Collective Colour Vision Thread 3

[jacktar0]

I took the Class 1 medical in January. I've always been 'slightly' colorblind to red/green (not uncommon in men, it seems) and regularly fail (every time) the Ishihari plate test. I paid an additional £150 for a second test which I passed and received my Class 1 licence. It's long, tedious and boring but, apparently, most people can pass it.

[John R81]

Jacktar0 - did you sit that at CAA or as part of the medical with that doctor?

[Senior Pilot]

Off to Medical & Health, I think :ok:

[TelBoy]

Very interesting relv3, where did you take the CAD test? - I see your location is USA.

[dobbin1]

I failed the lantern tests at Gatwick (not a surprise, since I got 13 of the 15 Ishihara plates wrong). I declined the opportunity to try out the new CAD test as it was still "experimental" at the time.

I now have a Class 1 medical that allows flight by day only and prohibits public transport. I do not have to complete the night flying requirement for my CPL, but when I get it it will allow me to do aerial work including flight instruction. No public transport, flights by day only and only in UK airspace in UK reg aircraft.

[pmh1234]

dobbin1 -> does that mean that you can go on taking an IR after the CPL? Is'n either a night rating or a CPL prerequisite to take the IR?

[colourblindgeek]

I declined the opportunity to try out the new CAD test as it was still "experimental" at the time.

So what's stopping you taking the CAD test now? Its now the official test whether we like it or hate it.

Which reminds me, I must change my stage name. It seems rather inappropriate now.

[MrToad]

I took the CAD test this week. The first thing they do is check your colour perception with Ishihara plates. I failed 2 (which was better than I was expecting- guess that's what happens when you practice them on the internet!) so then moved on to the CAD test itself. It only takes 15 minutes apparently but it felt like much longer. The test is designed to find the threshold of your colour perception and it zooms in then hovers around it so apparently its difficult for everybody, even if you've got perfect colour vision. The CAA staff are very nice and explain it all to you.
I scored 2.4 which means I passed! Woooo! :}
After having spent the last 15 years convinced I couldn't be a pilot, now I find I can :ok: Best £120 I've ever spent!

[Scottish.CPL]

Im going to be somewhat negative on the colour vision subject..

Can you see Red/Green/White light? i not talking about dark or light colour or shades, if i asked you to shine a flashlight, emmiting those primary colours, could you tell me which are which...?

Ishihara test, JAA 24 plate version, 15/15 required, ishihara book instructions clearly state, test concidered passed if 13 or more are read correctely so it 13/15 clearly printed..

lantern tests should be tested at low and then high intensity, yes it has two settings but cannot justify why tested at low only. not in Medical reference for JAA or CAA

the bynne lantern, red/green/blue/yellow. the examiner is to advise on the colour presented, optometrist at gatwick does not do this.

Nagel Scope, inportant note, Normals can fail this, required 4 units to pass.

Now the CAD test, the option is that this test is supposed to be and this is what CAA say and City university state 100% accurate, i laught at this cause no test on the plannet can give you 100%, thats like saying to the CAA, produce a pregnancy test, which is agian 100%, cant happen, subject to human error and other factors. They state the cad test is easy, its not, and the test itself goes at a very fast rate and they say it is presented on a gray pixalised background which flickers, will it does flicker but not a grey nuteral background.

some people have passed the cad test, good for them, does it mean that the are still safe for night flying ?? should the CAA adopt faa style tests for the falant, no , excuse it too easy, one comment left was from a gentleman who passed the ishihara test, but failed the CAD, and CAA could not give a reason for this, personally i laught at that.. so if i pass 13/15 plates, i can drive a train, and be a fireman, but yet cannot fly an airliner. I think the joke is at the CAA for spending a huge ammount of money on a test, which still does not prove any practicality.

please comment on your views, when i see airliners now, i think of bankrupt companies, and those people who are training for their frozen atpl's, hope you will get a flight instruction rating cause there will be no jobs for a while, so wearing 4 bars will be a while to happen.. :ok:

[yicheung9]

Anyone knows what are the seven colours in Edridge Green lantern? Thank you very much!

[Scottish.CPL]

hi there, can you get a non pdf file cause i cant read it, can to tell me in a nutshell wat the news is please.

[YPJT]

Scottish CPL,
Here is the text -

UK CAA Policy for Deviations Updated June 2010
Until the implementation of EASA Medical Requirements, the policy of the CAA is to assess for medical certification to JAR-FCL 3 standards. Where one or more of these standards is not fully met, but an equivalent level of safety can be demonstrated, the applicant may be assessed for a JAR medical certificate issued as a Deviation. In this case, the medical certificate will be endorsed in accordance with JAR-FCL 1.015. The CAA will not issue Deviations which jeopardise compliance with ICAO. Accordingly, these medical certificates will be fully ICAO compliant.
JAR medical certificates issued by the UK CAA as Deviations can be used to validate UK-issued pilot licences and restrict the holder to flying UK registered aircraft only.
For the purposes of this policy, if a Deviation is likely to be removed, it is described as ‘short-term’ and if it is likely to be permanent it is described as ‘long-term’.

Use of Deviations

The CAA has identified a number of areas where Deviations may be considered.

1. Where there is a different initial standard from the revalidation/renewal standard
The most common use of a short-term deviation is where there is a difference between the initial and revalidation/renewal medical standard. If the need for the difference in standard is due to a different anticipated adverse effect on flight safety of pilot incapacitation of an inexperienced compared to an experienced pilot, the UK CAA will accept the mitigation of risk that increases with experience. In this circumstance an initial certificate may be issued with a Deviation (allowing flying training to be undertaken in the UK) with a view to removing it once appropriate experience has been gained. The UK CAA defines this experience as being equivalent to completion of flying training to the licence standard and demonstration of competency in the skills test. The Deviation can thus be removed at licence issue if there has been no progression of the medical condition.

2. Where medical evidence and medical developments support an equivalent level of safety
A long-term deviation may be issued if new medical developments support the issue of a medical certificate which is precluded by JAR-FCL 3. The UK CAA will, in this circumstance, contribute to the medical rule-making process to propose an amendment to the medical requirements. If the medical requirements are subsequently amended, the Deviation may be removed if the requirements allow the condition or treatment.
Revalidation/Renewal of a Medical Certificate issued as a Deviation
Pilots with a Deviation on their medical certificate and/or licence should attend for revalidation/renewal with a UK approved AME.

*Important Caveat
Following the implementation of the EASA rules (anticipated 2012-1014), it is possible that EASA may have the power to revoke medical certificates issued as a Deviation. Holders of such medical certificates should be aware of this risk.
Certificate holders who are eligible for the removal of the deviation on gaining their licence should aim to have achieved this prior to the implementation of the EASA requirements.

R Hunter
Head Aeromedical Section
June 2010
UK CAA Deviation Policy v2.0

Suggested text to be included in letters issued with medical certificates issued as a deviation:
I am pleased to assess you as fit for JAA Class … medical certification issued as a deviation. Your deviation is to be considered *short-term/long-term (*delete)
Your medical certificate is ICAO compliant and is valid on UK registered aircraft only. You may use it to exercise the privileges of a UK licence in international airspace. However, if you wish to fly an aircraft registered in another state, you will need to obtain the permission of the licensing authority of that state.
Please note that the European Aviation Safety Agency is developing medical requirements that are likely to be implemented in the UK between 2012 and 2014. As your medical certificate, which has been issued as a deviation, may not be EASA compliant, you should be aware that there is a risk to the maintenance of your medical certification beyond this date.
Our policy regarding medical certificates issued as a deviation is enclosed, and I draw your attention to the guidance regarding types of deviation and how they might be removed.
Case specific text re removal/review etc

[bmw-rated]

Hi there!

First of all I gotta say it´s to late for me anyway :E

However as I saw some of you recommended learning those Ishihara plates - I wondered whether that is really possible? Can you really learn them and pass? And why didn´t everybody in here (at least those who know about it) do so?

regards

[Bigbangman]

Hi, i held a PPL back in the 80's which i let lapse, at the time i had a class 3 medical but initially failed the colour plates and went to CAA for a lantern test which i passed.

My question is, if i now try for a PPL medical again which i think is now class 2 would i be tested on the plates again? or as they have been passed previously would that be sufficient to pass this medical.

Are the standards the same for a NPPL

Does colour blindness get worse with age?

Any help appreciated as i'd like to get back into it if possible, although its probably a case of when you can afford it your healths gone!!!! catch 22

Thanks

[Scottish.CPL]

the issue that most cvd people have, is that the ishihara test plates need to be tested using the proper methods, ie, updated plates and the proper lighting.

is the test was administered as the istrauction were set out, ie, the instructions states, that if 13 or more plates are read correctly, then the colour vision is classed as normal or cp2. The RAF set the standards to the full 15, but remember this is due to the selection for the RAF being high so i can understnad that element, but the Army and the Navy state 13 or more..

what makes me laugth is that to become a train drivewr, police, or firebrigade, pass the plates to the instructions, but CAA/JAA, hah no . the cad test is a joke, i believe people who failed the cad can resit after 6 months, please correct me if im wrong or right on this..

