Collective Colour Vision Thread 3

[belowradar]

Bealzebub

If I remember correctly your son has CVD but managed to pass one of the lantern tests.

For your information the CAA have issued a report based on the City Uni study which categorically states that the current testing regime is not fit for purpose, furthermore it states quite categorically that there is no proven factual basis to the current restrictions for CVD pilots and that the situation is very unfair.

The new test will not change that, what is needed is clear leadership and evidence based risk analysis leading to more enlightened regulations.

That is what CAA medical say !

[Bealzebub]

Belowradar,

Is that your interpretation of the report, or does it really state that categorically? If it is the latter, could you cite me the page number references.

My concern is that there remains an ability to make distinction between the colour hues of many lighting issues on a busy airport and in both serviceable and defective flight deck instrumentation displays. It is not really acceptable to lower a standard based on the statistical evidence of a lack of accidents by CVD pilots, since there are obviously degrees of severity, and invalid assumptions. You could argue it doesn't matter if a pilot is hearing impaired as long as the other pilot isn't. Statistical evidence might also suggest a lack of proven accidents, however that cannot really be a basis for lowering the standard.

My understanding of reading the report is, that it is seen as bringing the testing regime up to date such that it should assist around 30% of those CVD pilots who might otherwise fail, (as you point out, by no means everyone presently does,) back into contention. In other words, there is no proposal to do away with a CVD standard of acceptability, (as indeed there shouldn't be,) but simply to bring both the standard and the testing regime more up to date.

[belowradar]

Some statements from page 1

Over the last 30 years technology has improved greatly but colour vision tests remain unchanged

Historically it was assumed that clour deficient pilots would not make suitable professional pilots. The difficulty of defining how different or deficient an individuals colour vision can be without being unsafe has often been avoided by requiring applicants to have normal colour vision.

The benefits of requiring normal colour vision in the aviation environment are difficult to assess.

It is not certain that present requirements and testing procedures are appropriate for the tasks pilots carry out in their profession.

Page 428

The reason for excluding all protanomalous subjects as professional pilots needs further investigation.

Page 429

The current situation is unsatisfactory .....a better understanding of colour vision requirements in the aviation environment is also needed so as to set sensible pass/fail criteria that are relevant and safe

[2close]

Whilst I don't have access at this moment in time to the relevant document but the CAA Medical Department has at length insisted that medical standards are based on risk assessment and statistical analysis and that there is a specific incident probability rate in relation to medical incapacitation, below which a person would fail to meet medical certification standards.

There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that a CVD pilot would be unsafe. It is all based on conjecture and assumption and that is totally unprofessional.

And a study of less than 200 people!!! What sort of an objective study is that to base a set of supposedly professional conclusions on, conclusions which can have a very detrimental effect to a person's future?

I'm sorry if it causes offence but I find it laughable.

[modhop]

Hey all

The link Niall was talking about is as per the below

Colour blind? New test means you can still be a pilot - World News, Frontpage - Herald.ie (http://www.herald.ie/world-news/colour-blind-new-test-means-you-can-still-be-a-pilot-1778072.html)

Regards

Modhop

[Ponte]

I don't think this article is already a hope we can rely on.
It's news and it's good, but still very sceptical.

[2close]

If I was a professional pilot (with a relatively mild CVD) in the USA, Canada or Australia I would now be cacking it.

If the powers that be get their way and try to force this test on all countries, that will be a major problem for these (and possibly other) countries.

This test has been designed using the over-zealous, UK imposed, JAA standards as a benchmark.

The CAA has played up to the allegation that more applicants may now pass the CVD tests and be able to hold professional pilots licences and that may be correct........in the UK!!!!

However, the difference between the JAA Standard and the standards in these countries (all of which already permit CVD pilots to fly professionally, WITHOUT their aircraft falling out of the skies) is significant and if you were to place the JAA Standard at one end of the scale and the 'Others' Standard at the other end the CAD Test would fall somewhere in between.

So, a claimed 30 - 35 % of JAA applicants may pass but at the cost of how many applicants from these other countries?

Even far more importantly, what about working pilots who may be required to take the CVD tests again? What will happen to someone who fails? Loss of career and livelihood?

If the introduction of a new test is that important, why didn't they carry out an ICAO directed study using existing professional pilots from all four countries, funded equally by all countries? I would like to know how much this has cost, who paid for it and gained from it.

I think International AOPA coordination for REAL practical verification of the validity of the CAD Test is needed.

On another point, there are strict rules regarding the introduction of new medical procedures. What medical validation has this test undergone? What clinical studies of potential ill effects has been undertaken on a test deliberately designed to expose the examinee to rapidly flashing bright lights shone directly into the eye (that's the one that they warn you about before every TV article and movie!!)? They have already been verbally advised that people have suffered nausea and headaches after taking the CAD Test and they couldn't have been any less interested - "Oh, it can't be our test!!" Not even the slightest investigation, just complete dismissal, in exactly the same way as CVD pilots were dismissed when they requested involvement in the process.

Be interesting to see who blames who when you get the first adverse reaction occurring, as the culture of liability shift creeps in. Best they have a big cheque book ready and should the worst possible scenario occur, someone had better get ready for a stripey sun-tan. Improbable - YES; Impossible - NO!!

But I would wager big money that the risks are greater than those of a CVD pilot stuffing a 737 into the ground.

Masters of shifting goal posts and double standards!! :rolleyes:

[2close]

Well, I believe, as well as publishing their highly directed 'study' (a means towards a desired end), they should also publish details of:


Risk Assessment on usage of the CAD Test

Clinical study data

Financial costings

Software validity testing

Persons benefitting financially and/or professionally as a result of its introduction.



I would also be extremely interested to learn whether the introduction of the test conforms with National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines.

Genuine question for medical personnel - does shining bright, flashing lights into an examinee's eyes qualify as an invasive procedure?

Also, how do we know that the software has been subjected to proper software trials. I am sure there must be some Software Engineers around these pages that can enlighten us as to the specific requirements. How would anyone know whether the software is operating correctly or not? Who is supporting it? What happens when it goes tits up?

Lastly, ANY change to ANY procedure under JARs requires the publishing of a Notice of Proposed Amendment together with a Regulatory Impact Assessement.

The process has to be put out to consultation to both industry and the public with anyone being allowed to feed their opinions into the melting pot.

Hello!!! Where are these?

[2close]

That's on the agenda gijoe,

It just needs to be done at the right time and through the right channels.

Just got a couple of hoops to jump through in the very near future then the gloves come off. ;)

[2close]

I'll answer in detail by PM but to be honest I have no desire to fly heavy metal for airlines nor have I ever had.

What really pi**es me off is a set of inappropriate and irrelevant, antiquated rules which have no real bearing on aviation safety (and even less evidence of their relevance), and which are denying the chance of a rewarding and fulfilling career to many young men who would probably make excellent airline pilots. Apart from the blatant discrimination, this is morally wrong.

If CVD pilots genuinely pose a risk to flight safety, then PROVE IT. Don't base standards on 100 year old assumptions just because it suits a purpose and keeps a very small number of people in a job.

I know for an absolute fact that there are commercial pilots operating today with CVD who have managed to buck the system (and good luck to them!). Even if the CAA do manage to get their new baby accepted will they insist on testing everyone again to ensure that everyone meets the new standard? No, of course not because they know (and a certain person in authority has said so) that there are pilots out there who do not meet their standard and if they were to try and ruin their careers they would be sued to bankruptcy.

Maybe that's not such a bad thing - it's about time the progressively inefficient CAA was replaced by an operationally effective organisation that gives good value for money....any value for money would be a step in the right direction.



Rant over.....time to take my non-prescription, illegal, mind-relaxing medication..........wibble!!!! :sad: :E :bored: :{ (Note rapid mood shifts!!)

[2close]

Hi folks,

I mentioned in an earlier post that persons in some countries should be worried if the CAA's CAD Test is adopted.

Well, I will now extend that to include pilots in JAA member states.

In their new report (see link below), Paragraph 1.3.4, the CAA states:

"Since changes in chromatic sensitivity are often indicative of early stage systemic (e.g. diabetes) or ocular diseases (e.g. glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration), it is recommended that both red-green and yellow-blue sensitivity should be assessed with every medical examination and any significant changes noted. The data can then be used to detect when the progression of any inherent condition yields colour thresholds that fall outside the range established for normal vision."

Therefore, does it seem to anyone else that the CAA is trying to introduce testing at every medical and to eliminate flight crew who do not meet their new standards, whilst hiding that behind a 'need' to monitor for other conditions. That's how it reads to me.

So much for increasing the numbers of persons that can fly professionally. Give with one hand and take away with the other!!

However, it is known that there are a number of persons flying professionally who do not meet the current standards. So, when they have their next medical after the CAD is introduced they are going to be tested and when they fail, what then? Bye bye medical, bye bye licence, bye bye career and livelihood? Or will the new 'safety' standard not apply to existing pilots? About time BALPA was involved here, methinks.

Furthermore, what are going to be the minimum computer equipment requirements for running the CAD Test. Who is going to ensure that AME's equipment meets these requirements? How will anyone know if the monitor being used has not degraded to the point where colour discretion is compromised. Who is going to calibrate the monitors and to what specification? What are going to be the minimum Planned Preventative Maintenance requirements and who is going to ensure they are followed - we already know that the CAA can't even maintain its own equipment so how on earth are they going to monitor anyone elses?

I asked these and other questions of the CAA and guess what, they failed to answer!! The response was laughable.

Who is going to pay for the equipment and its maintenance? We are. The CAA and AME's will have to pay for the equipment, the software and the training for using it so who will they pass those costs on to? Us (probably).

There was absolutely no safety requirement for this study or a new test so why spend the money and why impose greater charges on us as a result?

The more I read into the CAD Test research study and its imposition on the aviation community the less I like it.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the CAA (and other aviation authorities) fighting a string of legal cases following its introduction, which is going to cost them millions. Does the phrase 'rod for your own back' spring to mind?

And who is going to fund the legal actions? We are, with the imposition of even greater charges that we pay now!

[2close]

Ishihara 24 Plate version.

Plates 1 -15 (the first one is a test plate which everyone can read).

You may be wasting your time if the UK CAA gets its way and imposes this new CAD Test on the JAA aviation community as you may be retested at every medical.

It is possible that you may pass marginally one day but fail the next as it is possible to get different results each time you take the CAD Test - that is an absolute fact!!! So off you go, spend £ 50,000 on CPL / IR training then have the CAA take your medical off you in 5 years time.

[547234988]

hi im living in canada
PLZ help me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!T_T im dreaming of becoming an airline pilot each day but when it comes to colour vision im feeling like my heart is going to break because im colour blind .....

1.Any tests not specifically listed above are unacceptable methods of testing for FAA medical certificate. Examples of unacceptable tests include,BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, the OPTEC 5000 Vision Tester (color vision portion), "Farnsworth Lantern Flashlight," "yarn tests," and AME-administered aviation Signal Light Gun test (AME office use is prohibited).

What does this mean? IS the light gun test still available?

im thinking of geting a SODA from FAA


2.can i get a SODA and use it for the canadian Medical examiners? and is it possible for me to use the FAA medical certificate for the Canadian licences


my only problem is the canadian colour vision test they don't really offer a lot of colour vision tests like in the U.S.... so if nothing works then i will have to move to the states. ------------------------------ ------------------------plz DO give any advise because i don't really like to move because i really want to work for westjet when i grow up..... plz help



even if i move to the U.S and get my licence there is it still possible for me to work for a canadian airline?




plz Answers all of the questions plzplzplz thank you allll for your time......T-T

[yames]

Hi niallp

if you are still interested in an answer to your last question, then here it comes:
I went to Gatwick for Class 1 - Initial examination and the eye doctor asked me whether I had been tested before for my colour vision. And I told him I had been the day before at City University London and I gave him the report from Uni (I have mild red/green deficiency). Then he showed me some of the Ishihara plates which I could identify correctly... maybe except one plate. Then he left to discuss my case with some other doctor and he returned to me later and said CAA would accept the results from Uni. So no more testing at Gatwick.

Maybe this doesn't help much, because their decision to test me on lanterns/anomaloscope was based on the results they got from Uni. But at least you see that they accept their results.

Yames

[niallp]

Hi yames, thats actually a great help thanks. Im goin to do the same thing and i was hoping they would accept the uni results as i'm not sure i'll pass a beyne and i've already failed a h/w. So hopefully i'll pass 1 of the test and they'll accept it if it happens to be one of the uni test.

[2close]

More goal-post shifting by UK CAA.

Why are they accepting tests from organisations which are not registered JAA Aeromedical Centres when they state categorically that they apply JARs to the letter and will not accept such results?

How many more double standards do we have to tolerate?

Yames, exactly which tests did you take AND pass at City Uni which the CAA accepted? Please answer by PM if you wish. Looking at my own report and that of another person they don't appear to have a Beynes or a Holmes-Wright Lantern so I cant see what test they would have accepted. The CAD Test is not approved as of yet so they cannot accept those results.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy for Yames but CAA Medical is so inconsistent in the way it operates (despite its regular claims to the contrary) it beggars belief and leads me to conclude that, if your face fits they'll give you what you want but if you dare to challenge them and become listed as a 'trouble maker' then forget it.

[dobbin1]

I just got to the end of this mammoth thread after starting to read it last week - phew!

I just though I would report my experience at my colour vision test at the CAA this week.

I failed:*

I have held an FAA and JAR PPL for some years, restricted to daytime flight only, so I was not too surprised at the failure. I got 13 out of 15 ishihara plates wrong, failed the Beyens and the H/W first run miserably. I almost managed the dark adjusted H/W but still managed to mix up a white and a green somewhere. I am now officially CP4. I still intend to go for the restricted class 1 and do some instructing if I can. The lady in the medical area was very nice and genuinly seemed to be hoping I could pass.

While I was at the Belgrano I nipped across to the FCL department and asked them if I could still get a commercial, perhaps flying the night requirement with a safetly pilot, but they were quite evasive and would not answer my questions until I could present my resticted Class 1. I pointed out that it would be unfortunate if I paid out the £330 for the class 1 only to be told there was no chance of a CPL, but they just shrugged at this. They did however tell me that it would be possible for a CP4 restriced class 1 medical holder to get a CPL, but would not say how.

[2close]

Okey dokey,

You CAN get a Class 1 medical with the following deviations:

VCL - Flights by Day only

NPT - No Public Transport (No flying of passengers or freight) for reward


But you can still undertake daytime aerial work activities, such as aerial photography, crop spraying, parachuting or flight instruction.

Once you have the medical, you simply go off to your FTO, do the CPL and FI(A) Courses and hey ho, you get a CPL(A) plus FI(A) rating, limited to daytime instruction only.

This is what I and a number of other FI(A) in the same position have done.

Simples!!!

[Pampas]

Hello everybody, this is my first post.
First of all I’d like to say thanks to all of you who’ve written your experiences in this forum. It was very useful. I’ve read through most of them, in particular the CAA Class 1 medical certificate (eyes test)
Let’s go straight to the point. I had the intention to be trained in the UK for my ATPL (Frozen) Integrated Course. However, after checking the CAA requirements I don’t think it will be possible for me unfortunately.
This could be my obstacle to sort out, please tell me I’m wrong

Right eye Left eye
Sphere +2.25 Plano
Cly -3.00 -0.75
Axis 87 90



Unaided R 6/60 L 6/5
Aided R 6/5 L6/5
Ishihara PASS
Visual Fields FULL

At the moment I’m searching for information about l@ser refractive surgery, for any reference or any comments about Professor Dan Reinstein at LONDO VISION CLINIC, LASIK £5260

Should I contact the CAA medical department? If I do, will they keep any negative records for being outside their requirements? I’ve heard or read somewhere they don’t recommend l@ser, any ideas why?
Thanks God I still have the FAA Class 1 option and here is my question to you guys:

- If I’ve got a FAA Class 1, would I be able to renew it in one year without starting the pilot training? Under these circumstances, would it be taken as a renewal or initial again?
Would it be possible to change my FAA initial for a CAA certification with its renewal limits applied without starting my pilot training?
As you can see I really want to be trained in a UK centre, (CABAIR;OAT;CTC & FTE) because I think that they provide the best option for future employers.
Thank to all of you and I do hope this helps, and not just me

[2close]

My situation is quite unique and perplexing.

I have held an UNRESTRICTED CAA / JAA Class 2 Medical Certificate since 1992 and as such added a Night Qualification to my PPL and fly at night perfectly safely. This was attained on the basis of passing the Holmes-Wright Lantern Test in 1992 which the CAA was then quite happy to accept. Ihad also passed the H-W Test for the RAF (1977) and Army (1981) and military documents state clearly CP3 (Colour Safe).

However, when I decided to go into Flight Instructing back in 2005 I took the Class 1 medical and found that my Clark Kent issued hyper-sensitive eyes (which in my youth could count the hairs on a gnats wedding tackle at 100 yards) had been sneakily replaced over the years with a set of knackered old hand me downs. The net result of this is that on the Beynes Lantern, instead of seeing a single clear light I see what appears to be a broken four-pointed star of light and on the H-W, instead of seeing two crystal clear, sharp pin-point lights I now see two large, fuzzy, overlapping lights which are a mess. This is a condition known as 'light scatter' and when I pointed it out the only advice I was given was to do the best I could, i.e. guess!

This was not only the case with the H-W Test but also with the PAPI Simulator at City University which, instead of appearing as 4 x distinct lights, looked like one continuous fuzzy bar of light. In fairness to the reseacher, when I reported this to her she did test my eyesight which was well within limits but again the only advice she could offer was to take a guess - a very robust means of conducting medical research!!

The odd thing is that this does not manifest itself in real life conditions with actual aerodrome and approach lighting but the powers that be will not accept any evidence of demonstrated practical ability. They will accept their own test only and that is the end of it.

What you must remember is the God Complex so commonly found amongst certain classes of medical professionals makes them incapable of accepting anyone's opinion but their own.

So I have an unrestricted Class 2 medical with PPL(A), ME CR, Aerobatics Cert, FI(A) PLUS (UNPAID) Night Instructor and Instrument Instructor plus a CPL(A) with the same ratings but unable to exercise the night privileges because of a limitation on the Class 1 medical.

In fairness to the CAA AMS, whilst I admit to being one of their greatest critics, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the UK is the only country that permits deviations for CVD on Class 1 medicals. However, I have worked overseas and that country also allowed me to instruct in their country on their aircraft (I had to obtain permission from their CAA before I could fly) which suggests a far more liberal attitude towards CVD in that country (and I have been told that such is the case).

My objections are based on my considered opinion that there is no evidence whatsoever that would support any argument that CVD persons place a risk to flight safety and that such arguments are based on assumptions, themselves based on archaic principles which were not even fully understood back then at the turn of the 20th Century when they were dreamed up. Coming up with some 'wondrous' piece of software (CAD Test) which has been specifically designed to your own parameters does nothing to satisfy this argument and the fact still stands - the authorities may have determined a very accurate method of measuring CVD but they have NOT proven to even the slightest degree that CVD pilots are dangerous - it is all based on assumption and that is a very dangerous and immoral precedent to set. If you are going to set criteria for operational performance then you surely must use operational testing within the determination of that criteria - anything less is fudging the figures.

