because no such evidence exists. The days when those in charge could get away with "persecution by default" have long since disappeared; the onus is on the regulator to prove us unfit, not the other way round. The modern legal system will simply not tolerate such discrimination and those who continue to perpetuate such fiction will be bent over and sued senseless. It's not a case of if, but when.

The CAA medical head has told me in person that the current colour vision testing regime is "unfit for purpose". Both the head of medical the the head optometrist are very capable, intelligent individuals who are having to deal with misguided historical bull**** in the most pragmatic way they can. The CAD test is a risk mitigation; nothing more, nothing less. A mitigation against litigation, by attempting to inject some fact-based science into the argument. Whilst the test itself might paint a more accurate picture as far as nature and extent are concerned, the CAA still have absolutely no idea what pass/fail criteria are representative of those necessary for a pilot to safely discharge their duty.

2close

18th Jun 2009, 20:31

Yes you were researching this legal challenge almost 3 years ago to the day on this very thread.......

Presumably if it is so clear cut, you would have obtained a judgement by now?

Regretably, legal matters do tend to be very protracted.

Before one can bring an allegation of discrimination, a discriminatory act has to (allegedly) take place. As a result of Regulation 6(5) of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 an individual has a right of appeal over ANY examination conducted by the CAA. Therefore, until that right of appeal has been exhausted one could not realistically bring an allegation of discrimination as an appellant may be succesful in his or her appeal. As you are probably aware such appeals are presently under way. Until these appeals are concluded it would be frivolous to even consider bringing any action in the higher Courts.

Unless the discrimination is unlawful under the relevant statutes

It would hardly be of any point in making such an allegation if it wasn't. As I mentioned earlier, there is established case law in this specific area, in the UK Courts and overseas, which supports the discrimination claim.

But as to your other point, yes, of course both parties will always find numbers of legal practitioners to support their respective arguments, hence the dynamic character of the law and its basis on precedence.

But as Shunter has so rightly put it, it is not up to the claimant to prove that he has been discriminated against - the law now requires the defendant to prove that they have not discriminated against the claimant. Simply putting it, they cannot do that as they have without doubt discriminated against a very large number of individuals. The only defence would be justification and in some circumstances that defence is not even available. If it is available, in order to prove justification the defendant will have to produce a cast iron safety case based on statistical data and risk analysis of which there is none!

It would be ludicrous to suggest that the reason that there haven't been CVD related incidents is because the standards prevent CVD persons from flying because the innacuracy of that argument is ably demonstrated by those countries that do permit CVD persons to fly commercially WITHOUT incident, even if only by day.

However, if it does come to the High Court I have little doubt that hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money will be spent defending an unsustainable argument, which has no evidence to support it.