You could learn the plates but, the authority would have to show the plates in random order to eleminate cheating, which is not good, cause if you are going though the plates and you give the complete wrong answer, ie an 8 on the plate and you say 29, you look a complete idiot...

[2close]

So it is possible that individuals who have been working in aviation for years on deviations may, at the stroke of a Eurocratic pen, lose their livelihoods.

I admire the way in which CAA Medical states that EASA may be able to revoke the Medical Certificates, giving the appearance that EASA and not the UK CAA is responsible for whatever happens.........when it is the UK CAA that is chairing and steering the EASA Part-Medical Sub Committee.

I wonder when someone down at Gatwick is going to develop a backbone and start telling the truth.

Then again, why change the habits of a lifetime? :rolleyes:

[dobbin1]

I am one of the "deviants" with a restricted Class 1 and an ambition to become a flying instructor. I am working on my CPL and will be starting my FI rating soon. I am aware that the EASA change may make life difficult for me, but it would be incredibly unfair if they were to revoke my earning priviliges (by denying me a class 1) for no safety benefit.

[Bigbangman]

Hi,

Can the CAD test only be taken at Gatwick or is it available in other locations?

If only Gatwick, anyone know how much it is and what sort of waiting list for appointments here is at present?

I previously passed the lantern test with CAA in 1987 and got an unrestricted Class 3 for a PPL, would i need to pass again using the new CAD. Guess i'm saying if you manage to jump the hurdle in the past is that it or does colour blindness get worse with age and require regular testing?

Thanks

[MrToad]

Hi

The CAD is Gatwick only; the waiting time seems to be about 2 weeks but you should give them a call to find out. £130.
Colour perception stays the same over time (unless you've got something wierd going on) so you only need to do a colour perception test once, so your lantern test might still be valid if you've kept your medical current. By the same reasoning, if you fail the CAD it's failed forever.

Re learning the Ishihara plates; I can see something in all but one of them but on some its unclear- in my case trying tests online got me used to what the unclear ones were. My intention was not to cheat- I'd booked myself in for the CAD after all- just to get an idea of how bad my colour perception was. Not that bad at all as it turns out!

Now the CAD test, the option is that this test is supposed to be and this is what CAA say and City university state 100% accurate, i laught at this cause no test on the plannet can give you 100%, thats like saying to the CAA, produce a pregnancy test, which is agian 100%, cant happen, subject to human error and other factors. They state the cad test is easy, its not, and the test itself goes at a very fast rate and they say it is presented on a gray pixalised background which flickers, will it does flicker but not a grey nuteral background.

Well, I'm not sure about the 100% bit, but I'm going to trust City University's published research over any second hand anecdotes :) (I don't mean that to sound bitchy, I just like solid evidence).
The test goes as fast as you want it to go. They explain before you do it that if you want a break, just don't press the button. It only goes on to the next square once you've selected which direction the last one went. And like you say, it isn't easy. Like the hearing test (which I did on Wednesday, passed my class 1 :} ) it's designed to be difficult. Take your time.

[2close]

I would wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments over trusting solid scientific evidence over anecdotal comments..........unless the supposedly scientific research had been conducted in such a manner that it would produce desired results.

Unless a full study is conducted over a large sample of subjects, including full investigation of all reported problems, in particular safety related problems, NO test is valid.

I can give you a 100% cast iron guarantee that NO investigations took place over reported safety problems vis-a-vis adverse side effects with the CAD. These were reported verbally at the time to the staff and subsequently in writing to the relevant persons but dismissed out of hand with no investigation.

I have no doubt that it was feared by the relevant persons that any investigation into possible safety problems may delay or even prevent the release of the CAD and as such it was decided to accept the risk of causing harm to persons over a possible lack of financial revenue from the sale of the CAD.

[Scottish.CPL]

well first of all, i did not write the article as a point of blame. I am mearly stating the facts on this.

Im also going to ask to redo the tests, i believe you can retest after 6 months not for ishihara but any secondary if felt the tests were not conducted fairly.

the benye lantern was done and will as holmes, but i was not given night adaption nor was i advised the 3 runds of the lantern would be done in one.

i will fight for want i believe is right.

[millonario]

I was just wondering if anyone knows the color testing process for the Cathay Pacific cadetship?

I hold an Australian class 1 medical with no restrictions, however in my initial medical I was shown a number of pictures with numbers (I think it is called Ishihara by what I read on the forums) and I got 2 of them wrong. The DAME told me that I was color safe for GA, but that I might have problems getting into the airlines as their testing is more rigorous.

I currently hold an Australian CPL + MECIR with 200 hours, and not once did I have any problems associated with color decoding (day/night ops). I'm planning on applying for the Cathay cadetship, but I'm not sure if I meet their color vision requirements. Could someone please share some info with me? Thanks.

[ChiefDM]

Hi all,

I've recently been looking into doing the CAD test as I know I have trouble with my colour vision just not really sure as to the extent. I have found however that the CAA isn't the only place it can be done, it can also be done at City University in London as part of a full colour assessment.

The cost for doing the assessment at City is £125 +VAT however they do more than just the CAD. I do however have a couple of questions about this if anyone might know the answers.

1:- Should I pass the CAD at City, does anyone know if this is acceptable to the CAA and therefore not require me to retake this test with them as well?

2:- On the flip side should I fail but only marginally would I be able to go to the CAA a week later and take the test there again as I know there is a 6 month wait if you fail at the CAA before they allow retests?

Anyone wishing to contact City about this the link is here:- Colour Vision Clinic - City University London (http://www.city.ac.uk/optometry/public_clinic/colour_vision_clinic.html)

On a more personal note I've wanted to be a pilot since a very early age and failed the RAF medical on my colour vision but only just. I've only just again started looking into becoming a pilot again and the news of the CAD test gave me some, albeit small, hope that I could finally pass a medical (before then it was always a kind of 'no I can't do that because of my eyes' attitude, I took a fail as a fail for good not as a I could pass the next one as it was that marginal!). I'm 30 now so I'm guessing sooner rather than later would be best to start doing this otherwise I could end up being too old! lol

On a different note, are there any height restrictions on Class 1 medicals?! I'm 6'5"!

Cheers all!

Chief

[Scottish.CPL]

chief

welcome, and this should answer so things.

u applied to the airforce? u failed colour vision for pilot cp2 no mistakes on ishihara, did you do the lantern, would class u as cp3.

if u do the cad at city, caa in practice should accept these, they might as u do ishihara again.

the other thing is that the cad test is under debate, most people feel that the test is unjust, because when you do the test the person says to you just press the button in the direction of the motion of the square, and they say if you in doubt GUESS???

i find that completly unacceptible myself, ive done the test, and found it horrible, 15 minutes staring at a tv linked to a laptop, and a dodgy remote control.

you could pass it at one point and fail the next, its not proactive.

best of luck, but to be honest are you sure you want to progress in a flying career..

.

[ChiefDM]

Thanks for the reply.

I do see peoples point about the whole 'being told to guess' if they are unsure about the direction on the CAD, however I would also say that it's surely no worse than someone 'learning the Ishihara plates' as has been suggest a few times in this thread? You could be completely devoid of colour vision but if you have learnt the plates well enough not get any wrong, which as there are only 38 on the test surely makes it less reliable than the many passes the box makes in 15 minutes of the CAD? Just a thought.....

Don't get me wrong I can see both sides of the argument, the bottom line is that no matter what test they bring in someone will find fault with it. Simplest answer in my opinion is to change the way colours are relied on in aviation (clearly this would take a LOT of work by a LOT of people), this would do away with the whole argument.

On another note, just out of interest what makes you question if I'm sure its what I want to do? I've wanted to do nothing else since I was about 10 but naively accepted that once the RAF told me no, that was it I had no future in flying, I've since learned that this may not be the case so just curious as to what made you ask? :)

[Scottish.CPL]

hi, well the reason is that i am the same, i can read upto 13 plates and as per ishahara instructions that is classed as normal cp2, but caa and raf have other plans, u can be an army navy pilot, train driver, all that stuff, but fly an airliners NO.

i wanted to fly all my like and i did, i got my FAA CPL cause im classed as normal under the FAA and they allow more errors, ive got no soda(statement of demonstration of ability) cause my CV is normal but the standard for JAA is to high , even the head of medical branch admitted this to me but i powerless to do anything (POLITICS again)

the cad test is no good, and they say 100% accurate, bollock, if you see the box to right and changed fast and you press the botton right in mistake, there is you human error right there, and how do you know if the remote that is used with is a blue tooth thing is picking up the signal, should i not be connected to the laptop to avoid this....

mate these are the fact and i dont appologies for the direct approach answers but see when people say things on pprune about statistics and probability, TAKE THE TEST. lol....

anymore questions feel free to ask buddy, :ok:

[ChiefDM]

No worries on asking direct questions as long as you don't mind a direct answer ;)

Thanks for the input though. Like I say I do agree to a certain point on the CAD test however like I said before I don't see how it can be classed as less reliable than a test that you could effectively learn the answers to. I am of course assuming that although you might be able to guess the answer on the CAD there is no way to learn each and every directional answer for the full 15 minute test?