In any case, to answer your question, for the Night Qualification you are required to carry out 5 x Take Offs and Landings to a full stop as PIC of aircraft. There is nothing to my knowledge that states you must fly the aircraft solo. Therefore, having determined that you are able to safely fly the aircraft at night, your CPL instructor could designate you as PIC (and the sole operator of the controls) and he could act in the capacity of safety pilot, only taking control in the event of a risk to flight safety. I understand this is how others in the same position as yourself have crossed this obstacle.

To my way of thinking this is how the suitability of a CVD person should be determined, not by some examination room procedure which has absolutely no relevance to operational performance but by actual testing in flight conditions. You want a Night Qual then prove you are safe to fly at night by flying from A to B, navigating efficiently and safely and at the end of it fly x number of approaches using runway perspective and approach lighting. The argument that the conditions may be different for each person and that standard test conditions are required for all is absolute :mad: ! This is not applied to any other testing, you get the conditions on the day and that is it. The fact is that certain persons are desperate to protect their jobs (and I can understand that; just have the balls to say so! Yeah, OK!) therefore they become fervent 'protectors of the standard'.

Hope this helps.

:ok:

[TelBoy]

A lot has been said in the last few pages about the CAD test so I post a link to the Citi Uni site where you can read a bit about it and have a go yourself.

Remember though the real test lasts about 15 minuets and you have your chin on a rest and also need to manipulate the control box to say where the square is moving to, it is very stressing!

A new web-based colour vision test (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/colourtest.html)

[2close]

One other point noted in the report is that it states the PAPI Simulator was observed at 4 metres.

Absolute :mad: !!!!!

It was at least 6 metres, if not more.

Also, the researchers told me that the PAPI Simulator was designed to simulate a PAPI at a range of 6 miles (which I admit I presumed meant 6 nautical miles). The report states the PAPI simulated range was 5.4 km.

There is a significant difference between 5.4 km and 6 Statute Miles (9.6 km - almost double the distance), let alone 6 Nautical Miles (11.1 km - more than double the distance).

We have a number of problems here. Either there is highly erroneous information within the report which casts doubt on its integrity or the researchers did not know what they were (a) doing and / or (b) talking about.

In either case, it is highly unacceptable.

This is a supposedly professional report on a matter of "QUOTE UK CAA: pure science" which is being used to determine the future of many aspiring commercial pilots therefore ANY inaccuracy is unaceptable.

[niallp]

Hey guys, just booked myself into city uni and booked my lantern in gatwick aswell. Just wondering if anyone has any tips or advice and if theres anything i can do to prepare in anyway way. Thanks

[2close]

The CAD works by you staring at a flashing grid and waiting for a coloured smaller grid to move from one corner to the other, the start of which is signified by an audio tone. When you've identified which corner the coloured grid is moving to you press a corresponding Left - Right - Top - Bottom button on the control box. If you get the right one you get a point, enough points you get a prize.

The trouble with this is that each selection has a one in four chance of getting it right so whilst statistically improbable, like any 'game of chance' you may be lucky enough to get it right every time even if you are totally colour blind and can't make out any of the coloured grids. Theoretically, it could be passed by a blind person.

So they're trying to replace tests which they reckon are unreliable with one which can be guessed, even with your eyes closed. Even if they watch you to make sure your eyes are open you could still guess correctly.

This has been developed to remove any and all risks of a pilot failing to identify correctly a colour critical safety task so how on earth can you have a test which has any element of chance in it?

This is 'pure science' for you. ' Pure b******s ' more like!!

Give me strength!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[low'n'fast]

Here is a quick update on my situation-

I failed the lanterns in 2003. Partly through not understanding the testing procedure and partly through nerves in that I sometimes failed the plates, so might have had a problem passing. I was issued a restricted Class 1.

This year I required a Class 2. So, I wrote to the CAA earlier this year when I required to renew my Class 2 and decided to try and get a Class 1 again by retaking the CVD tests. I quoted the Chapter 13 - Aviation Ophthalmology document that states "The lantern-tests may be retaken after 6 months" in my letter. My case coupled with a 2nd opinion that suggested I could pass the tests and have waited over 5 years to come to this conclusion seemed to work and the CAA said I could retake the tests on this occasion. They did state however that this 6month retake will be removed in the future.

On my renewal I got 1 plate wrong, but corrected myself on it, however it was deemed I still needed to take the lanterns (quite sensible really). I then passed the Beynes on the first attempt and having read the test procedure before the examination found it very easy.

I now have a full Class 1 and now just need to decide what to do with it after pursuing a successful non-aviation career over the last 5 years....

Keep at it!

[yames]

Hi,

this is the list of tests done at City Uni London:

1. Ishihara 38-Plate test (25 numerical designs used)
2. CAD test
3. Farnsworth D15
4. American Optical Company (H.R.R) Plates (2nd Edition) *
5. City University Test, 2nd Edition *
6. Nagel anomaloscope
7. Holmes-Wright Lantern Type A
8. Aviation Lights Test
----------------------------------
* these are similar to Ishihara plates (if I remember correctly)

Yames

[niallp]

hey modhop ye the number is (44) 2070400262. Im booked in for next monday! And gatwick too. I gota giv it a shot. I'll prob fail though. I cant make out 18 out of 24 ishiharas. Have to try before i giv up on chasing an aviation career.

[shgsaint]

I have to ask, if this new CAD testing system replaces the current screening tests (Ishihara & Lanterns), what does this mean for current JAA class 1 medical holders? I have an unrestriced class 1 medical and passed the Ishihara plates at Gatwick. However in the CAD example I lose sight of the moving square a couple of times for about 2 to 3 seconds. According to the website:

"The absence of the moving square may only last for 2 to 3 seconds, before you see it reappearing in a different colour. This temporary disappearance of the pattern is what you have to watch for in the test. When this happens, you may like to confirm this with your optometrist who will be able to diagnose the type and severity of your colour deficiency loss."

Would I be screened on this CAD test when I revalidate my medical, which may give a minor indication of a colour deficiency, or will the fact I have already demonstrated to the CAA that I'm technically 'Colour Safe', using their current screening methods allow me to bypass any future testing? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of having to undergo further uneccessary testing that could reverse my status to 'Colour Unsafe'.

What sort of protection is there for current JAA Class 1 medical holders that have passed the current colour screening methods but know their colour vision is not 'perfect'?

Cheers,

SHG.

[Ponte]

I've failed holmes and beyes lanterns and also ishihara.
However, I've passed anamaloscope and CAD examinationa at uni.
I'm now giving it a try at the spectrolux.

In my case, CAD was easy to pass.
No big deal.
I understand your worries but why don't you give it a try and get secure if it gets implemented?

regards

[niallp]

ponte, did you try to get the CAA to accept the anamaloscope from city uni? And when you were doing the cad test did the square dissapear for you? I think ill try the spectrolux too if i cant pass in london.

[Ponte]

Telboy,

I was told they had to increase the green scale a little bit and that I should check the standards in JAA.

I think this answers your question.

Either way, I'll redo the anamaloscope in switzerland and also the spectrolux and this is an JAA recognized AME so I'll wait to see if I get my change there. I'm just waiting (im)patiently for my appointment.

I may post my experience latters.

The main question still gets me..Will we be accepted by any airline?
I know there are some pilots who got it but some airlines redo some internal exams and....

If someone knows any, please pm me :)

[Ponte]

Well my goal is spectrolux :)

At first I had that answering machine in germat but I then sent a letter and a fax there to book the appointment and they returned me a call to confirm dates.
The issue with the machine is that they turn it on on non-working hours and that's what the message says :)

The fax number is in previous posts but I can post it again if you'd like..

My fax was sent in english and google translated (bad) to german also.
But his assistant speaks english so no problem with that.

If I get no luck in spiez...I'll try for CAA with citi's anomloscope and CAD but I don't see a big future on it..

We'll see...

Keep trying

[niallp]

hey everyone
just back from london. Needless to say i failed misserably. Went to city uni and they were a great help. I'm somewhere in the middle between a severe case and a mild case. I did the cad test and it does seem a little stupid because alot of it is guess work. They even told me i should have to guess about 50% of the time! They said that people with normal vision would have to do this also. What sense does that make?!! Turns out i'm green defficient. I asked in gatwick about my anamaloscope result but they were unsure about it and told me e-mail Mr shorley who is head of the CAA opthamology and he would tell me if my results were acceptable. So i'll try that. Ponte you should do that too. My result said range 0-33, anyone know if that is good or bad or if its within the jaa pass criteria? cheers

[gofast333]

Dear all,

i'd be nice, if someone could shed some light on the following issue:

I'll shortly require a new class 2 medical, which will require an examination at the Fliegeraerztliches Institut (FAI) in Duebendorf, Switzerland.

I've already been there once about 12 years ago. I failed miserably at the Ishihara color vision test plates and susequently had to do the the spectrolux test (which I passed).

Does anyone know if they still use the (bl****, sorry!) Ishihara test there? If so, whether it is the 14, 24 or 38 plate edition?
I figured out that some training upfront might do the trick...*

Any help appreciated, thanks!

Regards,
gofast333

* Don't worry, I'm not heading for pilot. But I need the medical to be allowed as a crew member.

[TelBoy]

niallp your range for the Nagel seems a bit odd starting at 0. Mine at city uni was a matching range of 27 - 31 however I am still no wiser as where this leaves me with the JAA.

[Ponte]

niallp (http://www.pprune.org/members/287567-niallp),

do you have the Dr.'s email?

I'dd love to try that shot.

good luck

[niallp]

Ponte dont hav it yet but as soon as i get i'll send it to ya

[2close]

Guys,

You are missing a very critical point!!.

Your Spectrolux or any other test that you may pass elsewhere is worthless if the CAA Medics get their way.

They want to introduce the CAD Test at every medical with no grandfather rights under the pretext of using it to look for other underlying medical conditions.

Anyone who has obtained a medical stands to potentially lose it at their next medical - remember that colour vision can be affected temporarily by many factors - I have already discussed this with working CPLs in the UK who have stated quite unequivocally that they intend to sue if their medical is revoked.

Do these people at the CAA have no shame whatsoever? They will do anything to feather their own nest, at the cost of God knows how many jobs. Even if one person loses his job that is unforgiveable and I could not even begin to express my contempt should that be the case.

[Ponte]

2Close,

you have done the CAD right?
What's your CVD deut, protan?

The tests show that CAD has a larger percentage for passing CVD.
I'm going for spectrolux since I already passed CAD.
Of course it is another exam but I'll have to live with my chances.

Good luck

[niallp]

ponte,
How do u know u passed tha cad test? It hasnt been introduced yet so theres no pass or fail limits! I did it and was just given a relust. What did u get? I think mine was 7.10.

[2close]

My CVD is deuteronomalous.

But you are missing the point about the CAD Test.

A - It CAN be guessed - really scientific, that!! :rolleyes:

Of FAR more importance is the FACT that the pass/fail criteria has been based around the UK / JAA standards, which have always had a ZERO error pass/fail limit for Ishihara. Using these limits as a benchmark it is no wonder that they can claim that they will have an increase in passes of 35% (or 36% depending which sentence of the report you read - :rolleyes:)

Don't forget the the OFFICIAL pass/fail criteria for Ishihara is up to two errors as you can be colour normal and make up to two errors.

The CAA Head of Aeromedical Section claims that the number of errors on Ishihara is related to the degree of CVD, therefore, 5 or more errors may be considered moderate CVD.

The FAA permits no more than SEVEN errors on Ishihara. Seven errors would be a PASS in the USA but a FAIL and a classification of moderate to severe CVD under UK standards. The CAD Test would FAIL these people. Therefore, there may be a significant number of WORKING FAA pilots who have been flying commercially for donkeys years but who may now fail the CAD Test at their next medical and all of a sudden find themselves out of a job, if the FAA adopt it and the UK pass / fail criteria. Let's hope they kick it well and truly into touch where it belongs.

It is socially irresponsible to introduce any test which may have a detrimental effect on a person's livelihood, especially where there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for justifying its introduction.

Why suggest testing at every medical, when on the other hand they openly state that CVD does not deteriorate with age below 60 years? So why test again after the initial Class One?

Because that way, ALL AME's will need to purchase the equipment at a cost of £ 4,500 per unit and that way the PRIVATE company makes greater profits. Who is going to pay for the equipment? YOU probably are, with increased medical charges!!

Public funds have been used to fund research for a private company to make potentially huge profits and this needs to be subjected to a formal investigation.

[Ponte]

Citi university test, 2nd edition is CAD and I have that I passed.
I'll send you my results latters in pm ok?

[TelBoy]

For those that have read the NPA's can see that it IS intended in JAA (or EASA) land to test colour vision at every medical and is proposed to do this using the CAD test.

As 2close points out this could cause havoc in the aviation industry and bring untold law suites against the authorities. FAA land would have the greatest number of "casualties" due to their liberal colour vision requirements at present.

Now the aviation authorities are not stupid. Take the situation where one new fATP holder fails his medical on the new CAD test - nobody will care much accept him. Now take the situation where there are 10,000 hour plus training captains loosing their medicals on a daily basis (this would be the case if the FAA are included) then it would show the test as not fit for purpose and leave those that implemented it with red faces (sorry grey faces) as well as a HUGE compensation bill. Even a high rating captain at the age of 60 will loose half a million in earnings before his retirement!!

This is where the double standards of the CAD test come in. In May 2008 I was talking in person at Aviation House to the man (no names on a public forum) who will answer all vision related questions at the CAA!! He told me that they intend a 30 second screening test version of the CAD as an equivalent of ishihara to see if further examination is needed. Should you fail this short CAD then you will need the full 15 minuet torture.

I do not know if this short 30 second CAD is available at present, as we have only been used as "lab rats" for the glory of the full CAD, but I think it is worthy of further investigation.

As an interesting exit to this discussion. I would welcome your opinions on why the CAA have refused a practical flight test for me. At the same meeting as I mention above I asked to have a practical test in an aircraft for me to demonstrate that I am colour safe in relation to the tasks identified as colour critical in the CAA investigations. This was refused on the grounds that a practical test is influenced by external factors of the day. Interesting that Flight Crew Licensing do NOT take this approach else we could all get our ATP on MS Flight Sim!!

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Implementing the CAD test is one thing, making it mandatory for all pilots to retest at every renewal is another. They will try and they may well win intially. They say that it may allow 35% of all CVD pilots to pass, it will only be those with yellow/blue deficiency no others and will undoubtedly cause many to fail who have flown safely for many years.

If this thing goes world wide there will be exemptions and class actions left and right just wait and see.

[niallp]

if you email city uni they're very helpful and will answer your questions about the cad. You should have gotten a result from the test with a numeric value. Mine was 7.10. The graph shows a shaded elipse in the middle and if your results are inside that you are colour normal. The x axis is for green red and the y axis is for yellow blue. The further outside the elipse you results are the more severe your deficiency. Hope that helps but its kinda hard to describe without havin one to show you and explain. Where did you hear about those standards being set? And does anyone have any idea when this is cumming in?

[2close]

Hi again Bealzebub,

Nice of you to pop in again.

You question the probability of passing by guessing. Well, it is the researchers that made this statement to a number of examinees.

They even told me i should have to guess about 50% of the time! They said that people with normal vision would have to do this also. What sense does that make?!!

That is some real foundation for a matter of "pure science". I was told exactly the same by the researcher, that it is possible to guess the correct answers and of course it is; on each and every occasion, even with your eyes closed you have a 1 in 4 chance of being correct. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what the probability of passing by guessing is. The CAA has made an absolute assertion that this test is specifically for the purpose of removing any risk of failing in a 'colour critical safety task'.

“the aim of the project, i.e., to quantify the severity of colour vision loss and to recommend minimum colour vision requirements by establishing the level of colour vision loss when colour deficient observers can no longer perform the most safety-critical, colour related tasks with the same accuracy as normal trichromats.” Source: CAA Paper 2009/04

If these aviation tasks are so critical then EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of doubt must be removed. But where ANY possibility of passing by guesswork is involved that leaves a gaping chasm, let alone a hole, in the safety argument which is at best spurious. Therefore it is not a matter of ‘pure science’ at all but something which would fit in nicely to any Las Vegas Casino.

The determination for re-testing is taken directly from the report CAA Paper 2009/04 which recommends testing at every medical under the spurious guise of determining other medical conditions.

“Since changes in chromatic sensitivity are often indicative of early stage systemic (e.g. diabetes) or ocular diseases (e.g. glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration), it is recommended that both red-green and yellow-blue colour sensitivity should be assessed with every medical examination and any significant changes noted. The data can then be used to detect when the progression of any inherent condition yields colour thresholds that fall outside the range established for normal vision.” Source: CAA Paper 2009/04

The test was developed for the alleged determination of a level of CVD not other medical purposes - it has not been clinically or field tested and I am quite sure that NIHCE will have something to say about it's introduction on these grounds.

Furthermore, the CAA Report 2009/04 is both inaccurate and misleading and clearly an attempt to try and steer the reader towards a desired conclusion and recommendations.

“Some accidents have been linked to loss of colour vision (National Transportation Safety Board, 2004)2.” Source: CAA Paper 2009/04

That implies quite clearly that there were a plural number of incidents which were undeniably connected to CVD whereas in fact there was one incident and the NTSB report’s conclusions are quite clear that CVD was only one of a number of causal factors, in that CVD is Number 13 of the list of 16. The correct wording should have read “One accident has” (Then again, it’s not the only mistake in the report). Also, the NTSB’s Probable Cause shows CVD at the bottom of the list of causal factors.

“Contributing to the accident was a combination of the captain’s and first officer’s fatigue, the captain’s and first officer’s failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captain’s and flight engineer’s failure to monitor the approach, and the first officer’s color vision deficiency.” Source: NTSB Report

In any case, the CAA is trying to impose its will on other countries not only JAA member states. This is a problem, and I repeat, that if even one person loses his livelihood owing to the introduction of the test then the test has failed. I am not clutching at straws - that risk is very real in countries which have more realistic and liberal standards than the draconian standards imposed by the UK. If the USA adopts this test with the UK pass/fail criteria then there is a real risk that current commercial pilots could lost their medicals, licences and jobs. There is a real need for IAOPA involvement in this.

The argument that the EU should not have to lower its standards to those of less stringent countries is futile - those countries which have been employing CVD pilots in commercial flying roles for many years do not have safety statistics any worse than the UK. This is a classic case of UK high-and-mighty, ‘we are better than you’, dogmatic, one-upmanship on the rest of the world, whereas the reality of the situation is that these other countries are far better at their aviation regulation and have far better standards than the UK, which is well and truly firmly wedged in archaic methodology perpetuated by old school tie, public sector, dodgy handshake brigade, cronyism.

As for clutching at straws and suggesting that an investigation would never take place, don’t be so bloody arrogant – what makes you think that the CAA is above the law? I know that certain individuals believe themselves to be above the law and outside the normal rules and that the back corridors of cronyism would protect them but as a former investigator with many years of both criminal and civil investgative experience I can assure you that there are enough alarm bells going off in very specific areas to give more than enough justification for an investigation.