I do fully intend to take the CAD probably next month, but at City rather than Gatwick, mainly because my CV is the biggest question mark for me as I honestly don't know how good or bad it is and City will give me more results from more tests and a better idea of the severity. This was the reason for asking if the CAA would accept these results if I passed. Didn't want to pass it at City to have to then go and have to do the same thing at Gatwick...... that said if I had to I'd do it if it meant gaining the Class 1!

I do have some questions about the testing process for the CAA though for CV. Is it just the CAD now? I.E. when you walk in they say they're going to test for CV and all you do is the CAD? Or do they do the Ishihara's first then make you do the CAD after if you fail that? Or do they do both regardless of if you pass the Ishihara's? If they do both do they take any notice of the Ishihara's at all if they base the granting or denying of the Class 1 purely on the results of the CAD alone from a CV perspective?

[Scottish.CPL]

well the caa website still shows ishihara first and depending on the results, pass gr8 fail CAD.. how do u perform on the ishihara test then? have u done any lanterns yet. well people in the past, and erm in the present have passed the plates by memorising them, but i would assume that any doubt in that area, the plates are done in random order to prevent this, but the most IMPORTANT thing is the lighting, i have a sight green weakness, and yes people will confirm that it plays a big part in the test, u need to do the test in a room with no floresent lights, ie no yellow, cause it makes issues.

ive done the plates and i have also redone them for another profession, and they used brand new plates and read everyone of them, and also a version that was a printed book and there is a major difference, even when i did the book and passed, there was another guy and he really struggled with it and i was amased that it was not a fluke, the bases with caa is that the plates look old and falling to bits, ie old a faded..

[ChiefDM]

Thats part of my problem, the last time I did the Ishihara's was when I tried to get into the air force, from what I can remember the examiner only showed me a few plates and I after i got a couple wrong he stopped with them and went onto a lantern test. I was borderline on this one, but he failed me on that too. Oddly enough though it was the white and green that i was mixing up not the red and green. I don't think it helped that I'd never seen a test like that before and didn't really know what to expect, and the white light he was using was a long way from white.... although I suspect that would be the same with all of them.

I think now I know what to expect from a lantern test and what they class as white I'd probably find it easier to pass. From what I remember also about the Ishihara's I did (this was a while back though!) on the majority of them I could see both sets of numbers, i.e. I could see the one that normal colour vision people see, but I could also see the other numbers that colour deficient people see, which is odd to say the least. On some the normal number stands out more on others the colour deficient number stands out more, but like I say on most I can still make out both. I do definatly agree with the lighting aspect as I did it in an artificially lit room which wasn't great.

Guess I'll just have to see what the results from City say.:\

[ChiefDM]

It would be good to know if anyone who has passed the CAD has lost track of the box in the web based version?

[The Grim EPR]

I recently took the CAD test at Gatwick. I had previously done the web based test and not lost sight of the box, so I was quite confident.

Before I did the test, they use that web based test as a demo to make sure that you are using the remote correctly etc etc. I was still confident.

Then they told me that everyone should be able to see the box in the demo and that the test was going to be far harder.

I was then suddenly, far less confident.

I'm not an expert, but I think that if you lost sight of the box on the web based test, you don't stand much of a chance of passing the actual test.

But I don't know for sure and could be wrong.

Good luck.

[Scottish.CPL]

did u pass or fail., what were your results

[AnthonyGA]

Reading this thread, I get the impression that many pilots aren't happy with the CAD test, but I'm not sure why.

I read through the CAA's paper on minimum color vision requirements for flight crews, and it is quite clear that the CAA wants to pass more pilots, not less. There are at least three objectives that they seem to be pursuing: (1) They want to reliably screen out only those pilots or potential pilots who truly cannot see colors well enough for flying; (2) they want to eliminate any possibility of cheating or inaccurate testing insofar as possible; and (3) they want a test that will actually quantify a person's degree of color deficiency, instead of just pass/fail.

The CAD test is exceptional in that it gives an indication of the degree of color deficiency. It's not just pass/fail. If a person doesn't have normal color vision, the CAD test identifies the abnormality AND gives an indication of severity, which most other color vision tests do not do. This allows the CAA to set thresholds for each type of color deficiency; anyone below a certain threshold cannot fly, whereas anyone above it can.

With other tests, there's no way to know how severe a person's deficiency is, which implies that many people tested must be rejected even though they might see well enough for flying, simply because there's no way to know how bad their deficiency is, so the worst must be assumed.

The CAD test apparently grades test subjects with standardized deviations from normal vision. By carefully setting the threshold deviations that are acceptable for pilots, it should be possible to pass more pilots who might have failed in other tests. Overall, about 35% of people with deficient color vision can still see colors well enough to fly, and the goal is to make sure that anyone with color vision that's good enough can get certified.

In contrast, something like Ishihara or Dvorine plates give only a very coarse indication of color deficiency. Miss a plate or two and you fail. In reality, your color vision might be good enough to fly, but since these tests do not provide detailed quantification of a color deficiency, one must err on the side of safety and reject many who might actually be qualified.

Another, lesser goal of the CAA is apparently to eliminate cheating and inaccuracy. Cheating would be something like memorizing the Ishihara plates, and inaccuracy could result from improper lighting, from holding the plates the wrong way, or from shifting colors in the ink (printed inks shift over time, and since the differences are so subtle in color vision tests, only a brand-new set of plates kept in perfect condition can really be trusted).

Color deficiencies are congenital (in the context of this discussion) and do not get worse over time. Age has very little effect on color vision, and someone who has normal or good color vision won't get significantly worse over time. However, there are some acquired conditions that can impact color vision, so retesting is designed to catch these, particularly in persons who already had a deficiency.

A person with normal color vision will always pass the tests—the false positive rate for tests such as Ishihara, Dvorine, and CAD is effectively zero. So a person who fails the tests under slightly less than optimal conditions almost certainly has some sort of anomaly in his color vision … the only question is how bad that anomaly is, and the CAD is supposed to be able to measure that.

The most important color distinction task in flying is the PAPI, and I note that the CAA's paper appears to use this to establish a threshold of CV anomaly for granting certifications and designing test criteria. It's practically the only situation in which confusion between white and red could cause a serious problem.

It has occurred to me that if the PAPI issue could be resolved, a lot more people with color deficiencies could fly. But that would require a huge, huge effort worldwide to replace these devices with something friendlier to people with CV anomalies, so I suppose that isn't going to happen. And since every pilot is likely to have to use a PAPI sooner or later, during a critical phase of flight, it can't really be allowed to slide.

[Bealzebub]

AnthonyGA,

Whilst I pretty much agree with everything else you have said in the previous post, I would disagree that "The most important color distinction task in flying is the PAPI.." I think the biggest issue with colour distinction is to be found on the ground whilst operating the aircraft. I have normal colour perception and a lot of flying experience in busy traffic environments, but am constantly perturbed by the difficulties of colour distinction at crowded busy airports. Just taking two examples, Gatwick and Manchester (and there are many more,) the endless melange of taxiway, runway, stopbar, signage illumination, and works in progress, together with a high density of aircraft with often very poor visibility lighting, often results in difficulty making distinctions, observations and recognition. I would challenge any experienced pilot to say otherwise. Despite this, these are airports in first world countries, employing some of the best air traffic systems as well as the latest in airport technology.

If you add to this already difficult mix, an additional input of a colour perception difficulty, then it only makes a bad situation even worse. Unfortunetaly this isn't something that is likely to improve anytime soon, and it is therefore both important and desirable that there must be a sufficiently acceptable level of colour discrimination in applicants for a professional licence.

I do agree that modern methods of testing being developed, should refine the standard beyond the simple methodology of old, and that the regulator is properly seeking to positively assess more applicants than was previously the case. However I still believe that the requirement is as important as it always has been, and the rationale for that requirement is broader than any one isolated system or visual aid.

[Scottish.CPL]

guys you are missing the point. colour vision requirements needed to be revewed due to the current testing equipment and standards being doubtfull,

i will remind some, a mate of mine went to do intial c1 medical, he passed the ishihara plates, and the asked him , to have a go at the CAD, no charge was made, it was just new and they wanted to run the test, he said fine, well he failed the caf test, to a level that it a reslt of severve 9-10 units. more importmant he was over the 7 units retest and the optician could not give a real explanation, so really , the cad test will be questioned. Also i was told that if you cant dont see the signal then you are to GUESS ,OMG, SAFETY yeah ill guess, mm let someone with a reall issue guess the right diirection and be made colour safe, get real..

i failed the cad 7.44 , .44 over the retest. can can read 13 plates and i have been to not city but other cv dept and they say my cv is normal, its the jaa standard that is high.

i also feel that the way the test is done, ie the remote that you use, is a wireless unit and not connected to the laptop , so how do i know that the remote is sending the signal to the tv properly, explain than tone...

the cad is crap, ishihara yes there are flaus to it, and so with the lanterns and normal can aslo fail the nagel as well.

go on and argue and say im worng, i dont care anymore..

[pilotbaraa]

Hi Guys

Any one who knows where I can do the color test in Greece or in Turkey other than the Ishehara test?

I have the Green-Red problem so any advice of what is the easiest one to do?

Thanks alot and looking to hear from every one, it will be my honor>>>>>>>>>:ok:

[2close]

I think the biggest issue with colour distinction is to be found on the ground whilst operating the aircraft.

Am I to understand that, so far as safety critical issues go, you, as an experienced pilot, consider that operating the aircraft on the ground is more hazardous than in flight?

I would tend to agree with you. There are far more coloured lights on the ground than there are in the air.

This creates a new area of concern. Many aircraft are taxied around airports, often at night, by maintenance engineers. There are no colour vision limitations on aviation engineers, neither B1 nor B2. That's another beauty isn't it; the electronics engineers fixing your GPS or RNAV equipment have no colour vision requirements.

On another note, it may interest you to know that, so far as the UK CAA are concerned, there is only one safety critical area and that is the correct identification of PAPI lighting during the approach to landing. This is documented within the transcript of a legal hearing at the CAA.

:ugh: :rolleyes:

[Scottish.CPL]

do you fail the ishihara plates, what is your results. you have the options for the Lantern tests, Holmes-wright, or bynes, these are available at Gatwick CAA, for the CAD.

what are the issues you have..

[ChiefDM]

i will remind some, a mate of mine went to do intial c1 medical, he passed the ishihara plates, and the asked him , to have a go at the CAD, no charge was made, it was just new and they wanted to run the test, he said fine, well he failed the caf test, to a level that it a reslt of severve 9-10 units. more importmant he was over the 7 units retest and the optician could not give a real explanation, so really , the cad test will be questioned. Also i was told that if you cant dont see the signal then you are to GUESS ,OMG, SAFETY yeah ill guess, mm let someone with a reall issue guess the right diirection and be made colour safe, get real..

I'm not arguing with you here as I can see where you're coming from on the guessing front.

Having not yet done the CAD I'm not exactly sure how many passes the little box makes, but assuming it moves at roughly the same speed on the actual test as it does on the web based version, and you have to sit there for 15 minutes doing it I would guess there are probably 80 or so? (Someone who's done it please feel free to correct me!) I would like to assume there are many passes to be identified though. That said, if you have a severe enough colour issue to fail, what realisticly are the chances of you guessing enough of what you can't see right to pass? Surely it has to be less likely that you would pass that than it would be for you to fail the IP's if you'd learnt them? I would say that once a test like this has been shown to be able to be passed simply by learning the correct answers instead of being able to demonstrate it then it is no longer a feasable test. That would be like someone reading a book on how to drive a car and leaning the correct answers and the driving test consisting of them asking you how you would change gear or how to do an emergency stop rather than you actually being able to do it.

I agree, the CAD isn't perfect, what test is? Maybe there should be a time limit on the answers, maybe a button for when you can't see it, but even these wouldn't stop people guessing even if they were told not to, after all you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting it right, but again if you're guessing at lots then those odds get a lot bigger at getting them all right.

Does anyone know if the monitor used for the CAD has to be checked and calibrated for colours before its used? That could cause problems if not, but then even other tests like IP's and lanterns are susceptible to the test of time, IP's will fade Lanterns will gather dirt and dust and fade over time. I doubt there will ever be a perfect CV test as long as I live but at least they appear to be trying to improve the testing, albeit they may have made a few mistakes with the approach.

As for me, I won't know either way until I do the test. I'm not attempting to cheat my way to a class 1, just simply to find out if my CV is good enough for this environment, if not then so be it, I'll rethink and start looking at other things, but I have to know and at least give it a shot first. If nothing else I will get a better understanding of the level of my CV! :ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

im not arguing, im stating the fact, and ive done the cad test and failed, not a bad fail, just not close enought to pass.

the cad test, just go to city then? do the test and see what happen you pass great get your money ready, if you fail, move on. the caa use a tv fed through the laptop and i agree with you rpoint on the caibration but, you could base an agrument with then, good luck with that.

the only other test would be the 100 hue test, u can google it, but again caa say ITS TO EASY lol..

we are all colour blind to an extent, ..

[drnisda]

Hello Everybody
Im new here, and looking for some information...

I Failed the color vision test, like the ishiara plates and the anomaloscop of Nagel.
Now I have to do the Beyne Latern test.

I would be very happy if somebody can tell me in what it consist, how to prepare, and if there is shown always the same order of the colors...

Actually I see pretty good. My right eye passed all the tests, but my left eye didnt at all, just 2 points below to permitted... yep, it's a pitty...


so, I would be really greatfull if somebody tells his experience...

private email :

drnisda at yahoo.es

thanks

[Scottish.CPL]

mate , dont use words like to 'prepare' that makes out you was to cheat on it......

red,green, white, amber, yellow are the colours,

[Pace]

I have had many medicals through the years and all detected a very slight colour detection problem. Probably 10 AMEs considered it so slight as to not be a problem requiring further testing.

Getting older I was then adviced that I needed to wear the weakest glasses for reading and to come back when I had them.

Not wanting to look oldie baldie with glasses but groovy smoothie with Ray Bans I asked for these new glasses to be tinted.

Back to the AME with my new set of specs. He demanded I did all the eyesight tests as per regulation using my new prescription glasses.

All went well until the colour test where I failed every page I tried to read.
The AME cautioned that I would have to have further colour tests as he didnt understand why my colour perception was so bad.

Then it dawned on me. Wear yellow glasses and get the perfect colour vision guy to look at blue. Will he see blue ? NO he will see green! and so on with brown tints.

I objected to no avail. Ban the use of sunglasses by pilots as they will all be colour blind while using them had no effect on my AME who sent me off for a clear set at huge cost before he would issue me with my medical and still demanded a landtern test to boot.

Crazy world

Pace

[Scottish.CPL]

do u hold a jaa class medical or faa,

yeah the issue would be the tint, its the same with the ishihara plates, any level of yellow sodium light will alter the plate, causing issues, that why correct lighting is needed, ie macbeth light, that was causes issues.

[Pace]

Scottish

FAA Class 1 JAA class 2 but yes back ground lighting and colours could have a major impact on on the colours you think you see and is probably something to date which has not been studied.

That also brings the issue of pilots wearing sun glasses flying with artificially created severe colour blindness which aviation medicine accepts and encourages?

Pace

[Scottish.CPL]

how many plates can you read normally

its the biggest bugger of a subject that opens a can of worms, i can read up 2 13 plates were are two which i cant make out, however on another medical not aviation, read the whole set and there was a light box which was controlling the brightness and was the proper brightness, at gatwick in the opticians the light is quite dim and i found it difficult to see some of the plates, the holmes wright lanterns are just strange, i found the white/green abit difficult at low intensity, and i thought i had passed the beyne lantern but he said no, red/green/white/amber yellow... was easy but cant under stand how i failed and the idiot that tests you does not have a personality at all,

the cad test is a right joke,

[2close]

Why is there so much discussion going on about the CAD Test?

It is simple.

NO test which is supposed to eliminate persons from being employed in a colour related safety critical task on board a Commercial Air Transport aircraft, on which may depend hundred of lives, can utilise ANY degree of guesswork, immaterial of statistical probability.

If there is one chance in four of getting it right on each occasion and it is reset to zero on each occasion, then the overall chance of getting it right by guesswork is 25%.

Subtract from that the number of occasions where the colour definition is so clear that even the most colour vision defective person will get it right, then the chances of gaining a pass through guesswork are increased.

That is a staggeringly high chance for something which is supposed to be so safety critical.

If one person gets through 'the net' and is subsequently responsible for the deaths of many persons as a result of misidentification of colours then the CAA and City university AVRC will be crucified.

But it will not happen (thankfully) because in tens of millions of flying hours worldwide major incidents have not happened as a result of misinterpretation of colours. If they did, they would be happening left, right and centre in countries with a far more realistic approach to this issue.....e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia, countries where hundreds of pilots enjoy fulfilling commercial flying careers, who would otherwise be denied careers by the anally retentive stuffed-shirts in the EU.

And before anyone quotes the Fed Ex incident, read the statements of the Captain and the Flight Engineer first; both confirmed Red / White lights on the PAPI and not merely Red. There was a lot more than CVD which resulted in that incident but as always "Lets look for a scapegoat and hang him out to dry".