It has been attempted to introduce the test without observing any of the requirements under JARs which require a full consultation under Notice of Proposed Amendment policies and a Regulatory Impact Assessment for determination of financial implications. Whilst on one hand they claim to observe JARS to the letter, on this occasion they actually stated in public (and I will publish the transcript here if wished) that (paraphrased) they don’t have to observe JARs if they don’t wish to and can introduce the test unilaterally should they wish. Bloody hypocrites! On the issue of financial implications, AMEs would not be given the option to opt out of this test – by making it mandatory at even the initial medical, all Class 2 AME’s will require the equipment, the sales pitch for which I note doesn’t even give the option of using own existing IT equipment. £ 4.5 K for a laptop with a piece of software and a 4 way switch box. It is a frigging joke and quite frankly could even be one for the Competition Commission. Oh well, that’s another address to write to. Also, internal CAA policies on ICT procurement have not been followed.

No names but I was told to my face that (I paraphrase):

"the reason I want to see the CAD introduced is so that I can use it as a study medium for my PhD, paid for by the CAA".

I would seriously question the morals and values of anyone who does not see that as dishonest self-motivation????

My feeling is that this is an issue of personal gain, financial or otherwise, and has nothing to do with aviation safety - it may have started off with honest intent but my contention is that it has been lost in amongst the muddied waters of avarice - and if it does get introduced I will be watching the Honours Lists very closely for certain names, not that I could do anything about that but I would feel vindicated to a degree.

It is of no minor interest that all of the agencies that should have been involved in this project have been avoided like the plague, IAOPA, National ALPAs, NIHCE. CAA Medical Department even attempted to get it into use without notifying the CAA Board of Directors!!!

As for any investigation, if you think we would be so stupid as to actually go to an obviously biased and self motivated group of individuals as the CAA to request an internal investigation, please give credit where due. There are far higher, independent authorities that need to be involved here. Good luck!

Am I against any new method of testing? Absolutely not. But what is needed is a practical, task based assessment in a real life environment, not some examination room test with no relevance to real life and which is nothing more than an academic hard-on coupled to a get-rich-quick scheme. But that’s just my opinion.

[2close]

Depends completely on those countries and how they implement it or even if they implement it.

I am in touch with airline pilots in other countries and they have made it unequivocally clear to me that they will bring legal action against anyone who is remotely responsible for the loss of their livelihoods.

The issue is though that, if any ONE country fails to implement the test ot goes in a different direction it totally destroys the argument of standardisation so we have a very poorly thought through proposal which makes little sense or impact on aviation safety but which could make serious money for certain individuals. :rolleyes:

[2close]

By the way, it appears that I am within the CAD Test limits, according to the report I have from City University but that does not change my opinion!

I am NOT self motivated on this and my arguments remain as stated.

There is a great deal of work yet to be done on this issue and corner cutting by anyone is not going to achieve that.

[Bealzebub]

2close,

You are also welcome, although as contributors to a thread on a public forum it probably goes without saying.

Whilst it is perhaps "interesting" and adds a bit of intrigue and spice to the discussion, who said what to who, and supposedly uses what to advance their PhD is at best hearsay, comment open to misinterpretation and contradiction, and generally irrelevant to the topic.

The CAA has made an absolute assertion that this test is specifically for the purpose of removing any risk of failing in a 'colour critical safety task'.
Where? I have read the published documents and cannot find such an assertion. The aim is update the testing method with an intention of making it more relevant and applying the updated testing requirement with a greater degree of uniformity. You cannot "remove any risk" when dealing with this or most other types of condition. You can only seek to minimize it. For all their deficiencies the previous tests could only achieve that. It is felt this new regime will be more relevant, accurate and uniform. Nowhere does it suggest or even imply that it would be perfect, foolproof or risk free. If the argument you are advocating is that such a test is useless unless those requirements were satisfied, then you would have to stop ECG's, EEG,s Blood tests, Blood pressure checks, Hearing tests, etc. None of them even come close to being risk free, perfect or foolproof. The use of them is to assist in the task of reducing the risk, which is all they ever do.

In any case, the CAA is trying to impose its will on other countries not only JAA member states. This is a problem, and I repeat, that if even one person loses his livelihood owing to the introduction of the test then the test has failed. I am not clutching at straws - that risk is very real in countries which have more realistic and liberal standards than the draconian standards imposed by the UK. If the USA adopts this test with the UK pass/fail criteria then there is a real risk that current commercial pilots could lost their medicals, licences and jobs. There is a real need for IAOPA involvement in this.

I doubt the CAA would impose its will on anybody. There is a general recognition that the testing regime needs to be brought up to date with a greater degree of uniformity. These new proposals are of interest to the FAA, Canadians, Europeans and others. If they were not they would ignore them and simply do what satisfied their own requirements. They already do that in so many other spheres of regulation and best practice. I am happy to provide examples if you really need them?

The suggestion that existing pilots will somehow be failing in droves by the introduction of these new tests, is rather stretching credulity. Colour vision deterioration is rare beyond that found in certain medical conditions. Your own quotation highlights diabetes, glaucoma and age related macular degeneration as such examples. These are all conditions that might eventually lead to the suspension or failure of a medical in any event. Any other test (such as hearing test) is used for a specific purpose, but can always be used as a preliminary or additional tool for the detaction of other medical conditions. The AME is a doctor seeing or treating the candidate as a patient and an individual, not soley as an occupation holder. I cannot see any reason why a pilot undergoing such a test every year, need be any more concerned than they would be by a urine test, a blood test, a hearing test, or any other test.

There are allowable levels of age related deterioration in many of the renewal medical standards required. To some extent this allows for the fact that experience might in some circumstances compensate for the loss of performance. The statement is clear, that the loss of colour vision will aim to seek minimum standards that satisfy the most safety critical tasks. Further that significant changes will be noted and the data used to monitor any such deterioration. This is what happens now with other established tests. I don't think the documents either are, or are intended to be misleading or inaccurate. I think your interpretation and some of your conclusions are though. You seem not to be reading what is written, rather than basing your own interpretation of what is written, layered with hearsay and comment, to drive your own hardened point of view.


The argument that the EU should not have to lower its standards to those of less stringent countries is futile - those countries which have been employing CVD pilots in commercial flying roles for many years do not have safety statistics any worse than the UK. This is a classic case of UK high-and-mighty, ‘we are better than you’, dogmatic, one-upmanship on the rest of the world, whereas the reality of the situation is that these other countries are far better at their aviation regulation and have far better standards than the UK, which is well and truly firmly wedged in archaic methodology perpetuated by old school tie, public sector, dodgy handshake brigade, cronyism



It isn't futile at all. Again the purpose of this proposal is to introduce a testing regime that provides for a greater degree of relevance, and uniformity. I completely accept that you are of the opinion that it fails to satisfy on so many levels not least because it isn't foolproof. It isn't an issue of whether these countries are "far better at their aviation regulation and have better standards" or not. These countries in many cases have different standards that have evolved as a result of their own cultures, politics, experience, and legislation. There are aspects that clearly work in the USA that could for all those reasons never be entertained in Canada or the UK or other nations. Conversely the same could be said for other countries in combination. It is clearly an achievement when a standard can be promoted that finds a widespread supranational acceptance. In this case it is hard to believe that the USA and other countries would show such a positive reaction to a UK proposal that they felt had little merit or benefit. If indeed these countries do display the supreme standards you suggest, then it says a great deal that they hold this UK proposal in such high regard.

I am in touch with airline pilots in other countries and they have made it unequivocally clear to me that they will bring legal action against anyone who is remotely responsible for the loss of their livelihoods.

The old "Highest court in the land" chocolate sword again! There is no proposal to remove anybodies livelihood. These are medical testing procedures that are being modernized and made more relevant. If they are used in the detection of other conditions that would be sufficiently debilitating, then like it or not, that has to be a positive aspect. If this test helps with the detection of age related macular degeneration or diabetes, then any early detection might actually extend a pilots career rather than curtailing it. In any event when an individuals health and their own body fails to meet the requisite standard, who exactly are they going to sue? Themselves? The messenger? The regulator? Fine sentiments, but rather tilting at windmills.

[JHO]

A bit of info and type of online based CAD test from City Uni here if it has not already been posted A new web-based colour vision test (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/colourtest.html)

[2close]

Oh dear, I fear we are never going to agree on this issue.

OK, I admit my own choice of words regarding the objectives behind the test but I have to work with verbal statements made to me by certain public officers and you are right, they can be contradicted or even denied in their entirety but I am completely content in the knowledge that they were said to me on more than one occasion and the context in which they were made was absolutely crystal clear at the time. In any case, surely that is the intention, to remove or at the least reduce to an absolute minimum any risk of a misintepretation of a colour critical, safety related task?

If there is to be no improvement in safety why spend the money at all? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the present method of testing for maintaining risk at a minimum level. In fact, by increasing the numbers of persons with CVD (of any level) who will achieve unrestricted certification you are increasing the risk - a damned fine safety practice may I say.

You are probably aware of this but for the benefit of other readers the CAA Safety and Data Department reports ZERO incidents involving CVD - would you like me to publish the figures here? - so that would indicate one of two things, either the existing risk is negligible or that the present system works. Whilst I am of the opinion that the former is the case it is clear that should the latter be correct then there was no need to 'reinvent the wheel'.

Apart from that, I took the CAD Test twice (two separate studies) and produced different results on each occasion. Therefore, it is clear that it may be possible for a borderline case to pass on one day and fail on another. Where is the accuracy in that?

Apart from the pitiful low number of study examinees, why did the aviation study only test each examinee once? Surely any responsible study would attempt to replicate the results with each examinee to achieve consistency, otherwise all you have is a set of snapshots which could have been guessed. You've stated that it would be very difficult to pass the test by guessing and that may indeed be the case but, apart from that very possibility existing, without any cross-checking how can you be certain that the results of the study examinations are in themselves accurate. I believe you call it redundancy. Or maybe testing each subject more than once would have produced such varied results that it would have been impossible to use them to validate the study and thereafter promote the SALE of the CAD Test. That wouldn't have been good, would it?

And as for relevance, what relevance can identifying flashing coloured grids be to practical aviation. If the safety issue is the correct identification of PAPI lghts and the CAD Test performance indicators are based on a correlation between performance on the CAD and the PAPI Simulator why not just use the PAPI Simulator as the test?

I never suggested that existing pilots would be failing in droves; I believe I said if even one pilot failed that would be one too many. I am really interested in the answer to this question though. What do you intend to do about the airline pilot who has been flying safely by day and night for many years, thousands of hours and tens of thousands of miles of commercial operations, whose career gets blighted as a result of your pointless test? You continuously seem to miss the point that it does not matter if even only one person is affected in this manner, or you don't care. In either case this poses a very serious problem. But you are so determined to see the CAD Test initiated on a world-wide platform (another verbal statement, I'm afraid), individuals don't seem to matter.

Possibly the introduction of grandfather rights for those who have passed previous tests. Well, there's uniformity for you. Or would you like to suggest that an experienced pilot will interpret colours differently to an inexperienced pilot so that justifies a lowering of CVD standards for experienced pilots. Stand by for a shifting of goalposts.

On the point of world wide adoption, what happens if different countries set different Pass/Fail limits? Many countries seem to have a different opinion to the UK on this issue. Then the point of uniformity goes straight out of the window and we are back to square one.

I will be very interested to see how the American aviation community takes any proposal to introduce the test.

For the benefit of those who are worried about the introduction of the test I think, in its defence, it would be fair to reassure people that should you pass Ishihara with nil errors the chances are that you will pass the CAD Test...........unless of course there are voltage irregularities in the supply to the non-voltage regulated laptop or the monitor has degraded imperceptibly or the software has developed a 'glitch' or the architecture has suffered a hardware error or one of a million and one other problems that could befall a computer based system which should be analysed and eradicated or at the very least minimised through stringent field testing of the final product. How much field testing has there been of this product? Mmmm, approximately none I believe.

In any case, we can keep banging the ball back and forth all day and night but it is out of our hands now. The matter is being referred to the appropriate authorities and organisations and hopefully a proper and thorough investigation will be conducted.

BTW, could you please save me some trouble and let us all know exactly how much of the public's money has been spent on this study. Save me the trouble of a FOIA Request and having to publish the information myself. Thanks. :ok:

[Ponte]

Without wanting to discuss the pros and cons,
does anyone has any idea when it would be probably implemented by hear say?

[2close]

STRICTLY speaking, there are several legal processes which need to be fulfilled before it can be adopted by the JAA across all states, this falling under the legal framework established under the JAA.

The proposing authority should publish a Notice of Proposed Amendment and a Regulatory Impact Assessment. The latter would give notification of any financial implications that would arise and the former is a consultation tool for all interested parties to make their feelings known. This is usually a lengthy process and can take years.

Saying that, the UK CAA has indicated that it doesn't have to observe JARs if it doesn't wish and can act unilaterally by introducing the test whenever it feels like. This is the same CAA that swears blind that they apply JARs to the letter and insist that uniformity is the only way ahead. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[2close]

Oh b****r!!! :{

Now I am disappointed.

Working on the assumption that you are a genuine person and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that you anything but genuine, you are not who I (and others) thought you are......and you are not a member of the CAA Medical Department.

That takes a lot of the sport out of this debate.

Of course, this may be a bluff!!! ;)

Either way, I stand by my convictions that there are far too many unanswered questions to launch this test on the aviation community.

Take care. :ok:

[TelBoy]

Bealzebub, your opinions vary a lot from most on this thread and it is good that you partake to give another view.

I should like your opinion on the fact that the CAA refuse to give me the opportunity for a practical test. Research that has been done has already highlighted what the CAA see as colour critical tasks for a pilot and in fact I think most reading this forum would not disagree with their findings.

I have formally asked the CAA for a practical test to give me the chance to demonstrate that I CAN or maybe CANNOT preform these tasks, this was refused.

My feeling is that IF I passed the practical test and failed the CAD then it would blow their new toy out of the water in one sweeping blow, hence the reason why they say NO to a practical test. This leaves me to feel that I am a victim of discrimination in my own country, unlike the FAA that HAVE practically tested me and to which I PASSED!

Your opinion on this matter would be gratefully received by myself and I'm sure of great interest to the other followers of this thread.

[2close]

To add to TelBoy's post, I submitted to the CAA a report from a very experienced ME CPL / IR / FI / FE with decades of experience in Optometry as well, which stated that I was able to correctly identify by day, twilight and night all coloured lights in real life situations, undertaken during a specific flight 'test', including PAPI approaches from 6 miles out.

In fact, I was able to identify the PAPI lights to the examiner from 8 miles out, when he hadn't even seen them.

They refused to accept the report because it isn't a recognised test.

Neither is the CAD Test but they accept that, bunch of hypocrites!!!

They also claimed I was familiar with the airport. It was the third time I had ever flown there at night and only the second time I'd made an approach to landing. They didn't check my log book, they just made the assumption that I must have been familiar with it, which if you think about it is total b:mad:s! How can your colour vision improve just because you are familiar with something?

[shgsaint]

Although this seems very ominous to current JAA class 1 holders whom don't have perfect colour vision, what's to say they can't go and get their medical renewed in another country and see a JAA certified AME? Surely the CAA aren't going to insist that every JAA qualified AME across the world is now going to have to purchase and install this new equipment? If they do then they're either going to make millions or every AME across the world that renews JAA medicals will suddenly hang up their JAA stethoscopes.

Or will the CAA simply police this and insist we have to sit this exercise in the UK so that we can prove or disprove we're 'colour safe' regarless of our experience or current location. And if we don't comply they'll revoke the medical. All sounds rather facists if you ask me. :*

As previously mentioned I'm sure there are plenty of individuals with not quite so perfect colour vision but with JAA class 1's and are more than competent and 'safe'. This may be a fine idea for testing future applicants but leave the rest of us that already have class 1 alone so that we can try and earn a living out of this ever decreasing industry.

Rant over.

[TelBoy]

The proposals for the CAD test are a LOT more far reaching than JAA land. The CAA have taken it to the ICAO and have had talks with the FAA.

In reality it will probably not affect us in Euro land until the EASA take over FCL. However if proposals are implemented it will mean that all (or most) of the world will take a CAD colour vision test at EVERY medical, so yes ALL AME's will need the CAD machine + training and certification in using it + can only assume a maintenance contract, so VERY lucrative for some I'm sure.

I'm also sure that if it is taken over as proposed then there will be in excess of a million flying hours with hundreds, or even in the thousands of experienced pilots in the colour vision scrap heap. End of career, end of livelihood and beginning of a new wave of legal challenges.

[2close]

By which time the private individuals will have milked the gravy train and made their money out of it, leaving the public authorities to carry the can and to fund the defence of the legal challenges........or did I mean you and I (as the end users and payers of the CAA imposed extortionate charges) fund the defence?????

Why the :mad: is a public authority funding research and development for a private limited company? :* :rolleyes:

Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? :confused:

Gents, apart from my approaches to the relevant authorities, it is time for you as concerned individuals to contact your own MPs, AOPA, BALPA and any other organisations you can think of.

[2close]

BTW Tel Boy, on 1 July 2009 CAA Medical stated that they intended to introduce the CAD Test unilaterally in two months time, as they do not need the compliance of other JAA member states to do so and they do not need to apply JAR FCL 3 to the letter, should they so wish.

This is the same CAA Medical that refuses to accept any alternative testing because it does not comply with JAR FCL 3 which they claim to follow unequivocally to the letter - I can produce statements from them to this effect, in writing, if necessary. :rolleyes:

Have you ever known such hypocrisy?

[Ponte]

What's New | Medical | Safety Regulation - Page2RSS (http://page2rss.com/rss/96f39c7d5347207960d700e390246b0e)

you can subscribe by email for page updates..

[2close]

Thanks Ponte.

Much appreciated.

However, it points the reader to the CAA Medical What's New page.

What's New | Medical | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=49&pagetype=87)

Or is there some other link within that I've missed?

Thanks again.

[Ponte]

the link you've posted is different than mine.

follow this one notify.me - Page2RSS Monitored Page: What's New | Medical | Safety Regulation (http://c.notify.me/4QbqBA) and click on email notifications on the right side of the page.
It'll keep you updated of updates on that CAA page :)

cheers

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Test at every renewal, bring it on. Won't last 5 minutes out here. Been there and done that at the AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal). Cost CASA a lot of time, money and loss of credibility. My experience with most things that are essentially a load of BS is that in the end they fail.

The world is evolving into a new place where positive (can do) people and forward thinkers do well. Backward thinkers, those unwilling to accept change and those who can do nothing more than try to re-invent the wheel fall by the wayside. The latter are never remembered in good favour.

Its about time the cronies understand that quantifying CV is not 100% possible in practical terms when it comes to aviation. For all the reasons the CAA give for not allowing a practical test the same can be said for any pilot who just passes the ishihara and then fails some other test. Understand this, the answer is not to try and force the human to conform as humans are flawed, the answer is to make the aviation industry CVD friendly. Anyone who thinks that this is not achievable should think of the amount of time and resources that are being force-fed into this CAD test and then trying to flog it to the rest of the world. 2Close is right in saying that this is all about satisfying the ego and investment managers of those responsible for it.