:ugh:

[Scottish.CPL]

hi all, i wanted to bring to your attention something that has really pi55ed me off. i asked the amc in swatzerland(sorry spelling) about the spectrolux, and i got this statment from them , have a read


1) we do not issue any Class 1 Medical Certificates with a color deficiency limitation (VCL limitation is not possible for Class 1)
2) our procedure for testing color vision is according to JAR-FCL3, Amdt 5, Appendix 14 to subpart B and C, § 2 a and b

The Spectrolux lantern is one of the JAR accepted lantern tests. The Spectrolux lantern test is passed, if 24 signals are recognised correctly without any mistake. It is at the discretion of the State of License Issue of your flight license if they would accept a Spectrolux lantern result. If you suffer from a color deficiency, diagnosed by other tests, it is not very likely that you would pass the Spectrolux.
We usually disencourage pilots suffering from color deficiency to travel from one country to another to try if and with which of the approved lantern tests the might fulfill the requirements

We cannot even win with anything.. :mad:

[AnthonyGA]

Why is there so much discussion going on about the CAD Test?

Because some pilots with color vision deficiencies are worried that a new test might end their careers (or prevent others with similar deficiencies from starting a piloting career, which raises the "it could have been me" fear).

While this concern is understandable, it is misplaced. The CAD is a very accurate test, so there's not much point in questioning its accuracy. The real question is whether or not the color vision standards set by aviation authorities are appropriate. If the required standard is set to X, for example, then the CAD can accurately test whether or not pilots meet standard X—so that's not the problem. The problem is whether or not X is really the appropriate standard. Maybe it's too high … or too low.

The CAA in its 2009 report pointed out that PAPI recognition had been identified as the most safety-critical task for pilots that depends almost exclusively on normal color vision. I wonder, though, how many other tasks are truly in the same category.

How many safety-critical tasks are there for a pilot in which normal color perception is mandatory? If you see ENGINE FAIL on your EICAS display, for example, it's pretty easy to figure out what's wrong, whether the color of the indication looks yellow, red, or green to you. I'm not a pilot, so I may be missing a few possibilities, but how many situations are there in which color perception is the only way to make some distinction that is critical to the safety of the flight? The PAPI example comes to mind, of course, but is there anything else? Is there anything outside the window or inside the cockpit that is absolutely essential to safety and depends exclusively on colors?

This is a very important question, because if the main difficulties of color-deficient pilots are limited to just a very small number of situations, such as PAPIs, then it might be worthwhile to simply eliminate those situations with appropriate changes, rather than continue to exclude 35% of color-blind pilots just because those few situations might be problematic.

For instance, the CAA's report points out that putting certain filters on PAPI lights greatly improves the ability of both normal and color-deficient pilots to distinguish them. So why not just put filters on all PAPI lights? If the PAPI is the most extreme case in which color deficiency is a problem, then fixing the PAPI problem would substantially increase the number of color-deficient people who could become pilots. It seems like a worthwhile notion.

Of course, if there are hundreds of situations in which color perception is critical to flying, then you can't realistically try to change them all, but I'm not convinced that the number of problem situations is really that large.

Anyway, the fundamental problem here is not the accuracy of the tests, but the justification for imposing restrictions in the first place.

The situation described by Scottish.CPL is especially worrisome. There's absolutely no justification for a total ban on color-deficient pilots, for any class of medical. If that is the case, the regulations need to change, period. It's not a matter of how well the tests work. There's no point in having rational, accurate tests of color vision if the regulations themselves are pulled out of a hat.

If there is one chance in four of getting it right on each occasion and it is reset to zero on each occasion, then the overall chance of getting it right by guesswork is 25%.

Hmm … not quite. If there are, say, six opportunities to guess for a given type of color deficiency, and the probability of guessing correctly in each instant is 25%, then the actual probability of getting them all right is less than one in 4000. The CAD tests each type of deficiency multiple times, not just once, so guessing won't materially affect the outcome. However, guessing might allow a test subject to pass the test if his color vision is good enough for him to subconsciously recognize colors—he might think that he's guessing randomly, and in fact he is selecting the correct answer because he might still be able to see the colors very faintly (too faintly to be consciously aware of it).

But it will not happen (thankfully) because in tens of millions of flying hours worldwide major incidents have not happened as a result of misinterpretation of colours. If they did, they would be happening left, right and centre in countries with a far more realistic approach to this issue.....e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia …

I tend to agree. And in fact this applies to all medical standards, not just those for color vision.

Just about all of the medical standards for pilots are arbitrarily established, because the aviation authorities think that certain conditions might incapacitate a pilot. But there's no real database upon which to base the standards—incidents of pilot incapacitation from epilepsy are scarce, for example, so the authorities can only speculate that having epilepsy is truly a problem … but they really don't know. In fact, if anything, color vision standards are some of the more rational standards, because at least there is some basis for imposing some sort of standard (e.g., PAPI lights). But even the color vision standard is still a bit arbitrary.

Aviation medical authorities still worry too much about having pilots who are as fit as astronauts, while they continue to ignore problems that regularly incapacitate pilots at least partially, such as fatigue. Having perfect color vision isn't going to help a pilot who cannot keep his eyes open.

[Scottish.CPL]

my first question anthonyGA, have you done the test? the cad test, and what colour vision tests have you done.

[AnthonyGA]

my first question anthonyGA, have you done the test? the cad test, and what colour vision tests have you done.

I've only tried the online demo version of the CAD, which I passed. I note, however, that the demo version has a slight reddish tint to the "gray" background, which I verified in Photoshop. However, variations in screen color balance don't seem to matter, as I was able to pass it with various different color settings on the monitor.

I've been administered the Ishihara and possibly the Dvorine (it was a long time ago) under real-world conditions by an ophthalmologist in the past, on several occasions many years apart. These tests verified that my color vision is normal. I pass all the online tests as well, even though they are only for "fun" (if one can call it that).

Why do you ask?

My personal interest in this thread stems from my general wariness about medical standards for pilots. I think they've been way too stringent for way too long, and the things they check for do not necessarily match the things they should be checking for. Color vision is an excellent example of the disconnect between the medical standards and the realities.

[Scottish.CPL]

right one thing, you can pass the online cad test, its a demo... that proves nothing, second if you not done the REAL cad test you have no right to say the cad test
is 'The CAD is a very accurate test, so there's not much point in questioning its accuracy' . second online tets are not accurate,

i suggest the instead of spending time on writng a long answer you actually have a think before you comment..

you didnt pass the cad test you modified the bloody thing to your eyes hense...

I've only tried the online demo version of the CAD, which I passed. I note, however, that the demo version has a slight reddish tint to the "gray" background, which I verified in Photoshop. However, variations in screen color balance don't seem to matter, '''as I was able to pass it with various different color settings on the monitor'''. :8

i suggest that you take the cad and them come back with proof of you arrgument...

[ChiefDM]

NO test which is supposed to eliminate persons from being employed in a colour related safety critical task on board a Commercial Air Transport aircraft, on which may depend hundred of lives, can utilise ANY degree of guesswork, immaterial of statistical probability.


A point I couldn't agree more with..... however, that rules out every test that could ever be done, as no matter how a test is done if someone doesn't know the answer there is nothing to stop them guessing however wrong they may turn out to be. For example I know what colours are used in a lantern test, so even if I didn't know I could guess. Likewise for the IP's even if all i learnt were the numbers that I should see on the 15 plate test I could take a guess out of those 15 numbers on all plates if my CV were that bad, but more likely most people would only have to guess 3 or 4 out of the numbers they knew they hadn't seen yet.

Just out of interest which tests do you think they should be using? Or do you think they should be testing for it at all? Don't get me wrong I'd be happy to see them do away with CV testing all together provided there were adequate measures taken to ensure that it wasn't needed at all, but this seems a long way off!

[763Nick]

Hello all, I have been reading this thread with great interest over the last fortnight, as my Class 1 renewal is fast approaching and I am very curious about how many of you that have taken the CAD test and subsequently failed it are able to discern the difference between the PAPI lights or airport lighting.

I am just trying to gauge the test against the practical application of colours.

Thanks

Nick

[Scottish.CPL]

again, ive taken the CAD, caa amc, failed 7.44 r/g, pass is 6, and .44 over the reset limit...

i have flown in the US with class1 faa and never had issues with runway lights, light and high intensity, taxy way light, even light gun when i had a lost comm senario, that was fun.lol..

i had issues with the plates at gatwick and i had a retest done and my university eye clinic and they used the propper light box, the plates at gatwick i f ound to be old and faided, yet the ones at the eye clininc were new ones, and all the numbers were there, gatwick wont accept due to there experience, the lanters were different, have a slght issue wth with white/green on the fact that it was at low intensity and high no problems, even the nagel scope thing is hard and people with normal colour vision i know have gone off the scale, jaa 4 scale units and my mate scores 24 units lol

there is a section on the aeromedical handbook that statae that colour vision can the retested in there is clinical ground for it, and i will be looking at that, im also curious to find the official instructions on the use of the cad, i why they need an average of 3 runs, and why they have a retest limit ie under 7 for r/g.