They may get it in, but it will be short lived. Unfortunately it will probably be long enough to take out a couple of generations of CVD wannabie pilots.
SN

[2close]

As someone who has been involved in accessibility for disabled persons I am very aware that the onus is on the service provider to make the adaptions and not for the disabled person to have suffer the indignity of being discriminated against, as has been suggested is the right of the CAA.

Here's one for the think tank. Using my 'superior technical knowledge' of PAPI systems and the obvious problems they allegedly cause CVD persons, why not do something really revolutionary...........

............change the s :mad: g colours to two that are not confused, even by someone with sever CVD !!!!

From my understanding of the PAPI equipment that would only involve changing filters as all lights are white and there are red filters set at certain angles.

They could intensify the red and take it to the other end of the red spectrum away from the white light, or use some other colour that doesn't get confused with the white light, deep blue for example.

This isn't rocket science.

Has anyone else noticed that there is no mention of attempting to resolve the problem by other means, i.e. adapating technology to remove or reduce the risk, but concentrates completely on getting their 'love child' test accepted. If the powers that be weren't so narrow minded, this would be a relatively easily solvable problem, I'm sure.

[Bealzebub]

Hi Telboy,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your question. I appreciate we disagree on some of the core issues and I understand your advocacy. I believe the problem with substituting a controlled test with a "practical" test, is how you can realistically administer such a test.

I do believe that colour perception is a vital safety prerequisite for an airline pilot. A high level of colour discrimination is vital in a number of areas. Airport lighting at busy airports with regards to the prevention of runway incursions. The avoidance of ground incidents where subtle perceptions of colour and colour movement are an intrinsic part of the task. The discrimination of colour in partial failures of ground lighting and aircraft equipment. The additional perception of subtle changes to colours brought about by filtering or obscuring elements such as rain, fog, haze and ambient lighting and other variables.

I cannot see how a practical (ie. real world substitute) test could be administered that satifies all or most of these requirements. If there is to be an acceptable minimum standard of colour perception and colour discrimination, then there has to be a relatively simple method of testing and assesment. A tower signal light test might work to show that an applicant can discriminate safely between red and green, but how often is an airline pilot likely to be tested on that basis in the real world? More than likely never. A PAPI test might be more useful, but would it test the nuances of colour that would be evident during a misty or foggy approach, where the colours are more pastel than primary?

The argument that other countries apply a more liberal regime or testing standard is I believe a weak one. For example the USA may allow a greater degree of deviation in its accepted medical standards regarding colour perception for the issue of a first class medical certificate. However that fails to take into account the greater application of company medical requirements, the higher quantative experience required for licence issue, and the different cultural, legal and political factors present within that particular jurisdiction. What might work there doesn't necessarily work well elsewhere. There are many examples of that, and the follow on argument that "planes are not falling out of the sky" isn't necessarily a justification or proof of argument.

I also believe that the argument that "if it isn't foolproof, it should be discarded" is also a moot one. On that basis there wouldn't be many, if any tests left. Similarly there wouldn't be any aircraft flying either. The procedure seeks to minimize risk rather than guarantees to eliminate it. Certainly in commercial aviation, colour perception plays a vitally important role. It is entirely proper that this requirement is tested and a level of discrimination is applied. The new test seeks to bring this procedure more up to date. It should allow for a degree of uniformity in the method of assesment that has not been the case previously. It should allow for a standard that doesn't in all cases, exclude applicants who might previously have been excluded. It will not be perfect. It will not be foolproof. No test is, but it seeks to be an improvement on the current plethora of regimes and the confusion that has been brought with them.

I accept that you will disagree with these opinions and observations, but nevertheless I truly believe they are relevant, significant and valid in the context of this discussion.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Bealzebub
On the subject of this yet unproven CAD test. Can it be guarenteed that any person who passes the Ishihara plates or Holmes Write Lantern will get through it? What about the pilots who may have to be re-tested? Asside from the fact that in the name of safety their career matters not, what about the immediate lack of pilots? I will be the first to acknowledge that worldwide the whole CV thing is a mess. This CAD test which has not undergone any testing in countries with CVD pilots flying is not going to fix this. There is no science or practical experience behind it. It needed to be out there on trial for a number of yera before final implementation and acceptance.

As for the week arguments, mate open your eyes, read the info thats available. For every week argument on the side of the CVD candidate there is at least one more that disproves the science (or lack there-of) behind the current lineup of tests (including the CAD). ICAO ask only that a pilot be able to readily identify aviation coloured lights. Thats all. Don't you think we are reading just a bit too much into this? Obviously not. As for the conduct of a practical test, you go to an airfield and look at the lights. Even colour normals can get it wrong in adverse weather conditions, thats been proven. You would say its all about risk management, my guess is you know nothing of what a CVD person sees or you just would'nt make such a statement.

I know one track minds are hard to change. I have been around long enough to know that anyone with an agenda they actually believe in, weather or not it is in good faith or properly R & D', will be difficult to show any difference in view.
SN

[2close]

I think we may have found our first shareholder in City Occupational Limited!!!

;)

Only a joke, Bealzebub!!!

But you have to admit your promotion of the CAD Test does appear to be a tad more than that of an independent party.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

bealzebub
You are correct in that the opinions stated here are generally from those who are or have bee affected by the CV issue. Lets be clear, the issue is about safety and discrimination. What we have currently is one accident where a CVD FO was on duty when an aircraft crashed on approach at night. The pilot had actually passed the Farnsworth lantern test and as such is considered safe in most if not all countries. Further it was only listed as a possible contributer, not the cause.

Any pilot relying only on PAPI indication for approach guidance should be very careful indeed as we all know the system is far from fool proof especially in other than VMC, when you really need it!. I know of none who would put themselves in this situation. You know its funny that there are numerous instances where the PAPI has been reported as being difficult to interpret by CV normals. So I guess if this is all about risk reduction at all costs why then are we moving from a system of approach guidance that is fool proof (T VASI) to a system that is positively second rate (PAPI) by comparison? Its all about costs and in this instance the CVD wanabee is to be sacrificed to achieve it. In the end society picks up the tab.

On the other issue of flight deck displays I say only that I know of no aircraft manufacturer that has stated a medical standard to fly their aircraft. Certainly if the displays required a specific level of colour perception it would be in the POH. ICAO is quite specific in what is required. Would I jump on a jet with two CVD pilots up front? Absolutely, but then I am very careful which airline I choose for my family to fly with and I know the crew have been well checked in the sim.

Been called out, cheers for now.
SN

[Bealzebub]

On the other issue of flight deck displays I say only that I know of no aircraft manufacturer that has stated a medical standard to fly their aircraft. Certainly if the displays required a specific level of colour perception it would be in the POH. ICAO is quite specific in what is required. Would I jump on a jet with two CVD pilots up front? Absolutely, but then I am very careful which airline I choose for my family to fly with and I know the crew have been well checked in the sim.

Nonsense. The manufacturer never sets a medical standard, because it relies upon the regulatory authority to do that. I am sure they would be astonished if people with severe hearing impairment, or insulin dependant diabetes, or numerous other limiting or disqualifying medical conditions were operating their aircraft. So no it wouldn't be in the POH, and of course it never is. I do not doubt that you would "jump on a jet with two CVD pilots up front." But that is not something that would likely sit well with the general public, who in virtually all cases must rely on the regulatory standards. Nor of course, does it satisfy the regulatory authorities. If colour perception and discrimination is an important element of the pilots job, and it is, then it is entirely responsible and proper, that both a standard and appropriate level of discrimination is used in the assessment.

The arguments here for the most part concern the testing and level of the discrimatory standard to be employed, rather than simply abandoning it, which nobody on a sensible level, is advocating with any degree of seriousness.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

bealzebub
Well maybe you are right, maybe the colour coded flight deck is no place for the CVD pilot. All I can tell you is that I have been flying EFIS for years and never come up against a colour issue. Indeed my CV may be at a level that would pass the CAD test, I do pass the Holmes Wright but fail the IP's and the Farnsworth. So what makes you think the CAD goes far enough? Who says its standard is high enough, or if in fact it actually establishes a standard? I could add many more questions here.

There maybe indeed be a case to put that in some aircraft a certain level of colour perception should be required. I do know that there are many hundreds if not thousands of CVD pilots flying worldwide, if there were issues don't you think the CV normal check captain or line captain sitting next to at least one of them would have raised the alarm?

Australia and the USA are not by any means the only countries with less stringent CV standards when it comes to aviation. There are lots in the south pacific and throughout Asia and more. Some operate on a case by case basis taking into account you level of experience. If you have flown outside of the EU then chances are you have flown with at least one CVD pilot.

There is a lot more to this issue than just bringing in the new test and saying that’s it from here on. CV changes as your life goes by and in fact your perception is also affected to an almost limitless degree by environmental conditions. I suggest you go and get yourself onto a flight deck somewhere and have a close look at the pilot’s task and then make your opinions, at least then you will have a more informed view.

[Jabout]

I was looking at the youtube videos on ICL (Implantable Contact Lens), it's supposed to be the more effective and safer successor to Lasik eye surgery.

Essentially, they make a little hole in the side of the eye and slide a curled up contact lens in through the little hole.

The lens then unfolds over the eye.

I was thinking if the lens was the correct tint to make the colours you're weak in stand out a bit more it would enable people to pass colour blind tests, and go out fly planes and stuff.

Or is this totally barking up the wrong tree?

[niallp]

Hey guys anyone heard anything new on the cad coming in. Im very impatient! Tryin to decide whether to go back to college in 2 weeks and study aeronautical engineering or save my money and hang on for the cad to be introduced. Cant make up my mind. Cheers

[Blinkz]

With out a doubt go to college!! You don't know when cad will come in, you don't know even if you will pass it, even if you DO pass it and can start flying you should still have a backup anyway incase for someone other reason it doesn't work out (say the huge economic downturn and lack of jobs at the moment, especially for pilots!)

[TelBoy]

You can always do the CAD at City Uni and ask them for the results.

If you even make a BIG pain in the ass of yourself the CAA might do the test for you - and then get City to look at the results!!

However college seems a no Brainer - get your education, it will never go against you, so can only be a benefit.

[colourblindgeek]

On 1st June the CAA stated that the CAD test would be available within 2 months - so 1st September. But put your energy into phoning or writing to the CAA not this forum if you want to take the CAD test and have this as your pass/fail criteria. I'm certainly not holding my breath for a 1st September launch; if no-one is putting pressure on the CAA then what's gonna be their hurry?

That said - City will do it for you and they will give you a very comprehensive report on the severity of your CVD.

As for the education - I can only reiterate the other guys. You should get a degree. Aero Eng puts you in perfect place for many jobs so JFDI as we say.

As far as I know, there are very few jobs out there at the moment. The flying schools are still churning out frozen ATPL's so having a plan B is still critical.

Good luck with the studying.

[gijoe]

Sound advice above - get that degree and think about other things afterwards.

The CAD test may be many years away yet.

G :ok:

[niallp]

thanks for the advice every1. Think my best option is college. Appreciate all the posts.

[Arthur Pape]

Hi, I'm Arthur Pape and I am interested in gathering information about Colour Defective Pilots flying anywhere in the world in whatever type of aircraft, at whatever licence level.
I am collecting data for a serious scientific study of the experiences of colour defective pilots.

This is a serious request, and anyone who would like to make contact can email me at [email protected]
Please be patient when expecting a reply.
Cheers. AP

[Ponte]

I just received a letter from caa saying that I've failed the CAD.
They had a mistake in the caa document and the correct limits are:

< 12 SN for protans
< 6 for deutans

They will correct it asap.

Anyone has passed cad out here?

[niallp]

Ponte i got 7.10 and im deutan. Does any know if i would have a chance at gettin a score of 6 or under??

[2close]

niallp,

Of course you have a chance of passing.

Given that each person was only tested once during the aviation related study there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to validate replication of performance.

Some people have taken part in both the aviation and the railways studies and performed differently in both tests, so apart from the fact that this proves that the CAD Test is inaccurate as a diagnostic tool there is always a chance that a person failing one day could pass the next!!

Alternatively, just close your eyes and guess - you have a 1 in 4 chance of being right every single time which are not bad odds considering what's at stake.

In either case, it just goes to show how poorly thought out this CAD Test study and implementation has been and it wouldn't surprise me to see the CAA and AVRC being hauled over the coals within the next couple of years, especially when they start messing working commercial pilots about.

[colourblindgeek]

Whoooooaaa! Hold on....

So the CAD test is now official?:confused:

If you have received a letter from the CAA saying that you've failed - then does that mean they are passing and failing people on the CAD test?

I shall put pen to paper to our chums at the CAA to see where we are with this?:=

If they are failing people based on this, then where are the passes?

Did the CAA actually say that you will not get an Unrestricted Class 1 based on your CAD test results, or was it more of a

"you've failed on the Holmes Wright etc.... but by the way don't hold your breath on the CAD test because you would fail that if it were introduced"

[Ponte]

Location: In a white van, outside CAA HQ
Age: 36
Posts: 18

Whoooooaaa! Hold on....

So the CAD test is now official?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

If you have received a letter from the CAA saying that you've failed - then does that mean they are passing and failing people on the CAD test?

I shall put pen to paper to our chums at the CAA to see where we are with this?:=

If they are failing people based on this, then where are the passes?

Did the CAA actually say that you will not get an Unrestricted Class 1 based on your CAD test results, or was it more of a

"you've failed on the Holmes Wright etc.... but by the way don't hold your breath on the CAD test because you would fail that if it were introduced"


Hold your horses mate.

I've presented current JAA lanterns results and also CAD.
They said if CAD were in place I wouldn't get through given the proposed limits.
Meaningless to say theyr denial was based on the lanterns.

Nothing to hold on to on this matter.

cheers

[TelBoy]

For those that have had results back from the CAA and taken the CAD at Aviation House, do a Subject Access Request to them (costs £10) and you will most likely see that they sent your results to the City Uni to get a numerical result. Without your permission is this not a breach of confidence?

Now that the JAA is no longer, where does this leave things like the spectrolux - the CAA can easily say NO to a pass in Switzerland. On the other hand without the JAA the CAA can easily say yes to a practical flight test to demonstrate your abilities. After all the CAA have published a document highlighting colour critical tasks for pilots - why wont they allow us to prove in the real world that we can do these tasks , or not as the case may be.

I have had a formal request for a practical test refused and also told I would fail the CAD on the results they have for me. Now my feeling is that if I passed the practical test it would then show their new toy to be a piece of junk.

I would also be interested to see if anyone that has had CAD results back from the CAA have any other comments regarding the health of their eyes - please PM me if so.

I would also like to add my welcome to Dr Pape here, a true hero that has allowed so many to follow their dreams in Australia.

[Barracus]

Hi guys

Been a long time reader of this thread. This is my first post.

I fail the Ishihara and all lantern tests in the UK.

1. I understand that with a colour vision restricted JAA class 1 medical I can obtain a CPL and work as a flight instructor (day only) in the UK. Is that correct???

2. Does the same apply in the States under the FAA with regard to working as an FI??? (I could not find any info on this in the thread).

Thanks guys

[Ponte]

Hi there friends.
I've failed all there is to fail but I believe the exams are too strict compared to real life. I already piloted an A320 mcc simulator without any problems.
My only problem is confusing very light green with white which I think it's not related to the pilot tasks of what so ever.

I'm mild deuteranolamlous.

During my exams I've been told that even in USA or Australia, we may pass alternative exams but companies won't hire you because they have private exams.
Have you got any different information?

Also, I was told in spiez (switzerland, spectrolux lantern) that there are 4 countries that want to remove the color vision restrictions as they are, which are UK, Sueden, Ireland and the 4th I don't recall.
The other members oppose to this change in JAR.
In 2011 this document will be reviewed but the same people will vote with the same ideals.

We should unite to fight this thing instead of see what happens in the small chats.
I'm tempted to build a database with info and perhaps use this information latter to complete or contrapose their evidences. Is anyone up to this?

Regards

[niallp]

Ponte,
You have the right idea to fight this. If enough of us make enough noise and go about fighting this the right way something has to be done. Im 100% with you as im sure are so many others but how would we do this and where would we start?

[Ponte]

I'm building a quick database to get info of how many of us are there and which exams did we fail to get a good sample.

Well that't not so simple, they also say we should speak to airplane builders in order to change their green/red displays.. They will always have an argument. They said I wouldn't have problems identifying the green bu if I'm tired or...watch this, if the luminance is nod adequate I may not identify the green on the display..

I'll share the link with you asap.

cheers

[Arthur Pape]

We need to maintain the facts: some US and Aussie airlines DO test for colour vision defects, some don't.

[Arthur Pape]

To the best of my knowledge, the New Zealand colour vision screening is very tight, and very different from that applied in Australia, just across the Tasman Sea. In Australia, we DO HAVE cvd pilots flying sophisticated glass cockpit jet aircraft. My proposal is to utilize some of these in properly designed and conducted research to establish the validity or invalidity, once and for all, of the ICAO standard. More on this in the near future!!

[Arthur Pape]

dcdriver asked about CASA accepting a US result for a signal gun test: I DOUBT IT. But watch this space!!

[Arthur Pape]

Finally for tonight, thanks to the few who did respond to one of my earlier posts, inviting them to share with me their stories of succeeding in the upper levels of aviation, notwithstanding their colour vision. In brief, I am attempting to create a database of pilots who, through whatever means, have succeeded in passing or in bypassing the colour perceptions standard. In Australia, we do have a significant cohort of colour defective pilots engaged in sophisticated RPT operations, in fully EFIS equipped aircraft, and undergoing the standard battery of check and training tests that all such pilots undergo at very regular intervals. The interesting thing is that they appear (anecdotally) to be indistinguishable in terms of performance from their colour normal peers. The reason that this is so, is that colour is NOT USED in the way that protagonists would have you believe in providing safety essential information to ANY PILOT.
I mentioned the database earlier. It is important that to progress the case for colour defective pilots or wannabee pilots, we start to build up some real and empirical evidence as to their performance, and the only way to do this is to conduct research in which both colour defective and colour normal pilots are measured in their performance proficiency and safety in AVIATION REALISTIC TASKS, not in the multitudes of colour vision tests and quazi colour vision test masquerading as "experiments" that keep surfacing to try to bamboozle the real issue. There are enough colour vision tests NOW, and producing more will solve nothing for either regulators or colour defective pilots. WE ARE ALL COLOUR DEFECTIVE, and we don't need more colour vision tests, no matter what the claimed advantage of one over the other.

In my search for people to volunteer their stories to me I need more detail than merely stating what jets they fly and how they managed to side step the standard. That is not useful information. I need, if known, the history of the colour perception tests attempted and failed, the diagnosis of the defect, again, if known, and a brief but accurate flying CV. Naturally, all information will be treated in the strictest confidence. I submit my past record of activism in the colour perception world as proof of that. So if anyone out there would like to contact me, even tentativley, I would love to hear from you.

Arthur Pape

[TelBoy]

The Colour Vision requirements in NZ can be found here http://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/Med_Info_Sheets/MIS006.pdf

[TelBoy]

It will be interesting for the winners and losers of the CAD test to tell there story here.

As for me - a loser (well actually no better or worse than the old tests).

It will also be interesting to see how this develops. They have proposed a cut down CAD test for initial screening to replace ishahara and colour vision testing at EVERY medical.

Also the CAA have been able to go it alone on this because of the JAA not existing anymore - it will be interesting to see what happens when EASA take over FCL, and as for the FAA???

[PPRuNeUser0161]

So if the CAD is to be used at every renerwal that means you should be able to take the test in the hope that your CV has changed for the better!!!!!!

Interesting days indeed, in the long term I predict no test CAD or otherwise. I do stress long term however.

[TelBoy]

As history is always in the making and the CAD is just the latest, I should like to take a look at the past to try and predict the future.

A long time ago before the JAA (1990's) there were three medical classes in UK CAA structure. Class 1 for ATP and CPL, Class 2 for BCPL and Class 3 for PPL.

Now this is where things in licencing have changed. If you went for CPL via the Integrated route you did it in the same hours as today (if I remember right - was 150 or 200 hours, please correct me if I'm wrong). However if you went for CPL via the Modular route, it was known as the self improver and you needed 700 hours for CPL. Now the BCPL could be issued at 200 hours and allowed you to be paid for non public transport work such as instructing.

The Class 1 medical could NOT have any deviation for colour vision, but the Class 2 medical could - so you could be a paid instructor with CVD. For those that are interested I will list the conditions from my 1992 Class 2.

CODE: SCD STANDARD VISUAL DEFICIENCY CONDITION
(a) flights by day only;
(b) flights within UK, Channel Island and Isle of Man, provided that flights within the territory of other contracting states may be made, subject to authorisation in writing by such states;
(c) use at aerodromes or landing grounds where, if air traffic control is provided, it is by means of radio communication; and
(d) aircraft used by the holder for flights to aerodromes or landing grounds where Air Traffic Control is provided by means of radio communication, must be equipped with radio telephony equipment to be used by the holder to comply with Air Traffic instructions.


Now from this history lesson we can see that when the JAA went to the two medical classes we know today the CAA took into account those CVD Class 2 subjects to issue a deviation at class 1. It basically gives us the same privileges as the old BCPL, so nothing was taken away.

Now the EASA is the next stumbling block. As the UK is the only state to issue deviation for CVD and the EASA will take the whole of Europe into account it could seem likely that the C1 deviation will disappear! Maybe it will simply not be issued any more, but those that already have the deviation can keep it (seems to sensible to work in Euro land!!), who knows.

Now for the CAD. At present the CAD is simply replacing the Holmes Wright and Beyne lanterns at Gatwick (assume they will be on ebay soon :)) and the CAD is only taken at the initial medical. If it does get to the stage where the CAD is taken at every medical, it will work in CVD favour :-

1) Many experienced captains might well loose their medical and start legal action

2) We would be able to do what they do in the US with the Farnsworth Lantern and simply go from AME to AME until you eventually pass!

I don't think either of the above options would provide a useful addition to aviation safety, so lets work for a sensible and working option.

The following months and years will surly be history in the making for the CVD pilot in Europe and maybe even the US, or even all ICAO states. The UK CAA has made a bold move with the CAD test and seem to be "selling" it well, but I do feel that the future will show that it was another missed opportunity and something else that didn't work!!

Dr Pape has made an excellent post above and I feel that it is only practical testing that can determine an applicants true abilities. I have always maintained that any pilot must be able to demonstrate satisfactory all required tasks needed for the licence or rating sort.

The UK CAA has refused me a practical test - I guess it would only junk their CAD toy if I passed!!

[2close]

Well, I hope they have a suitable alternative for their CAD Test because I will be refusing to take it as it has made me physically ill on each occasion that I have taken it, on one occasion causing me to lose work through illness as an employee of the.........errr..........CAA!!!!!

[niallp]

So the cad is finally in?!! has anyone gone to take it yet and been successful? I think i'lll have to head over and give it a go. Is it true you need a score of 6 or less for deuterans to pass? thanks

[ChecklistPlease]

Hi Guys,

I'm in the Royal Navy still at BRNC in IOT.

This is on belhalf of my friend, who which has just graduated from Uni. He also applied to the Navy for Pilot and failed the medical on Colour Vision, therefore he is now looking at working in the commercial world.

What testing methods are now in use at Gatwick, CAD? Ishishara What is CAD? What method?, is it the moving coloured Block grid screening or, PAPI/ PSL Lights to be identified correctly??

Thanks for your much welcomed answers.

Checklistplease

[Ponte]

acaresea,

do you have the link for this or the npa number?

cheers

[belowradar]

Well I think I may have the dubious distinction of being the first to sit the CAD test today and I passed (well within the required limits)

I am protonamous and have tried all of the other tests including spectrolux without any luck . I also took part in the City Uni trials.

I knew I could fly a PAPI or VASI but it has taken 14 years for confirmation of that. I do believe that this new test is founded on some scientific fact and related to aviation critical tasks. I do not believe that colours in aviation are that critical but this is the only test that has provided me with a positive result.

I would commend the test to you guys and wish you all the best of luck

As for me I am very pleased that my conviction has been proved correct. Do not let anyone stop you from doing something that you know you can safely do.

My battle is over but now I have a new battle to study for ATPL and follow the dream.:ok:

[dombeaumont]

Hey, congrats belowradar.

After over a year of waiting, a letter from the CAA came through the door this morning. I have also passed the CAD test.

I went to Gatwick many moons ago in 2008 specifically for the lantern test, which I failed. i was then invited to take the CAD immediately after...which i did. And finally after a long time waiting the results were finally handed to me.

I have a small deutan deficiency with a threshold of: 2.98 (r-g) and 1.35 (y-b)

With the letter came my updated medical certificate with no restrictions or limitations on it.

All the best guys if your depending on CAD results to further your careers

[belowradar]

Dombeaumont

Looks like you hold the honour of first to pass CAD

cONGRATULATIONS !

I feel that this is a positive step in the right direction for CVD pilots at long last

Suggest others schedule their tests ASAP and best of luck to you all:ok:

[Ponte]

I would like to remark what Dr. Arthut Pape posted. He was very useful and has lot of experience in Australia and colorvision tests.
We should create a color defective pilot list and gather against currency regulations; all of us who has this color problems know for sure that we can safely flight every airplane at day or night, even better than most of pilots do.
I can't understand how different are the standars in each country; flying an airplane is the same anywhere. ICAO should work HARDER on this.
US allow pilots to take a signal light test at the airports... I would like to know how many pilots use this lights nowadays, many of them don't even remember what colors mean. This signal lights where used in the beginning of aviation where airplanes don't have radios. It can't never be used in IFR conditions and i can assure you that pilots approaching an airport can't even see this tiny lights from the tower.
Keep posting and disscussing this topic; if we stop, the world aviation will lose millions of incredible and passionate pilots. Danielm:

that was exactly my intention when creating deleted link to other forum.......again A cvd database of knowledge exchange, defect pilots flying and career oportunities. Also I would love to hate people from CASA, FAA and EASA help me out filling the info missing regarding current color vision standards for each place.

please take a look at the site and share it with everyone you can.

[Ponte]

That's good news.

Does anyone know if we could perform these tests in Europe?
Except for the farnsworth and ishihara.

[danielm]

How is this new CAD test performed? What are we supposed to do? How can they prove the deficiency?
Best regards to all,
Daniel.

[belowradar]

During the CAD test you follow a pattern of colours as they move from the middle to a corner of a box area, You click a button to denote which corner.

You may well not see all of the colours but don't be concerned this is to be expected. Just click a "guess" to move to the next light test. The program will work out what you are getting wrong based on incorrect guesses and will focus on that deficient area to identify degree of colour deficiency.

[kherranz]

Hi everybody!! I´m an spanish CVD pilot with a JAA class 2 medical restricted. I would like to book an apointment in Gatwick to take the CAD test and try it. Anybody knows the way to do it?, the telephone number, they admited non british citizen? And if I´ll pass and get class 1 unrestricted is validated in all JAA members??
Thanks a lot. You can send me a PM....thanks again

[Arthur Pape]

I apologize from the start for this long posting. I have been watching the traffic on the new CAD test, both on this thread and on the CAA UK website where the origininal documents are readily available. Here is the problem with CAD: it is yet another colour vision test, nothing more and nothing less. It has no resemblance or relevance to any of the complex psycho-motor tasks that pilots perform in the "safe performance of their duties". IT IS A RED HERRING. We have pilots in Australia, the USA and in the rest of the world who would not pass the CAD (because they are dichromats- the most severe of colour defectives) and yet they are in command of Airbuses, Boeings, Embraers, Pilatus, Metros, DASH 8's and so forth. They undergo exactly the same demanding and thorough ongoing assessments in check flights and simulator sessions as their colour normal peers, and they perform no differently, let alone, less safely. The entire colour perception standard issue has been a massive con since its inception ninety years ago.

While I am pleased for those who have already passed the CAD, and therefore have no further barriers to their aviation career aspirations, it is still a total irrelevance to the fundamental debate about the ICAO colour perception standard.

On another issue, I am amazed at how few people appear to be subscribed to this thread. If we start from the sure knowledge that between 8-10% of males are colour defective, there have to be nearly a million in Australia alone, let alone several million in the UK, and again in the USA and many more millions in Europe. That's not taking into account the other continents. If only a tiny one percent of the CVD population wish to engage in an aviation career, there have to be many many hundreds of thousands who are being denied any participation in professional aviation on the basis of colour perception defects. Where are they all? Why isn't this group of human beings who are being discriminated against so shabbily up in arms and beating down the doors of their parliaments and the courts for justice. I don't get it!

Perhaps it is because they don't "look" colour defective, so the discrimination can be effected silently, popping off one at a time, with not a whimper. We are not "organized" except in the most rudimentary of ways, such as this PPRune thread. We have no organization that we can belong to, and through it, exert real influence. And therein lies our fundamental weakness. On the other hand, the Aviaiton Authorities from all over the world regularly get together to pat each other on the back, and to concoct ever more restrictive policies. Take for example the JAA efforts in recent years. How did it ever happen that perfect colour vision came to be written into their regulations? Where were we, and what did anyone do to stop it? I just don't get it. We will never ever succeed in the removal of the colour perception standard while we continue to be such a disorganized bunch. That's not to be critical of anyone, its just that we have never organized ourselves into an effective group.

The reason we had significant success in Australia 20 years ago was because we had a dedicated and generous group of CVD pilots who stood up for themselves, and took the matter to the courts for independent adjudication. We WON because we acted on our beliefs that we are as safe as pilots as those with normal colour vision. We won, because the fundamental logic that underpins the ICAO standard is flawed, and any thinking person can see that when it is demonstrated properly. This process can be replicated in other countries, but it takes dedication and a lot of work (and money).

So, what I am asking is this: where are the activists who can organize a huge group, get the lawyers to start work on serious legal action, talk to the politicians and start to be heard. If we wait for the CAA's and the FAA's to sort it out for us, we will wait into eternity: it's never going to happen.

I've seen some early effort to create a cvdpilot website, a very worthwhile project. "Ponte" deserves support in his effort and I encourage everyone to get behind this and to make it work. There must be thousands out there who can contibute to the IT technology to make this a reality. There must be thousands too who have access to knowledge about their legal systems in their own countries so that avenues of appeal can be opened. Don't forget, the lawyers, the politicians, the doctors, the judges are also CVD at the rate of 8-10%.

Finally, let me suggest that a worldwide and well run Association of CVD Pilots could do great work towards the removal of the discrimination that IS the ICAO colour perception standard. Let me respectfully suggest we stop talking about how we are going to be "executed" (eg by CAD), and start planning how to win the battle.

I appreciate the need of many to remain anonymous, but in the end it serves no good purpose. If we want to be effective, we need to "meet" properly, either face to face, but letter or in cyberspace. We need to know each other, to commence the enormous task that lie ahead if we are going to win. We need to affiliate (which means to become brothers). It's impossible to do that behind pseudonyms. I welcome emails to my private email address.

Have a lovely day!!

Cheers,

Arthur Pape

[belowradar]

Arthur,

Good post and I heartily agree with what you are saying. From my own experience the two main barriers have been

1 - Cost of legal action (minimum of tens of thousands of pounds)

2 - Lack of political will (individuals care but society doesn't care about this issue) however I take your point that we (cvd) make up society so we need to work together in larger groups.


The CAD test worked for me but it is just another test to tell us what we already know.

I think that your information on professional career airline pilots who are safely flying will carry a lot of weight and can prove that the legislation is unnecessary.

From my own perspective I have been denied a career for 14 years as I was deemed colour unsafe and now the new CAD test officially confirms that I am indeed colour safe so I am thinking that for 14 years the authorities got it wrong and I must be anle to claim compensation for being denied the right to work as a professional pilot. Now if any legal CVD pilots out there can assist me with pursuing that avenue I would be most grateful. Perhaps that would provide a "trigger" for wider challenging andf possible discrediting of the current restrictions (please PM if you are a UK lawyer and think you can help).

I have posted you my details and I hope that other pilots will send you their details as well !

[niallp]

hey guys,
just wondering does anyone know anything about the cvd requirements for hong kong? Cathay Pacific have a cadet pilot scheme which sounds inviting but i've no idea about the regulations in Asia. Would it be similar to europe or would they have practical testing like FAA or CASA? I had a good search around the net but couldn't find much. If anyone knows anything could they let me know. Thanks again,
Niall

[Need money]

BBC NEWS | Health | 'Gene cure' for colour blindness (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8255112.stm)

[danielm]

Excellent post Arthur Pape.
We should all register in removed link to other forum; it's the easiest way to create a big database. We will be in contact for news, questions, and everything related with this particular issue.
If we need something it should be all the information in that page and we could share our experience.
Such as Dr. Pape said, CAD and all test are just color vision test. We know that we are colorblindness! We don't need a test to prove that! But what we all know (and that's why we keep fighting) is that we can safely fly an airplane!
The FAA said that if you are able to see the signal lights from the tower you're color safe.
This is a complete lose of responsibility from them. That lights are not used anymore, it's almost impossible for a pilot approaching to a huge airport to see that tiny lights. You even need a perfect meteorological condition to see them!!!
I'm tired of this. But keep fighting; keep it alive; we will succeed because we know we can fly safely.
Daniel.

[VTA]

Quick Q...I'm going to do the Farnsworth Lantern test next.... I passed it many years ago and have to do it again now....

Can someone tell me... Are the 3 colors (red, green, white) all the same shade and brightness, I can't remember...

Cheers,

VTA

[VTA]

I am applying for a license in a different country and even though I passed the Lantern test 20 years ago in to fly in the Brit military, I failed the Ishira plate test in this new country and they won't accept the previous test from the UK :(

[TelBoy]

The BBC report that need money posted is "interesting" but I feel that a cure for CVD is not needed and a waste of time.

My own colour vision is perhaps worse than some on this forum, but I live in a world of colour and it does not hamper me in any tasks in life (except a European flight medical, and some jobs I am now to old for) so even if this was available today I would not be having it done (the CAA would not accept it for a decade or two anyhow).

What is needed is a non discriminatory approach to colour vision so that we can all get on with what we have the abilities to do.

[pinkandblue]

First of all thanks to everyone for posting such useful info here.

I took the CAD recently and passed (just). if your deficiency in a color falls within a defined range (between 4 and 7 i think) on the first test, like mine did for red green, they will re-test you on those colours a further three times, then take an average of the four readings. This can feel like something of a marathon or can be over relatively quickly, depending on how quickly you respond and how often you hit the middle button (which shows you the image again).

My advice to those about to take the test is don't rush into it, take your time and make sure you understand exactly what you're supposed to do before beginning.

Try not to press the middle button too often or the examiner will get a bit := tut tutty but you can use it now and again if you weren't concentrating and miss the direction. There isn't a penalty for pressing the black button and no defined limit but the rules state you shouldn't be using it an unreasonable amount of times. I was a bit liberal with it on my first test until I was told off and had to press it less on subsequent goes (the test takes ages otherwise).

Unfortunately couldn't get my medical on the day due to some issue with the ECG but here's hoping it will be given the all clear by the heart specialist.

Good luck to those reading this and thinking about taking the test.

[2close]

but the rules state you shouldn't be using it an unreasonable amount of times

FFS, how much more ambiguous can this test 'based on PURE SCIENCE' be?

Firstly, you CAN pass by guessing (even if you are 100% totally blind) and now we find the words 'shouldn't' and 'unreasonable' written into the instructions for use.

These are completely subjective.

How much more NON-SCIENTIFIC can this be.

This is supposed, no, CLAIMED, to be the gold standard in colour vision testing, then make it that.

[kherranz]

Please! I´m an spanish CVD pilot, and I would like 2 know where the CAD test is administrated: In the City Uni or in Gatwick...thanks!! How to make an appointment?

[Ponte]

MEDICALWEB (at) caa.co.uk

[eastern wiseguy]

As an ATCO I have just been given a new form and been told that I need to go and have my colour vision tested(as part of my yearly medical). I did this...27 YEARS ago and after a look at Isihara...and seeing many plates with more than one answer(to my eyes) I was given the lantern test. To cut a long story short I got through BUT today on doing the Isihara again I had the same difficulties as in the long past. My question is....the CAA(UK) form now states Colour Vision SAFE/UNSAFE. My optician would not tick either box as she had had no guidance at the criteria required to make that assessment.

What would be a number of missed plates which would trigger an UNSAFE reading?

(I did 16 with 2 missed.)

[Shunter]

What would be a number of missed plates which would trigger an UNSAFE reading?

(I did 16 with 2 missed.)This is one of the great farces. The Ishihara test is considered passed with 2 or less plates identified incorrectly. As far as the manufacturer of this test is concerned you passed. How the CAA deem it acceptable to skew the pass criteria of an established test is beyond all of us, but they consider you have failed if you make a single mistake. If someone were to take them to court over it I have little doubt they would have a sore arse for a very long time.

Not particularly familiar with ATCO medicals, but I presume you'll need to head off down to Gatwick and do the lantern test again. You should only ever have to retake colour tests "on indication", for example if you've had a condition which might affect your colour vision (apparently there are some). Personally I would have refused to take the test, although that's not much use in hindsight.

[Vanpilot]

Hope for the future

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6837392.ece

Maybe in a few years there won't be a colour blind thread on this forum
:ok:

[Shunter]

The point was, that you should not be retested for colour vision unless you have had a condition which would indicate it necessary. Such conditions are extremely rare and forcing a test without such indications is outside the scope of the medical.

[2close]

As an ATCO I have just been given a new form and been told that I need to go and have my colour vision tested(as part of my yearly medical). I did this...27 YEARS ago and after a look at Isihara...and seeing many plates with more than one answer(to my eyes) I was given the lantern test. To cut a long story short I got through BUT today on doing the Isihara again I had the same difficulties as in the long past. My question is....the CAA(UK) form now states Colour Vision SAFE/UNSAFE. My optician would not tick either box as she had had no guidance at the criteria required to make that assessment.

What would be a number of missed plates which would trigger an UNSAFE reading?

(I did 16 with 2 missed.)