[AnthonyGA]

right one thing, you can pass the online cad test, its a demo... that proves nothing, second if you not done the REAL cad test you have no right to say the cad test
is 'The CAD is a very accurate test, so there's not much point in questioning its accuracy'.

The design of the test seems very sound, and it has been favorably evaluated by third parties using experimental subjects, in comparison to other tests that already have a reputation for accuracy. Thus far I haven't seen anyone in the academic community suggesting that the design or implementation of the test are any more flawed than those of other reliable tests currently in use.

In other words, the accuracy of the test is not really in question, particularly for identifying test subjects with the most common red-green color deficiency. One evaluation that is quite interesting to read is that of researchers at the College of Optometry at the University of Missouri, which reached precisely this conclusion.

As I've previously indicated, the real question is the appropriateness of the test result standards observed by the aviation authorities. If there is a problem, it's not with the accuracy of the test, it's with the "pass/fail" levels set by the aviation authorities. I do think it is appropriate to question the current levels, which may be too stringent (or too lenient, although I doubt that).

Put another way, it's not that the CAD test inaccurately scores a subject at +7 or whatever, it's more that a threshold of +7 or whatever may or may not be too stringent with respect to the real-world requirements for pilots. The CAA uses PAPI lighting as its touchstone, but is PAPI lighting really that critical? The only incident I can recall that may have involved PAPI lighting and color vision is the famous FedEx incident, and even there, it's not at all clear that one pilot's color deficiency had anything to do with the accident, which could have been avoided even with that deficiency.

Anyway, if you have a problem with the CAD test or with the standards set by the CAA or other authorities, what solution do you suggest?

you didnt pass the cad test you modified the bloody thing to your eyes hense...

It was the other way around: I took the demo test with the monitor set as-is, then, curious about whether or not monitor settings could really affect the test, I tried the test again with several other monitor settings (6500K, 9000K, color correction turned off, etc.). In every case, I had no trouble seeing the colors in the test, so it would appear that monitor settings are not that critical.

It should be noted that third-party and developer tests of the CAD indicate that it does not produce false positives—that is, it won't label normal individuals as color deficient. It can produce false negatives, however—that is, it can occasionally allow a color-deficient test subject to be labeled as normal.

The net effect is that more pilots pass the color vision test when the CAD is used. To me this seems like a very good thing for current and aspiring pilots, so I'm not sure where the resistance to it comes from.

Even though the tests allows more people to fly, it seems that a handful of people who fail this test but passed others are bitter about that fact, which is understandable. But the problem is not really with the test, but with the standards that aviation authorities impose for "passing" the test. If you have a quarrel with the use of this test, it would be more productive to lobby for changes in the standards, not for changes in the test itself, which seems to work pretty well.

[Scottish.CPL]

anthonyGA

Take the test.... you are speculating on information, do the test... you seem so happy to tell us all about stat.. i mabye agree that the test might be faverable, and that the test pass limit might be high, its possbile, and that a good point..


however, you need to adjust to on other thing as well, the nagel anomoloscope is another test which is jaa accepted, the issue is that the test pass required 4 scale unit or less, its can be difficult even for a colour normal to pass.. so could the standard to challanged???

[Pace]

Scottish

The problem i have with all these different tests is that they dont have a practical basis.

Ok if I am going for a job reading numbers in colour dotted books then that would be an excellent tool for seeing how good I would be at it.

If my job is determing shades of green foliage in trees then thats what my test should be.

Aviation colour tests should be based on how practically you can determine colours that are used. Ie in a simulator or simulated viewing device or even actual aircraft you should be tested in a practical way on whether your colour vision poses any problems in the real world.

Pace

[Assad Spaceship2]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

[Scottish.CPL]

before i answer the question, have you taken the canadian class 1???

the faa colour vision is different as to the number of plate errors you can have..

[Scottish.CPL]

pace,

i agree this you, and i think the faa styple is more practice, mainly becuase it uses the proper light signals from the tower, the lanterns you get test the deficiency level or intensity of the signal, not the recognition of the colours red/green/white..

[Scottish.CPL]

with regards to the spectrolux lantern, has anyone been told this, got theis eamil today..

Thank you for your request

The Spectrolux lantern is one of the JAR accepted lantern tests. The Spectrolux lantern test is passed, if 24 signals are recognised correctly without any mistake. Anyway - it is at the discretion of the State of License Issue of your flight license if they would accept a Spectrolux lantern result. If you suffer from a color deficiency, diagnosed by other tests, it is not very likely that you would pass the Spectrolux.
Therefor we only do Spectrolux lantern testing if we have a written order/transfer by a flight surgeon of your state of licence.
people your thoughts, bearing in mind they have no idea of my colour colour vision .history :confused:

[ndr1804]

Hi everyone.

This has been a bobby box of mine for many many years ,since I was 13 years old.

I think a proffessor in Australia did a study on this exact subject many years ago and proved that people who were tested with black and white information understood no less than those presented with colour information.

I have a slight colour deficiency and many years ago sat a lantern test which was mainly distinct colours of varying appertures. This I duly passed with i believe 100%. My doctor wrote to the CAA and gave them my results. They wrote back to me to explain that I would have no problem obtaining a class one medical.

When I renewed my class 2 medical they change the rules to. Once you had passed the colour defficiency criteria you did not have to resit any further colour test as difficiency does not improve or deteriorate with age.

So does this rule lapse when obtaining a class one medical. I don't see why it should surely the ability to see PAPI lights or any other pretty coloured lights that are around the airfield at night should apply wether you are at the controls of a A380 or a piper PA-28. I've been flying since 1984 and at night sometimes..........Does this put me in good contention for passing all these new confangled tests that are required for a class one.?

Something has to be done. Should we all get a November registerd aircraft and fly around our country. It seems to me that some countries allow alot more lee way in this field. Hell don't we all fly in each others airspace. It would be a bit annoying watching some foreign pilot landing at one of our airfields with worse eyesight than some of us.

Someone once said to me.

"Doesn't matter what colour it is, just don't hit."

[Scottish.CPL]

in theory, you colour vision should be tested again if you are going to a initial class 1 medical. I dont know if the letter wil stand or not, possibily. The best thing to do is call gatwick and get the optometrist to check this out.

[ndr1804]

Well my initial result and the re medical were all examined by the caa. They had a letter that I had from the chief medical examiner many years ago so they must of had a copy of the results. My new doc had to wait for the caa to notify her of the previous colour test pass results before allowing me my new medica.

This subject gets me so annoyed even to this day.Even now with all that flying. Its like gremlins come out of the woodwork.......:mad:

regards
NDR1804

[Scottish.CPL]

it depends when you did the test, guess it was the homes wright lantern you did, if was done a few years ago they may ask for ot again, im assuming you failed the ishihara plates, and you got sent to a university optometry clinic for the lantern.

[ndr1804]

I had my very first medical in a hospital where my doc was based. She sent my results to the caa I still have the initial letter confirming everything. Needless to say I never let this letter get away from me. And now I have my upto date letter as well..............In this day and age are we not able to fly around without having to use colours hell we can now land in fog with a cat 111 approach. I know I'm being synical its the blood boiling.

regards
ndr1804

[Scottish.CPL]

right so it was an initial class 2 then , ok

if you read the whole subject, you will find that the people that pass the ishihara plates on the bases of acheiving 13 plates min, which by the test standard in normal or cp2, then most can be train drivers, more demanding job. ive had my cv tested by my university and they say that although there might be a vslight green weakness, it would certinaly not be enough to be concidered unsafe for night flights, i have an faa cpl/ir and i have never had any issues with night flying at all....

[ndr1804]

Hey Scottish Cpl.......I'm logging off now but will talk again soon. Now that my bloods boiling I'm going to try calm down.........but, hey, best of luck with this and we'll speak soon. If I had a FAA CPL IR I wouldn't be existing in this hell hole I'd be sunning it in a country that liked me. Speak soon mate.

regards
NDR1804

[Scottish.CPL]

yeah i am in the process.

i guess then that anyone that is a flying instructor then will loss there license rating due to VCL. And that info does not state specifically that CVD is included ie no dificiency at all.

The thing is that mitchell, will probably not play ball over this, ie standards will be standards.

secondly i have found out that i am able to do the lanterns or cad test again after 6 months, i can also ask this if it is felt of a clinical bases. EASA in 2012 i think.

you are right though mate..

[ndr1804]

Do we know for sure that EASA have this as a directive not to allow CV deficiency in the class 1.

I am sick to death of Europe sticking its nose into everything.

Like I've said before go FAA class and fly November reg however you do it. They know what they are doing in the States, they build most of the aircraft of the world and the airspace situation is right as well.

You don't know where the hell you are over here from mode S to Lisencing.

I wonder if a PPL would be allowed an Instrument rating then with a slight colour deficiency.
regards
ndr1804

[Scottish.CPL]

well ive descided to stop, stop wanting a career were the rules are not fair, and not justified.

im sick of the CAA, is sick to :mad: in EASA making things worse, is sick of it all. I will continue to fly on my FAA licence, and i will never apply for a JAA EASA license....

ive been getting negativity from the idiots that have the spectrolux, check my last few messages.