Shunter is absolutely correct in his statements and from what I read above it seems that you are able to go to your local optometrist to have your colour vision tested but that she would not sign to say that you are COLOUR SAFE . Go back to her and refer her to the Instruction Manual tucked away in the back of the Ishihara Plate book, in particular Page No. 7 (Analysis of the Results) where it clearly states that Plates 1 - 15 are used in the test and if 13 or more plates are read normally the colour vision is regarded as normal, i.e. no more than two errors.

Do not confuse the issue by involving the CAA, if this can be avoided as they will manipulate the results to their satisfaction.

BTW, if you do lose your medical as a result of this despicable action by the CAA, please feel free to consider legal action against them. The more law suits that land on the doorstep of CAA Legal, the better.

[TelBoy]

Below is a good link to current FAA Color Vision requirements

https://aviationmedicine.com/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=31

I'm glad I have my Letter of Evidance :ok:

Below is a link to the FAA and the new CAD test. Most of it we have seen before in the CAA doc, but this gives an FAA slant

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/200911.pdf

[blusky75]

don t know about CAD..but years ago i had problem to do the ishara test..then i passed the lantern and other time they did the NAGEL too:)..the nagel consisted to match 2 box or at least tel yes,match or no,not mach..and u could invrease or decrease the tonality of the colour...at the end they told me that i was ok cz i did 4 on 4 matches?!...anyway i read on JAA rules that with nagel test 4on4 is fine...anyway like most i thinkm i didn t know to have this problem till i did ishara test..anyway with nagel i have an anomaly of 0.97 on green scale

[Rahbani330]

Hello Guys ,,

I Just need to ask if Someone know anything about the new color vision test ,, do they use it now or no ,,

My question is here , i have a UK CAA Class 1 medical and i only can pass the lantern test and i dont have any idea about the new test so KINDLY anyone know anything about the new test FEED BACK
thank you

[Shunter]

Enjoyed the FAA take on it...

1.2.3 Disability Discrimination
There are further considerations that justify the need
to establish safe, minimum requirements for color discrimination
(when appropriate) and to avoid the easier
alternative (from a regulatory viewpoint) of requiring
every applicant to have normal color vision. The recent
UK Disability Discrimination Act (2004) has, to a certain
extent, exposed weaknesses in the current standards
and procedures.No sh¡t Sherlock...

On another note; does anyone know if CAD scores recorded during the development study have been retained by the CAA? Would be curious to know what mine was.

[Ponte]

That said,

anyone willing to take some action, please pm me or email me at: email (at) pedroponte.com

[2close]

Shunter,

From what I can understand the AVRC at City University has retained the test results and will disclose them to you if requested.

I'm not sure they have released them to the CAA as to do so would be treading on very thin ice vis-a-vis data protection and medical confidentiality (not that that has ever bothered certain Departments who, as we all know, don't walk on water but hover above it, or so they believe!).

;)

[TelBoy]

I got my CAD results from the CAA (taken at Aviation House) by a Subject Access Request. I compared with the graph City Uni had given me when I did it with them. The two are similar, but not exact.

The CAA graph had numeric units at the bottom, City did not. I sent copies to City and asked if they could give me numeric results, they came back much the same - still way out of a pass.

I would like to be able to take the CAD at somewhere else that is say a little more impartial - just out of interest. I guess I will be able to do that in a lot of the world soon!

[RatboyFlyer]

Rahbani, the test is now in use with the CAA if that's what you are hoping to go for. It consists of a computer screen with a small black square in the middle about 5x5mm in size. A block of one colour will move from one corner to the other and you have to tell the examiner which direction the block went in to prove you can see the colour. To do this you are given a wireless handheld device with 4 buttons on. These buttons point to each corner.
Someone before mentioned that there is a button in the middle to show the sequence again but this is not true. If you cannot see the colour then just guess, there is a one in four chance you will get it right. The test even sometimes shows no colour at all but this is not an issue.

I failed previous CAA tests but passed my FAA Farnsworth Lantern and luckily just lately passed this CAA CAD test so now I have my unrestricted CAA Class 1 Medical.

Please let me know if you want any more help or information on this. Good luck.

[Ponte]

RatboyFlyer ,

can you provide your SN value? what kind of cvd do you have?

Best regards

[biggles7374]

Anyone know how to determine a SNU value (CAD units) from a set of results?

[Tony1961]

I hold an FAA Class1 medical with no restrictions. Passed the Farnsworth lantern test.
It used to be, for conversion purposes, that you would be tested at Gatwick as a renewal and that did not include a colour vision test. They changed this about 2005/2006.

My question's are:

1. Has anyone attended another JAA state to convert their FAA Class 1 to a JAA Class 1 and not been colour tested? If so which state, AME and how long ago?
2. Has anyone attended Gatwick recently and had their Class1 conversion conducted as a renewal and issued? Without a colour vision test.
3. Has anyone been invited back to Gatwick recently because they were marginal to sit the new City Uni test. If so, how did you get on?

Thanks

[Captain Whistlingoat]

Hi guys,

Well, I've been living on grandfather rights on my class 2 and with a restricted class 1 for ten years. Anyway, took the CAD today and was convinced I'd stuffed it up but, with 4.33, I passed!

The bloke in the Aeromed centre (called mark) at the CAA was really super and set me at my ease, which is more than could be said for back in 1999 when I flunked the Holmes-Wright.

The test has changed a little from the prototype at City Uni (no chin rest and letterbox to look through) and you have to sit 1.4m (+/- .4m) from the monitor (hooked up to a lappy) on a comfy chair.

I'm going to write to the CAA and City to thank them for the time and money they've invested in this project as I can now, finally, realise my dream!

If you're like me and 'slight' (in my case 9/15 ishiharas incorrect!) in your CVD, then do splash the £120 and see if you can get through.

All the very best
CW

[TelBoy]

Windforce

I have sat the CAD at City and the CAA.

My results at City did NOT have a numeric value. I got my results from the CAA by doing a Subject Access Request. They requested a numeric value from Citi Uni!!

I then sent the graph I got from my City test to City Uni to ask for a numeric result and surprise surprise they come back very similar > 15 SNU so FAIL!!

Considering all I will be happy to take the test at an independent venue when available!!

[spanishcvd]

Hi all, I heve a CPL and I have flown almost 3000 hrs including night, IR as FI and mayor airline. When I did my initial medical check I only had to read 5 o 6 plates, probably the nurse was tired and I passed. I had no notice about my problem and in the renewals usually I didnt have to do the Ishihara. But now I know that I can´t see all the plates, I fail some of them. So, in the first place, with my experience, I now that I can fly safely, when probably I could have been rejected in my first medical. And probably most of you can do it!. The rule is stupid.

Now my questions:
1-The CAD will be accepted or adopted by EASA?
2-The color test is not required in the new EASA anual check, is it required in the JAR-FCL in force now?
3-Does anyone know where they don´t do the color test in the annual check in Spain?

Thank you

[bmw-rated]

Hi!

What I wanted to ask is the following

Is there any Southern American or African state that will give you an unrestricted Class 1 Medical (or something equivalent to it) with CVD and
an anomally quotient of 2,8 (Nagel Anomaloscope? Is there any state in the world that will? Maybe something like a SODA in Australia ?

I failed the Ishiara and the Anomaloscope (=AQ 2,8),
what chances do I have to pass the CAD with this AQ?
Are there any studies about this?

regards,
answeres are very much appreciated

[Scottish.CPL]

right, i went to gatwich a few weeks ago and did the cad test. This is wat happens..

The cad test is presented via a normal tv screen with a laptop connected to it. you sit about a metre away from the tv, its in the same room as the audiometric or sound booth is, the room is dimmed.

you are given a remote control, looks like a texas style calculator ( obviosly not a calculator lol) you have buttons which are on the top right, left, bottom right and left, u get the picture, there is a middle button but does nothing.

next, you need to do a learning test... the examiner advises that the test shows a coloured box, and the background is grey dymainc static, ie flickering boxes, faster than the one on city university website, similar but not the same... this is to give u an idea of the test.....

the learning test is needed cause you need to understnad the test process, your advised to stare in the middle of the screen and when you hear a bleep sound you press the corner the box hits remember you got the bottons, after you do this and the examiner is convinced you can do it properly then the actual test takes 15 min.

the test itself i failed got 7.44 for r/g, and 1.34 for blue/yellow, what you dont know is that they can retest you if you fall within a certain numerical, ie boarderline value.

to be honest the test itself was difficult, i pressed the botton the wrong way a few times and knew the mistakes were cause i went to fast on the buttons...

i am at a stage were commercial aviation seems less interesting and more stressfull as a job and might concider a restest cause i think if i was to slow down next time and you do feel abit anxcios as well, and jumpy, would do better cause only 1.44 over pass for green weakness

i hold a jaa and faa medical, need to do ishihara for faa medical and i can read 13 plates and somethimes more, , , im goin to apply for a nppl, and return to the real world and live my life................. i do hold an faa CPL/IR and 300 with the idea of conversion, but things in life change and you need to get over it.... im still happy...

[Ponte]

I just talked to an Dutch pilot and he said that tower lights aren't used...
They just use radio...

Just wanted to share this with you, altought most of you should already know this.. :)

The main questions are to know what are we exactly beying tested for. Are those the same critical tests that pilot's don't use?

[Gonzalo Coll]

Hello!

I would like to know if are any country where daltonism people, could study and work as a Comercial Pilot(ATPL).

Thanks!

[Flintstone]

Hi Gonzalo.

This has been discussed before on PPRuNe but the search function isn't the greatest. Use Google or similar and search 'Colour Blindness PPRuNe'. That should turn you up a few threads to read.

[2close]

Ponte,

You are being tested in order to justify the jobs of a very small handful of people and to warrant the commercial marketing and sale of a product being sold by a private company, the research and development for which has been funded with public money.

Do not be fooled into thinking your testing has anything to do with aviation safety.

And at £ 4,200 (or whatever it is exactly) a pop, there is the reason your CVD test now costs £ 120. The CAA has given AMEs a benchmark for charging, which will be used as leverage to promote the sale of the product - ONLY 35 Tests and you then make a profit....next it'll be "Buy One Get One Free, I said Buy One Get One Free!!!" Not forgetting of course that it they mandate it's use within legislation then AME's will HAVE to buy one or not be able to carry out their testing.

With no other product available on the market, this is undoubtedly a monopoly with potentially alleged forced sales tactics through legislative leverage, or what!!!!

Am I the only one who thinks that this is all about making money and stinks of cronyism and corruption?

I'm sure that if this was any other industry the Government Watchdogs and possibly even the SFO would be looking very closely into what has occurred here.

Rant over! Soapbox away!

[rwhartop]

Not sure why he advised against it but he said that we're still in the early stages of the treatment and don't know the long term affects (of the UV light). I'm actually going to have it anyway, going on Thursday. They are currently doing trail's on the NHS as we speak.

[2close]

Then maybe it's time for a co-operative formal request to an independent authority higher than that responsible for this farce, for a proper investigation and appropriate action where required.

Is anyone else prepared to support such a request because I am prepared to take it to the highest authority possible, provided that I have the support of others with similar concerns?

[TelBoy]

I'm in - very happy to be by your side 2close.

Time for bull s**t out and practical common sense in that has no "hidden agenda"

[niallp]

ye i'm in too. Lets actually do something about it and challenge the people who are making up the rules as they go. Chatting about it on this thread will never change anything.

[Bealzebub]

Great idea! Some of you were pumping out this line over three years ago! (http://www.pprune.org/2652436-post21.html)
Things have changed and some would argue for the better. In a few cases you can substitute the words red and green for wood and trees and then return to this thread in Summer 2013 and the same line will still be trotted out.

[Aeroflop]

Good for you. I think the Doc has got some very outdated info there.

The treatment has been around for about 10 years now. It has been proven that there are no side effects from the UV light. Anyone that I know, and all doctors that I have spoken to about this treatment have given it the thumbs up and said that C3R should be a matter of course provided certain criteria are met.

Good luck. :ok:

[PPRuNeUser0161]

I would like to here from any CVD pilots flying the A320 in Australia or anywhere else. I have been offered a job on the A320 but I am not sure whether to take it. Please PM.

[South African Pilot]

Hey guys

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

I’m very close to obtaining my ppl, initially I wanted to fly for recreation only but have since considered doing a commercial licence. I’ve been told by my instructor that I have the ability to take this further and I will complete my ppl with less hours than all his other students. So here comes the snag!

As a child I had squint in my right eye that my parents had repaired at a very young age. The squint is not evident and I do not suffer from any kind of problem with it. In October I had a ophthalmologist have a look at it.

She told me that the surgeon did a superb job and could not see how it would be a problem. When this kind of operation is done at a very young age the brain adapts and compensates.

My squint only becomes obvious when my "good eye" is covered. I obtained a commercial medical but just and I worry about maintaining it.

This is my eye report:

Mr X was seen at my practise on 9 October 2009.

His uncorrected visual acuity was 6/6 in either eye. His colour vision as per Ischara chart was 14/14 in both eyes.

On looking at the anterior segment the corneas were both clear and there was no cataract present.

The posterior segment was normal with healthy retina and optic nerves.

Oculomotility test found a small 10 prism diopter esophoria which he controls well with both eyes open.


The South African CAA Requirements are:
Any manifest squint or large errors of eye muscle balance (phoria).
The acceptable limits for ocular muscle balance 12 prism dioptres for exophoria, 6 dioptres for esophoria; and 1.5 dioptre for hyperphoria measured at distance.
The magnitude of the heterophoria in itself is not conclusive because the fusional strength varies between individuals 3.22(f) are only for guidance as to when fusional strengths reserves should be assessed, the applicant should be referred to a ophthalmologist acceptable to the AMS.
So do I stand a chance?:sad:
Regards Wayne

[zondaracer]

I am wondering if anyone here had the corneal topography done at Gatwick. Is there anyone here who did the Initial Class 1 and didn't do the corneal topography? It is a machine where you look into concentric circles with a laser-type light in the middle...

Corneal topography machine: (that is not me in the picture in case you were wondering)
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/7/ba/ea3/7baea3ff-66e1-5f51-ada4-d44835d2f712.preview-300.jpg

[PPRuNeUser0161]

WQF
No concern, just an excuse for a chat.
SN

[belowradar]

Bealzebub - Yes things have moved on for some (myself included) but for others it has not. CAD is great if you manage to pass but if not it is just one more test that discrimninates.

There is no political support for individuals and the only recourse is extremely cost prohibitive legal action through the courts which also takes time.

I can tell you that since I passed a great cloud of depression has lifted from my life. Nothing else has changed apart from the fact that I am not now discriminated against by the CAA.

For those of you still stuck in an illogical and grossly unfair place I would just say don't ever give up trying to change things and work with an individual as well as a group perspective.

Best Of Luck :ok:

[bmw-rated]

Good day!

I failed the Ishihara and the Nagel (anomally quotient 2,8). I´m able to see the coloured box on the demo video from City uni most of the time (sometimes it moves to the other end of the box (for example from the right top to left bottom corner) at once and I can´t see it for about half a secound. What are my chances to pass the CAD?

Hopefully that cloud will lift for much more people in the future! I just can´t fight my optimism :)

My best wishes to everyone:ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

hi guys and girls

i have a question and want some feedback ok....

i had the cad at gatwick and failed 7.44 r/g 1.44 over the pass

i belive this was due to me going to quick and i noticed that when following the signal from the middle it would change direction so you would press the direction, mabye in my case to soon, i belive i would pass as my colour vision i think is ok, 13/15 normaly of the plates,

what are the thought please..

[StephenScholey]

Hi all,

First of all I must apologise sincerely as I am certain you guys have seen these questions a million times before.

I am hoping to begin PPL training early 2010. I am in pretty good physical health however I have one huge dark cloud hovering over me....colour vision.

I was diagnosed (rather crudely whilst as school) and have carried out some of the online vision tests with various degrees of sucess. I have no doubt however that I do suffer with a form of colour blindness.

So first of all; I have contacted the CAA and have enquired about booking a CAD test. It would appear that this is really the only sure way of knowing whether I would pass.

I am thinking of booking a class 2 medical at Multiflight Leeds (which I will need to have in order to train for the PPL) with a view to asking whether I would be likely to pass a Class 1 down in Gatwick. Is it likely that they would be able to give me a good idea? The doctor is qualified to give class 1 renewels.

I was also hoping I could print off the class 1 eyesight requiremts from the CAA website and take them to my optician and have them give me an idea as to whether I am likely to struggle down in Gatwick. I doubt they would be able to perform a colour vision test though!!


Any thoughts on this or any ideas would be really appreciated as I am so excited on getting started!!

Thanks,

Steve

[bmw-rated]

Title says everything.
Of course I know that color temperature, etc. may vary between monitors,
but I think it could be interesting anyway.

ANYONE WHO DID THE CAD PLEASE CLICK HERE
http://www.snappoll.com/poll/318772.php
Unfortunately you have to scroll down

Thanks a lot to everyone who supports this,
best regards

[2close]

Great idea! Some of you were pumping out this line over three years ago!
Things have changed and some would argue for the better. In a few cases you can substitute the words red and green for wood and trees and then return to this thread in Summer 2013 and the same line will still be trotted out.

What you also fail to appreaciate or rather do appreciate but dismiss in a very cynical fashion is that it has taken a very long time to go through legal loopholes which the CAA has made very determined efforts to stretch out as long as humanly possible - in fact, it was only my outright refusal to accept yet another of their delaying tactics that forced them into their biased, pre-determined, internal Appeal Hearing.

Additionally, individuals have limited resources with which to fight whereas the CAA would have absolutely no hesitation in spending, if necessary, millions of pounds in tax-payers money to defend legally and morally indefensible positions whislt at the same time letting the Appellant know in clear terms that should they win their case they will be claiming ALL of their costs from the Appellant. That places any Appellant in an impossible situation of knowing they stand a very high chance of winning a case but at the same time knowing they will lose everything, i.e. the literal shirt off their back, should they lose.

It is nothing short of corporate bullying, for which the CAA is renowned throughout the aviation industry.

I have been told from within the CAA that they are extremely wary of being taken to Court on this issue but without the funding required the fact is that they can laugh from the sidelines.

All that is needed is the support of someone with plenty of political clout and plenty of money to fight the cause then the smug smile can be wiped off their arrogant faces.

I'm up for taking them on in a drinking contest or in the boxing ring - winner takes all!! Anyone else in? :)

[bmw-rated]

well said :ok:

[RJ.146]

I'm asking this for a friend as he doesnt have an account:

He can see the plates and the numbers at the top of this page
Ishihara Test for Color Blindness (http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp)

but at the bottom there is one (tbh the writer cant see it aswell,)
it should be a 5 but i can sometimes see both depending on the angle

will this affect a class 1 ???


RH
PP/RJ

[redsnail]

Don't use the internet to diagnose colour blindness. The Ishihara test plates have strict lighting requirements in order to accurately assess colour blindness.

If you're borderline, it could make all the difference.

[Pat42]

As redsnail says - don't try using the internet to diagnose colour blindness. The version of the image you are looking at may have been unwittingly altered (e.g. during jpeg compression) and your computer/monitor may not be able to render the colours properly, so your eye sight may be fine but you could still struggle a little to see the image.