Once thing i do like though was a friend of mine in the US, he said to me ' mate its is funny because in NASA the medical is more or less the same your faa class 1, it fair, and recognised internationally'

its going to be fun the amount of flight instructors, examiners and people who cant get a full medical or full atpl due to the vcl limitation but work for flight schools, and they will be scr$ed. no grandfather rights......

[ChiefDM]

I remind you all that you are running out of time as well. In fact EASA is fast approaching and remember that EASA will no allow colour vision deficiency for class one certificate. To cut short, you either sort your medical out now or it's game over.

Hmm thats interesting. What is the definitive situation regarding being retested for CV if you pass the initial at the moment? Does it get retested? I read in one place that they don't retest CV as it's not supposed to get better or worse, then in other places I read that they do retest because it can get worse as a symptom of things like diabetes?

When the new regs come in will it mean that everyone is retested for CV anyway at their first renewal? If they are surely this means that anyone passing now with CVD won't pass at a renewal once EASA comes into effect :confused:.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi cheifDM

my thought are the same, its getting crazy, like the faa every medical you do the cv is retested, thats the procedure. they will always use the ishihara plates as a starting point and then the lanterns, or the **** CAD test...

is there a link out now were it goes over the proposed esea vision standards now ?

[ChiefDM]

Another point I've just thought of, if it is true that CVD isn't allowed to any degree under EASA regs.... what was the point in spending a truck load of cash developing and implementing the CAD in the first place?!

[Scottish.CPL]

before i reply to this... already there are people including yourself buddy, that are now becoming rebelius, it a good way.. Its like life at the moment, people are fed up paying more tax, to bail out governments, and to pay for the people that should not be here.

as my father said to me, 'its starting'

i agree, the whole thing is stupid, in order to fly in the RAF, u need to pass the ishihara , no errors, fair enough it a competative job, and even after aptidute , they still need to weed out the possibles from the no possibles, and like the ishihara does state if 13 or more plates are passed the cv is normal, 15/15 is used to make it easier to fail even colour normals but base it on standards, hmm higher that the test recommends..

I dont see the armed forces, nor london underground using this cad, and the cv standards to the underground state up to two misreadings for ishihara ie 13 min plates, so you can drive a train, but not a bloody airliner lol, :rolleyes:

[ndr1804]

Not interested in driving trains or being a NASA astronaut but points taken. I've always said that to colour deficiency has never affected my ability to fly an aircraft. Even if you couldn't tell the PAPI lights what happened to runway situation recognition and for that matter the ILS. Doesn't matter how colourful your glass cockpit is you would still be able to distinguish the the relevent information.

What about when EASA sticks its nose in, how many PPL's will loose their night ratings or instrument ratings.

I was always told you have to be able to see distinct colours mainly White, red, green, never seen that many cloured dots so close together in a cockpit anyway. With modern day communications GPS and alike you would think that we could now fly safely without the need for relying on colour. Runway, approach and taxi way lighting are all distinctive shapes anyway.

You've done it now you lot . I thought I'd left and got rid of all these negative feelings.

regards NDR1804

[Scottish.CPL]

hi agian

You've done it now you lot . I thought I'd left and got rid of all these negative feelings..

get over it mate, things are changing and if it means negative feeling, these are the things we need to fight on, it going to affect us all, :(

the issue over instrument or IMC is still being debated, the issue over EASA changing cv issue, ie doing the tests again at every medical, the faa do that too.

all i know now is that i am sick to death of all the bull sh** as well.

[ChiefDM]

All of that said I've just found this in an EASA Medical Requirements doc NPA 2008/17c.


MED.B.070 Colour vision
(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are
necessary for the safe performance of duties.
NPA 200817c
3 Jun 2008
Page 17 of 66
(b) Examination
(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.
(2) Applicants who fail to obtain a satisfactory result in the Ishihara test shall undergo further
colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
(c) In the case of class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be
colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit.
(d) In the case of class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception
of colours, their flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.


As I read that its a similar situation to what we have now, i.e. if you can pass the tests then you are deemed to be colour safe, so it doesn't seem like there is a strictly no CVD rule. Could be wrong though.... lol

[ndr1804]

Well thats the words I was looking for. As I understand it I seem to be colour safe..............How they detect their colour safe could be another matter.

Regards
NDR1804

[Scottish.CPL]

it seems to be going backwards

the current rules are that if you cant pass to the standard, but pass the ishihara test standard (recommended) or other tests, then you can still fly as an instructor, by day only..

it now seems even that option is going down the shi*** ,

also anyone that was diagnosed wrong, ie ishihara misread, issue with lighting, or age of the plates, if they advised to be rested for cvd at renewal, that could be positive or negativve, ie someone that is boarderline and can give the proper responces..

[ndr1804]

I have never understood the principal of stopping people flying at night.

To me the colours are even more distinct at night.

Its like motorway driving with the different coloured cats eyes. If you can't tell the different colours of them doesn't matter they out line the road perimeter and junctions anyway.

[ChiefDM]

Well for what its worth I'm off to City for the full assessment on the 20th October..... wish me luck! :\

[ndr1804]

Best of luck mate I hope you are successful.........Report back every little detail so we can share your experience.

regards

NDR1804

[2close]

So it is being suggested that EASA can introduce legislation that will remove the livelihoods, income and financial stability of some flight instructors.

I would have though that would be in breach of EU Human Rights Legislation and EASA cannot introduce one law which breaches another. The primary legislation would be the HR Legislation, thereby rendering the Part Medical legislation unlawful and open to challenge. I would like to say that they are opening a can of worms for themselves but the devious brains at the head of the chicken know all this and would just tie any claimant up with months if not years of legal argument and massive bills.

But of far more significance is the human effect. Only a few months back a colleague of my partner was made redundant and made a very marked protest to senior management by commiting suicide in front of the workforce.

This is the highly tragic effect that taking a person's livelihood can have and there have been many similar cases over the years.

The truth of the matter is that the aviation authorities do not care about individuals, only their power, salaries, pensions and perks.

I just hope they are ready to accept the consequences of their actions, should the worst happen.

[2close]

'Morning Windforce and all,

I have just been reviewing the Equality Act 2010, which came into effect yesterday, 01 October 2010, and the various Regulations that supplement it and there are some very interesting developments.

There are some new and VERY valid grounds for taking on the CAA (and EASA if necessary) in the Courts, which did not exist before the introduction of these new laws.

Some of you will be aware that moves were made 2 years ago to commence legal proceedings against the CAA but that these were placed on hold pending the development of the CAD. Correspondence received at that time from the CAA Chief Legal Adviser made it clear that the CAA would spend as much public funds as necessary defending its position on this issue.

(As a separate point, that's where your aviation fees go folks, shoring up their grossly over-inflated salaries, final salary pension schemes, subsidised perks and pointless legal cases, defending the indefensible and prosecuting private pilots who have committed minor transgressions. Hopefully, the present government will see what a waste of funds and oxygen the CAA as an individual organisation is and EVOLVE its tasks to the DVLA. I cannot see how, in the present climate, with the massive slashing changes being made to Public Sector departments, the CAA can survive, despite its attempts to hide being a very thin veil of being a private company - YOU ARE A PUBLIC CORPORATION. THAT MAKES YOU PUBLIC SECTOR. It is already struggling to achieve its tasks, owing to manpower reductons- and failing miserably in the majority of them. Get rid of it and send the few aviation experts that are actually required to work at DVLA Swansea - that should get the termination of employment notices flooding in so they won't have to worry about redundancy payments ;) )

Furthermore, EASA is right at the bottom of the Christmas Card list of certain EU Ministers so some very strongly worded letters are being sent this week to the EU Parliament regarding the draconian implementation of the new rules and the effect it is going to have on the livelihoods of certain individuals.

If anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in pursuing this matter in the Courts, please contact me via PM asap. But make no bones about it, it will probably require some funding to get the ball rolling, although some work has already been done.

Get in touch guys.

2close :)

[Scottish.CPL]

well, does'nt easa have a loving caring attitude,

i found out that i meet the medical standards for a canadian cpl, might see about getting a job flying cargo, or maybe a job like that one the documentry ice pilot..

its funny the colour vision standards are ok, 13/15 plates on ishihara... and they also accept the farnsworth d-15 test as well, none of your CAD s***. we are talking practicle and meaning full tests, the type of tests that relate to the real word 'CAA take Note', i have so much negativity from switxerland over the spectrolux, they wont let me arrange an appointment unless my ame or flight surgeon write me a letter, it like being back in school lol...

so all polits on class 1's with cvd will be scr*** in 2013, think of all the instructors on the dole, and of course any examiners, the one thing that made me laugh was that the JAA maunal, oh sorry the BIBLE, said that colour vision may be retested if clinical bases is warrent....... hmmmm,

aviation is turning to :mad:.