Looking at it myself I struggle to see the 5 (I can make it out knowing that it is there, but can't say I'd definitely be able to otherwise) - and I've been tested for colour blindess without issue twice within the last month (once by an optrician, once by occupational health at NATS) - so I wouldn't worry about it.

I'd also add that I've never in my life been presented an image like that one in an Ishihara test. The other images on that page are much more like what you should expect.

[crabland]

I have a green colour deficiency.

I did the CAD test at City Uni in April 2009 and failed, 8.82 /rg, 1.13 /yb.

A few weeks ago I did the CAD test at Gatwick. First attempt I got 6.54 /rg, which is 0.54 above being colour safe. Because I was boderline, I was required to do the test 3 more times to get an average. Unfortunately the lowest I got was 6.44 /rg.

So annoying!

[djanello]

Well, don't feel too bad about not passing the color tests at your initial medical!

It's worse when they fail you for it AFTER you spent all your money and effort in training!

My situation:
I failed the Ishihara test at my initial class 1 medical. I then was given the anomaloscope. The result was Deuteranomaly 5.25 and 2.15 for each eye. This was within limits at the time so I got the class 1.

Now I'm in Indonesia trying to get a medical validation for my first job. I fail the Ishihara test again. I've not been given any other specific colorvision test afterwards. They fail my medical. It turns out that they do not allow any form of color deficiency.

When I went for a 2nd opinion, the specialist tested me extensively including Ishihara and a lot of other tests, but no specific 2nd colorvision test. Because I did pass the medical in Europe, have a license and a rating, he tells me that I'm fit to fly.

Unfortunately, the DGCA of Indonesia did not concur and they still failed my medical.

Basically this means that I'm out of a job, on the other side of the globe, with a good amount of debt and no savings. (I've given all to get this job in the first place.)

Not getting the medical is bad, but maybe I would've been in a better position if I hadn't gotten it in the first place?

[2close]

So the discussion finally admits that different computer monitors, especially older ones, can affect the hue, saturation and contrast definition of displayed colours and should not be used for testing purposes......now, where were we on that CAD Test?????


As for Ishihara, I can see two numbers on several plates and it varies greatly with the lighting conditions as to whch is the clearer. If I am tested in daylight conditions as per the manufacturer's instructions then I see the correct stated number but if I am tested using a lamp, especially an old defunct lamp with a worn out bulb then I see the wrong number.

Interesting?

[benjamin.dordoigne]

Hi all,

I have been doing some research on the web and I can not find the answers to these three questions!

Is the CAD test available?
Where can I do a CAD Test?
How much does it cost?

I've wanted to become an airline pilot all of my life and now with the prospect of this new test I might be a bit hopeful. I read that 35% more prespective pilots would pass the test! I could be in that 35%!!

Please help,

Thanks,

Ben.:ok:

[gijoe]

Benjamin,

You can do the CAD test at CAA house for the bargain sum of £120.

It is a professionally run test and you will have the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the setup before commencing the test.

If you score between 4 and 7 on either of the axes (read more about these in other posts) you will then be given the chance over 3 runs of the test to obtain an average that is lower than 6 - this is the pass mark.

I have been involved in the research process since day 1 and have sat the CAD many times. I found the testing at CAA house the most unpleasant of these experiences for reasons that I am not quite sure.

If you pass you will be given a UK issued Class 1 medical - I await more informed opinion as to what the rest of JAA and EASA think about this.

G:ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

hi,

Just saw the post, I will be to the point on... it does not matter is you pass or fail the Ishihara test... it does not matter if you pass or fail the Lantern tests... cause these tests do not prove anything.....

the cad test is another test that you can quite easliy pass and fail as well, and no one can tell you if you will be in the 35% that pass. You could pass the test, as much as you could fail it.

seriously the whole colour vision thing is allot of ****... we can see primary red.green.white, colour used at night in aviation, the tests do not factor this, ishihara is shades of colour, we dont have runways that have a shades of red or green, pure colour dont we.. the cad test does not prove anything as not practicle.

Aviation is not a very pleasent place at the moment...

the rulemakers are not thinking practicle and never will...

[kaptene]

hi
I have a KC, I had an FAA class I without any issue. Now normally the applicants with kC can have an assesment if the visual requierements are met, and a regular follow up is needed. If you just have been diagnosted with KC, make sure to do a regular check, and if it's progressing try to use lenses or whatever to stop it, because when it begins to develop, it's very quick (I passed from 10/10 to 6/10 in 2 years only, or less)
Good luck

[benjamin.dordoigne]

Where is this online demo?

Can somebody post the link please?

[benjamin.dordoigne]

Hi,

Just found it: http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/avrc/colourtest.mpg

If you have done the actual test please could you give me a brief description about what happened on the day? How were the test conditions ect.

Many thanks,

Ben.

[TelBoy]

I have done the CAD at both Citi Uni and the CAA, and be prepared for a less than pleasant experience.

The test will take between 12 and 15 minuets. You sit with your chin on a rest staring at the center of a CRT with a box in your hand that has 4 buttons. Top Left, Top Right, Bottom Left, Bottom Right, you have to press the button to the corner where you think the box is going. The test is taken in subdued lighting conditions.

I personally left the test with my eyes streaming and feeling totally drained. Just try playing that demo for 15 minuets with your head held in a single position, the lights off and the pressure of the rest of your life depending on your results!!

Myself I failed, but there I have failed all the CAA tests and the anomalascope at Citi. In fact the only test I have passed is the PRACTICAL FAA Tower Signal Test and I have my LOE and an unrestricted FAA medical. Great because I am a UK citizen with no right to work in the US.

The CAD is just another useless piece of junk that continues the academic wet dream of the CAA - and gives them a lot of brownie points along the way, and perhaps riches as well!! - ohhhh did I say that.

All the best with the test - I hope you DO pass. Just do what you can before to go in feeling your best, and on top of the world. If you are doing it as part of your C1 then ask to have the CAD as your first test, if you have it later the other tests will have worn you down a bit.

Hope this helps.

[TelBoy]

Just to add - try looking at the demo through a RED filter - also ishihara. Just see for yourself.

[Ponte]

what do you say we do something about this?
I already tried in the past and gathered a group of people.. But we need to do some action. It depends on us and we have the aid of globalization, knowing what's happening in Australia and in the USA.

PM me whoever is interested in trying to change their unfair fortune...

[bearbear8888]

I need help.. CX asked me to do a further color vision test)Farnsworth lantern) before my FG but i failed ...... I know theres a singal light test which I need to see the actual signal lights in an airport from a tower....... any current CX pilots have actually done this test ? I am very frustrated now...I wannna do this test since this is my last hope....i need advice...appreciate if any help is given..thanks

[ab33t]

How did you get a medical in the first place ?

[bearbear8888]

i failed the lantern test in medical and the dr. said I needed to do a further color vision assessment b4 I can get the offer....Now they even asked me to do it b4 Fg.....

ab33t do u happen to know any current pilots who hv the same problem ?

[ab33t]

Its a very grey area , I cannot get a JAA 1st class but have been flying commercial in the EU for many years now with the same problem you have. I had to do the tower lantern test in the USA to get a clearance . If you are in the UK you can take a trip doewn to Gatwick they have two different types of lanterns give that a shot, I could not pass either one of them . All the best to you , I hope it works out. Check the forums here this topic has been on the web for ages

[bearbear8888]

well yeah actually i checked those threads alrdy....but CX is a HK based company...i dunno if they accept the signal light gun test or not so i am pretty anxious abt it... anyway...i dun think i will be able to pass any lantern test coz i really am having hard times distinguishing those tiny green and white light spots.... sooo all i want to know is does CX approve it and if so, how can i arrange it in HK....

I called CX medical and the dr. said I needed to send the report to her first to assess if I can do another test (probably signal light test)... I dun want to send it until i really have no other alternatives....:(

[flybywire380]

ab33t -
may I ask how you are able to fly in the EU commercially without an unrestricted JAA Class 1 medical?

Cheers,
fbw380

[Warren24]

Hi guys, I made an account just for this thread. I'm 19 and I to have "the dreaded K". I really hope there's someone here that can help me or at least give me some helpful advice.

I've been fitted with gas permeable lenses which work ok for my right eye (20/25) but my left eye is still in the 20/40 range. My regular eye doctor understands that a Class 1 FAA medical requires at least 20/20 corrected vision so she suggested I see a cornea specialist about intacs. I was assured that the procedure would be covered by my insurance (NJ medicare) as it was something i really needed.

Well when I saw to the cornea specialist today I explained the whole situation...
And they literally laughed at me. They said there was absolutely no way my insurance would cover it, that intacs are only for people with the "big bucks".
I have never been so mad and crushed at the same time in my entire life. I am hell bent on being a pilot and I'm set to start flight school this summer, but the school wants a Second Class medical before i start... and I know I wont meet the 20/20 requirement without this procedure.

My regular eye doctor says i am a good canidate for the procedure and I have a good chance of getting 20/20 uncorrected vision in both eyes after the procedure.
So if anyone has any advice, or knows of a Docter or Organization in the NJ area that can help me get this procedure PLEASE let me know.

[PeteW]

Sorry if I'm being dumb...but are the CAA now accepting the results of the City University computerised test?

I currently have a "daylight restriction" having failed the Isihara and H-W lantern (part of a set of tests at City Uni a few years ago that showed that I have a "mild" red-green deficiency). On the evidence of the previous City Uni results I would probably pass the CAD test.

On a separate track: I currently hold an IMCr but cannot do a JAA IR since the entry requirement is a night rating. If I get a piggyback FAA licence (daylight restricted as per the JAA licence) can I do the FAA IR or does that too stipulate the need for the night privilege (no such thing as an FAA night rating?).

[Shunter]

I cannot get a JAA 1st class but have been flying commercial in the EU for many years now with the same problem you have
Not sure you'd call 1 year "many".

may I ask how you are able to fly in the EU commercially without an unrestricted JAA Class 1 medical?
The answer is simple; don't fly a JAA-registered aircraft. One can fly around quite happily in an N-registered aircraft on an FAA license with FAA medical. That's what most of the bizjet operators do. I believe the Isle of Man also validate any ICAO-compliant license, so M-registered aircraft might well be maintained under EASA but can be flown with FAA licenses.

[Ponte]

Hi windforce.

I've sat there last week. I've been previpoully at citi uni. I'm also a mid deutan.

Please share your outcome and I wish you good luck..

[tarmac-]

Have a close mate who is slightly colour blind apparently , can see approx 80% of the ishiharas from memory. He brought the isihara book , memorised it , passed the test. Good for now I guess but getting caught out would prove a huge waste of money unless colour blindness is tested only once if you keep going to the same optometrist?

[Ponte]

Does anyone know if we can make cvd tests in europe to apply for a faa licence in order to save some bucks on the trip there?

Can we do the tower test here on behalf of an faa licence?

[Bill Smith]

You guys this isn't about passing a test. You have already been offered help by the wonderful man who changed the CV standard in Australia.
Get organised and take the standards to task.
The most detailed scientific study ever conducted got the standard changed in Australia.
At least add your names to Dr Pape's database by replying to him :ugh:

[Ponte]

I already started a group to try to accoumplish this.
For those who know my effort I would like to see more will because it was made possible in the past and we can do it again.
For those who don't know it, private message me..
I leave my email: email at pedroponte.com

I want to take this to the press to gather more people. I'm writing an article for the portuguese press and I want to spread it worldwide but I need help on this..

Also, I would love to put my hands on the study presented on Australian courts so that we could have a base where to start..!

Let's try together shall we?

[PeteW]

Interesting to see the Dr Pape case in Australia and the success.

For those interested in pushing this in Europe the Association Colours in Cockpit, ACC, looks worth investigating and supporting.


In the meantime I'm off to set up some night flying to get the rating (even if it will be daylight only) and will then head off to Gatwick to do the CAD.

Thanks to everyone for the help.

[PeteW]

What a lot of CVDs do is a night qualification with an instructor for the dual phase and with a FE (OR FI) for the solo phase (5 landings). In few words you still have completed the night qual syllabus but you can't exercise the previleges of it.

Do you know any particular flight training schools who will do this?

My local one is concerned about the validity of "solo" whilst there is an FE/FI sitting beside you. They do not think the CAA would accept this. I know the CAA have been clarifying a number of training issues recently and hope that this avenue does not get cut off, or even actually exists. :ugh:

[PeteW]

Thanks windforce.

Can I ask where you did it? Please feel free to send a private message if you don't want to say publicly.

[Ponte]

The only thing I didn't appreciate with Association Colours in Cockpit, ACC is that you need to pay to be a member.
I tryed to contact them but I received no feedback.
I contacted them in order to make something bigger....

If someone has a better luck, give me a call..

[Warren24]

Congratulations man, it's nice to here a success story. Sounds like you got a good doctor to. Makes me wish I lived in Australia :ok:

[Tmbstory]

2close::

Is Lembit Opik MP for Montgomeryshire a member of PPrune ?

I have also sent this as a PM to you.

Kind regards

Tmb

[Monty1977]

Hi guys,

As many of you here, i have also problems with my color vision. However, got a JAA PPL(A) with restriction VFR only. (i have a class 2, with day flight only on it)

Question now is, is it possible to get a CPL(A) with restriction VFR only? Is it possible to get a class 1 medical with restriction VFR only?

What about the night-rating qualification which has to be obtained for a CPL?

Thanks!

[Ponte]

Any issues, please talk...

best regards and good luck

[TelBoy]

Monty, I think the UK CAA are the only authority that issue restricted class 1 medicals. The medical states for day only and no public transport. You can get an IR so not limited to VFR.

The night is done dual - many have done it, read back through this thread.

However no public transport really limits you to instructing.

Also who knows what the future brings with EASA??? if anyone knows more, please let us know.

Hope this helps.

[bearbear8888]

Hello everyone, I am a pilot wanna-be resided in Hong Kong and I want to apply for the signal light test and medical flight check in the U.S. to continue my Cadet Pilot Programme application.

However, the doctor in CX told me I need to be a FAA flying license applicant to apply for the test. As I have learnt from FAA web, I am not required any previous flying experience to take the FAA medical examination AND taking the SLT and MFT needs an authorization letter after taking the FAA medical.

Does anyone know wht does the doctor in CX mean? Is he telling the truth ? Can people in different country apply for the SLT and MFT?

Thanks.

Mike

[TelBoy]

bearbear,

You need an FAA medical that has colour vision restriction on it to apply for the SLT. I applied for mine from the UK, but had to take it in the US - and passed:). The FAA give you a letter of authorisation to take the test. My FTO was very helpful with this (Professional Flight Training in Fort Lauderdale, FL) It was many years ago now (1994) and I think PFT have moved, so don't know if they are the same people.

If you can find a FAA medical examiner that has the Farnsworth Lantern, it might be worth trying that first, as you can fail that as many times as you like without any comeback. You only get two chances at the SLT and then you will have the colour vision restriction permanently.

Hope this helps and all the best.

[Ponte]

I have one Farnsworth lantern in Portugal if someone wants to give it a try.

cheers

[bearbear8888]

Telboy,

Thank you very much for your reply, FAA requires class 1 medical applicant to do more than a SLT now because of the Fedex accident....I need to take the MFT as well so i probably have to rent a plane and a pilot to do the test.... its going to cost me a lot :(

anyway i am gonna take a faa medical exam with a local AME in Hong Kong first....

so does anyone know how can a person with no flying experience to do the MFT?

[Scottish.CPL]

This a general query that anyone can reply to ok, can anyone brief me on the location of the spectrolux lantern and if anyone has done this test to share their experiences..

many thanks to all

ryan.

[TelBoy]

bearbear,

When I took the SLT it was much the same as today.

You do the SLT and then get an unrestricted class 3 medical (for PPL) this allows you to do your PPL and get flying experience without limitation. For class 1 or 2 medicals you need the MFT.

It has changed a bit over the years. I first got SODA for class 2 and 3, so I could have gone for CPL, but would have needed the MFT for class 1. They then changed regulation so that the SLT was ALL that was needed for ANY class medical, so the FAA gave me a Letter of Evidence for ALL classes of medical. They seem to have reverted back to the old system.

Remember the UK CAA have had talks with the FAA to integrate the CAD test, so god knows what the future brings.

Scottish CPL,

You ask about the Spectrolux. It is two colours above each other. Red, White and Green, a bit like the HW. I think it is easier than the HW as the dots of colour are a bit bigger. There are 12 sets and two shades of each colour ie R and r W and w and G and g (the way they represent the results). They run through the 12 sets twice, so you see 24 sets of colours the last 12 being in the same order as the first 12. Any mistakes and you fail.

I do not know if the UK CAA will now accept the Spectrolux results as they have their new CAD toy - does anyone have a definitive answer on this??

[bearbear8888]

Telboy,

Would you mind telling me where did u learn MFT is longer needed ? As far as I know from a faa flight surgeon very recently, its stll on the list if u wanna get a class 1.

[TelBoy]

Sorry bearbear for the confusion. When I took my SLT the MFT was needed for class 1. Then the FAA changed rules and accepted the SLT for ALL classes of medical - and gave me a letter of evidence for ALL classes of medical:ok: since then they seemed to have reverted to the "old" system requiring a MFT. Details at FAA website Guide for Aviation Medical ExaminersDecision Considerations (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item52/amd/)

Hope this clears it up. I seem to be the lucky one getting my LOE

[bearbear8888]

I think their old practice should be SLT only because they just introduced the MFT in 2008 after the Fedex incident... maybe somewhere between 2008 and today they had it removed for a while... haha anyway thanks a lot for clarifying

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Windforce
Sorry to hear you failed the cad. I would love to have a go to see what its like but at half way round the world its just too far. I recommend you get yourself out to oz and get your career started. The whole thing is backwards!
SN

Edit: You know its warm out here and that makes you see clor better you know!!!!

[Blinkz]

Can you not transfer your JAA Class 1 medical to the UK? I thought that was possible?

[Blinkz]

Did the UK give a decent reason for not accepting a full mutual recognition states Class 1? You'd probably have grounds to appeal, especially when EASA comes in since it will be based in law then and everyone will be the same standard.

[tresholdman]

hello everyone

first i'm sorry if my english writing is not perfect, i'm in the same case "color blind" but student PPL whit a medical class 2 vfr restriction by day only"
i discover all the discusion about our vision color problem to succed for a class 1
I'm from belgium and i have fail the ishi hara test.
After complementary test (lantern, anomalscop, etc) they were no possibilities to reach my goal after the decision of the doctor.
But i fly sinds a few month and i see the different colors of the airfield when the night fall. i begin to believe that i can succed for class 1

i read your differents post about this subject sinds two days and like a lot of pilot in my case, i have questions

i have read the text about the different exams at the CAA gatwick

they talk about a test
A new web-based colour vision test (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/colourtest.html)

if i succed this test is this enough for class 1, is this ok for europe ?

a have read a lot of article about the deficience color vision for pilot and really i dont know how to do if i want one day became a professional pilot

i wish all my best to all of you and i thank you for your different advice and answer

best regards

[bmather9]

Military Color Vision Regs will change, its just a matter of time: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Look at Old Standards | Military Medicine | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_201002/ai_n52372967/)

It’s hard to tell how strict they will be. There’s an online demo of the test mentioned: A new web-based colour vision test (http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/colourtest.html)

[DeltaFox]

Hi fellow members! Its unfortunate that my first post on this forum has to be regarding this disorder. :( However its a reality and it needs to be discussed. So I hope to learn from others and hopefully we can all help each other! So here's my story: I was diagnosed with KK in my right eye in 2009 at age 22. I have been using glasses and contact lenses since 1999 so I am very used to it. Anyway I recall first experiencing KK symptoms in 2003. It was very very mild and it only started to bother me last year (6 years later). During this time I have however obtained a Class 1 medical from the South African CAA and qualified as a CPL. Now after my first diagnosis I was told to come for a check up 6 months later (which was March 2010). I have been told that I only have KK possible in my left eye and KK level 1 in my right eye. The disorder has also taken very long to progress so I think I am quite fortunate that it isn't that bad at this stage. An opthamologist has recommended that I receive crosslinking, which is where they remove the epithilium, insert the riboflavin droplets and use the UV light for 30 minutes. He has even told me that LASIK might be a possible option at a later stage if everything has stabilised.

So my question is, what advice can you give me. Should I have this done or should I rather wait? I have been told that I would be able to fly again after just 1 week although it has been said that my sight in the affected eye might be a bit hazy for a while. ANY HELP/ADVICE WOULD BE EXTREMELT APPRECIATED!!! :ok:

[batty11]

Hello everybody

First order of business, thank you to everybody who has contributed on this thread - reading it has given me a lot of insight into CVD - something I was recently diagnosed with.

i have mild deuteranomaly and was surprised to discover this at an employment related medical as I had never really noticed any real colour issues growing up or in any aspect of my day to day life. I am currently learning to fly and have attended the Class 1 aviation medical and am awaiting the official paperwork. Each respective specialist has stated that I've achieved their satisfactory grade.

I passed the Farnsworth test - sweating, one more error would have resulted in a fail grade. I was told that my colour vision deficiency is genetic and unlikely to change. I was also told that my CVD is very minor and that as such it is of no practical significance. I have a few questions though in relation to possible implications of CVD in airline recruitment and medical renewals that I hope somebody in 'the know' might be able to help with:

1. How often will I need to sit the Farnsworth (or other CV tests) to renew Class 1 medicals? (it's annoying having to pay around $100 more than everybody else who doesn't a=have CVD due to CV referrals!)

2. Has anybody here had personal experiences in approaching airlines with a CVD? Were you subject to direct or indirect discrimination during the recruitment process?

3. When I did my Farnsworth test I received two results pages - one in plain english describing the nature of my CVD and the other a more complex scientific like analysis exploring scores on a series of tests correct to two decimal places. Can these documents be used at future Class 1 renewals to avoid having to repeat the Ishihara and Farnsworth tests? (as I keep hearing that CVD is generally stable throughout one's life)

Thank you very VERY much for taking the time to read this and I wish you all the best with your flying journeys!

[TelBoy]

batty - you say one MORE error would result in falure? how many can you get wrong down under? Did you do, or get offered the Signal Light Test?

Glad you got your class 1 and sorry I cant answer your question, but look forward to the answer.

[batty11]

Hi TelBoy

Yes i passed the farnsworth so I wasnt required to do the signal light test. I think you can only make one mistake per run through of the test and i think they do about three run throughs from memory.

Thanks for your response - cheers

[KRDAVIS]

Hi Folks

Sorry if this going over old ground

I have had my PPL since 2000, it has since expired due to the fact i can no longer realise my dream due to CVD, and therefore no Class 1 unrestricted

I went to Gatwick just before the CAD came out and failed all the tests. on the Ishihara i think i only got 3-4 correct....
I have been reading through all the threads on the CAD and i'm debating wether or not to re attend Gatwick and sit the CAD
Does anybody know if they offer the D-15 Farnsworth test?
I have been checking out various sites and sitting what on line tests i can, I have tried the mock on line CAD test and for me personally i lost the coloured square on two occasions for a couple of seconds on each time.
Can anyone offer me any advice on the CAD and if anyone out there who failed the Ishihara miserably but was still successful on the CAD.

Oh and does anyone know of an online CAD that you can genuinely have a go at?

KD

[Pman]

Hey Everyone,

I thougut I would just tell you my experience of the CAD test. Well I took the test today after nearly a year had passed since I had failed the lantern test and only being given a restricted class 1 medical (I've never been so gutted in my short life).

Well today after a pretty much sleepless night, I got to the CAA house and pretty much went straight into the test. I wasn't too nervous because from what I'd seen and read on here I was feeling pretty negative and had pretty much resigned to the fact I was going to fail. What really relaxed me was the technition who was giving me the test. He seemed like a really nice guy and made me feel not nervous at all and he explaind the test to me and let me have a practice and that was that, and then it was time! The difference between the actual test and the one on the internet is (sorry if I'm going over old ground here I haven't read all of the pages in this thread) that every time the square reaches a corner the test stops until you press a button which corresponds to where you think it has gone.

The first test was really long I lost track of time but I assume it was around 15-20 minutes but it did feel long. In this test as you probably know if you score between 4-7 you have to do 3 more of these tests, but they are only on the deficiency that you have. I scored 5.3 and so for me I have a red-green defficiency and so the test was half as long focusing on red and green, even though they still felt long but the good thing is is that because you aren't on a time constraint, if you feel your eyes getting tired you can just stop and teak a break which I did a few times. From what i could tell the test finds your threshold and then gives you ones which are below, above and right on your threshold to see to what extent you are defficient (if I'm wrong please correct me but from doing the test this is how I guessed it worked).

On the final 3 tests I was fortunate enough to score 4.58, 4,03 and 4.76 which meant that I passed and can now have an unrestricted class 1 medical, which I'm pretty happy about and a bit of a contrast from the last time I was at the CAA :).

I can't even begin to imagine what you guys who haven't passed it feel like and I'm sorry your experience wasn't as good as mine.

In my opinion it was the best £120 I've ever spent and all I can say is good luck and I hope this post helps anyone who might be unsure about the test. I think it makes sense but I probably rambled a little bit, and I apologise I'm just really happy and its 2.30am when I'm writing this.

ANYWAY

Thanks

Pman

[rwhartop]

Hi again all, I posted earlier on the forum.
I have got mild k in my left eye and its starting to come in my right, I've had Cross-linking, which went very well my eye sight is better than ever. I have been told by the CAA that i will now have to wait 3years before i can continue my career in aviation. Just to make sure that it is stable. So i am going to get my other eye done and sit it out.
Regards Rich

[Blues&twos]

Hello DeltaFox! Welcome to the club.

I have heard very good reports from those who have had crosslinking, but I haven't had it done myself as I was diagnosed in 1982 with KC (before crosslinking was heard of) and had to have bilateral corneal grafts. I am very fortunate that my vision some 28 years later has remained very good, but the grafts are pretty elderly now and I may need them re-doing at some point according to my consultant. I'm really not looking forward to that, if it happens.
Quite apart from your aviation career, if I had the choice all over again I would get the crosslinking done sooner rather than later to stabilise the KC, once the cornea has deteriorated, you won't get it back to its original condition....I'm not sure there's any advantage to waiting.

Those more expert than me or who've had the procedure may have some reasons though!

[bmw-rated]

Good eve!

I recently heard about a guy, who privately did the Nagel Anomaloscope without any success. However he can perfectly identify the Ishihara plates.
He managed to work in a photo studio (they asked for a test).

Will passing the Ishihara, while knowing you wouldn´t pass the Nagel Anomaloscope qualify you for a Class 1 Medical (JAA-land)?

I personally cannot read more than 4 out of 15 :\

best regards

[realeasygoing]

1. Yes there is no way for me to pass the Ishihara test is my only option to find a AME with Farnsworth lantern (FALANT). What is the best way for me to find an AME with Farnsworth lantern (FALANT)? What about that test you do with the FAA for colorblindness. Where can I practice for that?

2. If I am colorblind that only prevents me from flying at night right? I mean I can get all the certificate/licences I want just nobody would ever higher me cause I can not fly at night.

3. If I get LASIK do I have to inform the AME? Glasses are not a big deal flying privatly anyways right?

Once again excuse me for asking questions that might have been asked already buy I have googled and googled with out result.

[bmw-rated]

Hi there !

The main problem is, that you cannot get a Class 1 medical (or even an unrestricted class 2). So you can´t get an IR, CPL, ATPL, etc.
(at least in Austria and Germany, but it´s the same in most other countries AFAIK).

Best of luck to you,
I´m in the same situation,

greetings from Austria!

[TelBoy]

As I feel that I have now taken all the colour vision tests I am ever going to, I should like to add a bit about preparing for your CV test.

To anyone with colour vision problems, such as most viewing this thread, to be thrown in at the deep end with the ishihara plates can be a bit daunting and not surprising results in failure. The CAD test is the most horrible of tortures I have ever taken and the lanterns pray on our weaknesses.

I actually have done things the wrong way around, and to my peril. I first failed all the tests (except the FAA tower Signal Test) and then bought an ishihara set and later the farnsworth flashlight. My feeling is that IF I had these before taking any colour vision tests, I would now be holding an unrestricted medical.

Cheating - NO it's not. You will still have to pass the test on the day, it is simply preparation - something that all good pilots should do before any critical action!

As I no longer have any need for the flashlight or ishihara I have put them on ebay. You can search for Farnsworth Flashlight and that will take you there.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Telboy
I agree, be prepared to the best of your ability. It will be the most important series of test you ever undertake in your career. Pilots seem to find enormous amounts of cash when they want if, a few bucks for your equipment is a walk in the park and after all, in jaa land if you don't get past this one there is no career at all.
SN

[Monty1977]

hi folks,

before visiting the caa at gatwick for an initial class 1 medical, i'm considering to first visit my local ophthalmologist for a color vision check.
should i ask for a 14, 24 or 38 plates ishihara test? which test is used in Caa Gatwick?

cheers and many thanks!

[mrg92]

Just a quick question for anybody who has failed the ishihara plates. If you fail this test do they make you do another test straight away on the day? and what is the name of it, and do they charge you for it? Any help appericated?

[Nemesis666]

Monty 1977,

Buy a copy of the Ishihara 24 Plate colur vision book and learn it. Get a few friends to test you then go to a few Opticians and get them to test you so you can prove to yourself you know it. THEN go to Gatwick.

Lots of working airline and military pilots have done this. You wont be the first.

As Telboy says, its just preparation for a test.

Good luck.

N666

[TelBoy]

mrg92

If you fail the ishihara test, ie one or more errors then you will go straight to the CAD test. It will make it quite a day to say the least!

If you feel that you have CV problems - GET SOME PRACTISE. Buy your own ishihara plates and study them just as Nemesis666 says.

You can also just ask Gatwick for a colour vision test - I think it is about £120 now and IF you pass then book your C1 and will not have to do CV tests again.

Note the IF above. The CAD test goes straight for our weaknesses and is quite a horrible experience in the process. I can tell you from my own experience that after failing the ishihara, you know your whole future rests on a 15 minuet test (less when it was the lanterns) and that puts you under immense stress. If you fail the CAD - your aviation career is OVER there and then, it is that simple. You will walk out into the car park and see the jets above you and feel as though you have just been killed.

Do what is right for you and get PRACTISING now - GET YOUR C1.

Oh and as a matter of interest to all, the CAD test is planned to expand to be used as a screening test. Basically a shortened version INSTEAD of the ishihara to stop people from doing their own research before hand so to speak. So get in quick!!!

[mrg92]

Thank you very much TelBoy for the useful information. I would like another question answered. So what you are sayin is that, if I do the ishihara test on the day and pass will I never have to do it again. Can somebody give me a personal view, on if you buy the 24 edition plate book is it easy learnt, as you become more fimiliar with. What if you cant make out a number at all, how are you supposed to learn that?
Thank you

[yicheung9]

Does anyone know which machine the Victorian College of Optometry use for farnsworth lantern test, the original one(Macbeth?) or the optec900?
Thanks!

[TelBoy]

mrg92,

If you pass any of the colour vision tests you will only do them once as tests stand in the EU at the moment.

The FAA test colour vision at every medical unless you have a waiver - again at present.

Hope this helps.

[mrg92]

Just a quick question regarding the 24 plate edition of the ishihara plates, are all the 24 plate edition the same eg. are the numbers all consisent in the edtions.

[dcvdriver]

when they test you on the 24 plates....are they testing you also on the last 6 of them?? i mean the one with the lines instead of numbers??

thanks

cvd

[ramseyoptom]

Hi I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a few years and having been asked over the years questions on vision and flying, so I've decided to join in.

The last 6 plates in the Isihara test are designed for use by people who cannot read figures eg. children, or if the examiner does not understand the examinee's language too well. They are used as a tracing test ie you follow the line with your finger (without touching the page please!).

Regarding the number of plates used for the test I, at work, only use the 38 plate, most optometrists will only possess this size as it gives better information for investigating colour vision defects.

Although all the numbers and layout are the same in each edition, the quality depth of colour etc differ between printers. This means it may be possible for a person to have failures using, say an H K Lewis edition, but passes with a Japanese edition. This is because the colour values of each of the dots are not accurately specified. Also the test should be conducted using natural daylight or "northlight" ( a colour corrected light source).

I hope this answers some questions, but it will probably only give rise to more!

[audimatt]

Hi all, its been some time since I posted on this thread although I have kept a close eye on it since I last did.

Last time was when I took (and failed) the lantern test, since then I have been hour building and have decided Iv got nothing to lose if I go back and try the new CAD test. I know I was a very marginal fail on the lanterns so Im hoping I stand a chance with it, although it is a long shot.

Ill post my experiences after the big day....

All the posts on here have been very helpful and congrats to everyone who has passed the new test....


Matt

[Monty1977]

Hi all,

Today I had a check with my local eye-doctor; there are a few ishihara plates (of the 24 plate version) which i cannot read..however the majority i can read. My question is whether the ishihara plates at the end of the ishihara 24 plate booklet - those plates without numbers but with curling lines - are also checked at the CAA? In those plates i missed 2 plates..

cheers and many thanks!

[mrg92]

A friend of mine was wondering, if you fail the CAA class 1 medial on colour vision, and then take the IAA class 1 medical and pass. Can you still convert over a CAA class 1 medical holder. I thought this would be impossible as questions would be asked such as, if you fail on colour vision test for the CAA, and then pass the IAA colur vision test someone of the two was not conducting the test correctly and so on!

[2close]

mrg92,

Supposing you 'fail' a CAA medical, when you attend the IAA medical you will be asked on the form THAT YOU SIGN whether you have failed or had any restrictions imposed on any other medical. If you tell the truth that's the end of that; if you decide to be sparing with the facts it WILL come out when you try to convert the IAA medical to a CAA medical.

Monty1977,

Plates 1 - 15 of the Ishihara 24 Plate version is used for the CVD test and the images at the end of the book are not used in the medical......unless you cannnot read, when they would use the images as opposed to the numbers. However, in this case you would not be able to fill out the medical application form. Then again, dyslexia is not a bar to flying. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone was unable to complete the forms owing to a medical condition. Probably employ some more discrimination, which has been perfected by some national aviation authorities to a find art.

Interesting points from ramseyoptom regarding colour differences between various publishers.

I can also ASSURE you with a 100% cast iron guarantee that you WILL perform differently in natural daylight to ANY form of articifical lighting, including a Northern Daylight lamp. I am personal testament to this and my performance is significantly different in natural daylight, i.e. a pass, when compared to a darkened room lit with an old, poor lamp.

:)

[outofwhack]

I would like to hear [via PM if preferred] of any UK pilot with colour vision restrictions on their medical.

OOW

[thecontroller]

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/104982-red-green-colour-blindness-nats.html

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/41705-colour-blindness.html

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/126718-help-colour-blindness.html

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/129882-collective-color-blindness-thread-part-1-a.html

[Dantruck]

Yep!...I'm one.

Issued a few years ago I also have it in writing from UK CAA that it will remove the restriction the day I obtain a commercial license.

The only restriction is that I have to complete my training in the UK.

Dan

[mrg92]

Am I correct in saying that, if you took the intinal class 1 medical you are not allowed to do the ishihara plates again if you failed them? And you are allowed to come back and re do the CAD test if you failed it?
Could somebody give me some sort of information, weather or not the CAA still accept the spectrolux lantern test? Do you think will the CAA ever bring in the PAPI light simulator test?

[SASless]

I had to take a special light test.....proved I could still see colours....was told I would never make it as a RN pilot but still passed. Reckon they knew I was hetero somehow in that case. Never had any other problems until 31 years into my flying career when I was told I was "Color Blind" by an FAA Quack. He relented when the company suggested there were other folks doing FAA Medicals in town.

His position was "You are not seeing the true colours!" despite my being able to discern the difference between Red, Green, Amber, Yellow, White and Blue....which in my mind meets the requirements for being able to safely operate an aircraft....but then what do I and an accident/incident free career have to do with things.

[outofwhack]

Dantruck,

That seems strange - Why restrict a private and remove restriction for a commercial. What is the restriction exactly?

I am trying to find out what restriction I will get in UK as I fail the usual lab tests but have been flying 24 years without a problem commercially in Oz albeit with the restriction not for ATPL use.

OOW

[Dantruck]

My Class 1 medical is "Issued as a Deviation in accordance with JAR-FCL 1.015 and JAR-FCL 2.015."

The only practical restriction is I must complete commercial training in the UK, ie: in our CAA's own backyard...presumably so that they can keep an eye on me and make sure my unblemished private flying record continues at least up until the day they accept the responsibility of having issued me with a commercial ticket.

How I got here is a long story, but basically I long ago failed the Holmes-Wright Lantern test and years later passed the Baynes Lantern test which the CAA had latterly adopted in addition...around 2004, I think. Basically, UK CAA figured out other JAA-land nations had relied on the simpler Baynes test for years without problems, and that its own Holmes-Wright Lantern was knocking out too many safe pilots, ie: people with mild but absolutely consistent colour vision that was just different - but not wrong - to what others see.

If you can pass Baynes you'll be OK. I think UK CAA also has one other lantern in use. The requirement is you only have to be able to pass one of the three to be classed fit.

Best you email CAA medical and ask. They've had to learn to deal with a lot of us 'people of colour' in recent years, and they've got pretty slick at it. In short they've learned that they have been able to back away from the toughest standard without dropping safety levels. The fact you have a clean record will also stand you in good.

Good luck
Dan

[John R81]

Typical restriction for coming up with colour blindness in the standard medical in UK is "Day VFR" and also that you must use a radio to communicate with airfields, if the airfield has a radio (ie not fly a non-radio aircraft and rely on signal lights).

Stops you getting a CPL unless the restriction is removed.

Failing to see the "hidden" numbers in the standard test is not the end; you can get the restriction removed if you can pass one of two other tests to show that it is not an issue. You can apply for a lantern test, or a new computer based test - both of which I think you sit at CAA in Gawick.

I am told that the computer test is the one most likely to test what you actually need, but that is third-hand, unverified.