[ndr1804]

Will this mean all pilots with cvd can't have an instrument rating. Why the hell not?. Half the bl**dy cockpits instruments are black and white anyway. Oh then comes their little favourite saying "but with all the coloured new efis glass cockpit instruments it will affect you,"...........well no actually it bl**dywell does'nt affect me.

Never had a problem deciphering instrument information black & white or colour.

They make it out to be such an issue, hell, next they will want us to stop driving due to not being able to tell traffic lights or cats eye's in road.

I'd love to know how many aircraft were manoerved by light signals alone at heathrow. How many accidents occurred due to CVD.last one was probably when it was a grass strip with Blackburn aircraft on it.

I'm sorry but my eye sight for flying has got me through the past 27 years with no restrictions on my class 2 license. (MUST BE COLOUR SAFE THEN>>>!!!!!!:rolleyes:) Don't ever recall not being able to find an airfield, or runway or taxi light or even spot another aircraft in flight. Must of been those colourful WHITE strobes:p
Both my ICAO (hands off EASA:=)and JAA licenses are still running.

So it begs the question all those FAA and other countries pilots with CVD will they be banned from flying over here and EU...??????????? If not, go get your FAA or any other License and fly on that reg over here......Who gives a s**t who's name is on the license so long as you can legally fly for a living and do night or instrument....FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT there will be enough of us out there.....

NDR1804

[AnthonyGA]

I've been looking for EASA regulations that change the situation for color-deficient pilots, but I haven't found any. I have the impression that hysteria is taking over here, for no good reason.

I've reviewed the NPA 2008-17c, previously quoted here, and apparently the most recent document concerning color vision for pilots from the EASA, and it does not require normal color vision for pilot licensing.

In fact, in the responses to comments submitted on this draft proposal, the EASA makes clear that its own proposed requirements are based directly on JAR FCL 3. So, overall, no change.

A surprising number of comments on the draft decision from people outside the agency insisted that anything less than normal color vision could be "very dangerous" for aviation. Fortunately, these comments were rejected by the agency.

The draft regulations still allow color-deficient individuals to pilot aircraft (including Class 1 medicals and night flight), provided that they are "color-safe," which simply means that they need to be able to see colors well enough to fly … just as the situation is today. If they don't pass the Ishihara test, they shall undergo "further colour perception testing"—no specific test is mandated.

For Class 1 specifically, the draft regulations suggests testing on revalidation "on clinical indication"—which means if there is a reason to suspect that color vision has changed. It suggests anomaloscopy or lantern testing for pilots who fail the Ishihara, but does not mandate it.

Note that the first requirements are mandated by the language of the draft ("shall"); the second requirements are only suggested ("should"). This is an important distinction in documents of this kind.

Overall, I don't see exactly what the problem is. The draft regulations appear to simply echo the current applicable regulations. I don't see anything that will deprive current pilots of their livelihood. So what is all the panic about?

Incidentally, there are no recognized human rights that entitle a person to earn a living from the profession of his choice, so going that route is a waste of time. Nor is there any such right that entitles a person to keep the job that he has had in the past.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi mate, ano the general issue is possibly mis info for miss read.

im my position, i recently did a medical for the police and for train driver, and when is did the ishihara plates, no errors, and the lightning was correct.

im confused as to the plates and the lighting at gatwich, and before you all ask, the plates were done in a random order.....

i wonder if i can claime clinical reason for a reteest at renewal, i have to do it for the faa, and now for the canada transport medical..

[ChiefDM]

I've been looking for EASA regulations that change the situation for color-deficient pilots, but I haven't found any. I have the impression that hysteria is taking over here, for no good reason.


I was thinking the same thing ;)

Maybe someone could send us a link to the regs document that says its not going to be allowed under EASA regs?

this means, unless standards change, that there will be no CVD for class one medical. End of Story.

I'm confused by this because, as has already been posted, EASA says that its own proposed requirements are based directly on JAR FCL 3?

[ChiefDM]

I see what you're getting at now, I was blissfully unaware that anyone deemed as unsafe was able to still obtain a CPL (I assume this carried some form of day only flight restriction?).

That said though is it right to assume that if you have CVD but are deemed safe that you can still gain a Class 1?

Still got two weeks to wait before I find out how bad my CVD is! :ugh::ugh:

[pilgrim flyer]

.... SCPL posted

1) we do not issue any Class 1 Medical Certificates with a color deficiency limitation (VCL limitation is not possible for Class 1)

I don't know where that comes from, but it's not true because I have a VCL limitation on my Class 1, and have done for a number or years.

Cheers

PF

[Scottish.CPL]

my appologies, prilgram, i was sharing an issue over the spectrolux, and the message had gone all strange, please just disrigard that, thanks..

[ndr1804]

hi boys and girls ....yes some girls have cvd. yhis is the exact chap I mentioned a while ago. he has done wonders for cvd people and prooved it correct. The fact that colour difines full information only is not always the case.

regrds Nigel 1804 (currently colour safe)

[ChiefDM]

Forgive my cynicism, but proving it is one thing, getting people to listen and change things is quite another ;)

[RVR800]

The Isihara cards test result was at my initial medical, deemed insufficient and I was then referred for the Holmes Lantern test, that test was difficult, and although I passed, I often reflect on what might have been; a colour VDL restriction. No Class I.

Imagine my surprise when visiting an optician I was given the all clear on Isihara; this backs up comments made above.

The whole thing lacks credibility in my view as the number of plates shown to the patient for the type of colour blindness I was alleged to possess before that was deemed satisfactory under holmes, was low 2 plates maybe 3 and in uncontrolled lighting - the whole thing doest stack up not enough evidence and varying test conditions make it a bit of a farce....

[ndr1804]

Ok. Here is more food for thought. I know cvd can't be cured at moment, but if a lense can be produced that corrects the defficiency to allow you to pass the ishihara test why can't it be used as an aid. Just as some pilots carry two lots of glasses or contact lenses around. I can see nearly all ishihara test plates a normal bulb lit room but not all in outdoor light......?????? so read this and see....!!!!!!!! Correction of Colour blindness - colour vision deficiency test (http://www.colourvision.info/colour_vision_deficiency_correction_for_color_deficient_and_ color_blind.htm)

If it worked,,,,,,why couldn't it be used as an aid ? god knows how many pilots need glasses as an aid. Some pilots I know can't even read instruments without glasses

Regards nigel

[ChiefDM]

Funny you should mention this, I did ask about the Chromogen lenses which do a similar thing and got this response from CAA.


I regret to advise you that Chromogen Contact lenses are unacceptable in the flyingenvironment for both Class 1 & Class 2 medical certification. I hope this information is of help to you. Any further queries can be answered by calling us on 01293 573700. It is not our policy to communicate via e'mail on medical matters.

Regards
Gerry Emms
Senior Aeromedical Adviser

Like I said earlier it's one thing to prove that there are ways around it and things that can help and even proving that its not relivent, but it's another thing entirely to get requirements changed to reflect these things.:hmm:

[ndr1804]

MMMMMMMMMM. No explanation as to why they are not allowed. What would be the responce then if a guy needs eye sight correction long sighted or short sighted. Surely we are doing the same thing correcting a defect........? So the guy who has a heart attack (and I believe military too) go have correction surgery on the heart.......If it proves that it works then why can't we do this. Someone give us an answer, a proper answer not the usual drive Z response without explanation...........

regards ndr1804

[2close]

The reason they're not allowed is that this would further erode the last bastion of resistance for a very small group of aviation optometrists who are clutching on to their raison d'être by the finest of threads.

There is very little justification for the massive costs incurred by the CAA medical department, a task which could easily be administered by the DVLA with oversight over AMEs, and every post they lose would weaken their position further.

Therefore, they dream up excuses for maintaining the status quo over CVD and conjure up invalid objections to any positive progress.

It is all about protectionism of jobs, perks and final salary schemes.
;)

[AnthonyGA]

If it worked,,,,,,why couldn't it be used as an aid ? god knows how many pilots need glasses as an aid.

Glasses that correct refractive errors are different from glasses containing color filters. The former type of glasses does not remove information from visual input, whereas the latter does. This means that, while glasses that correct refractive errors do not reduce the information available to a pilot but merely reformat it, glasses that "correct" color deficiencies actually provide a pilot with less information, and from a mathematical standpoint this means that color filters can only be useful in certain very specific circumstances, while they may be more of a hindrance than a help in all other circumstances.

For example, suppose you wear filters that selectively pass red light but filter out a lot of green and blue. With filters like these, red light will seem brighter to a person with deuteranomaly (red-green deficiency), making it much easier to distinguish from green. However, since so much green and blue is being removed from vision, the total amount of information reaching the eyes will be reduced, and blue and green lights will be much harder to see. In very specific circumstances that require only enhanced perception of red, the filters might be useful, but in most other circumstances they'd only make things worse.

Thus, a set of glasses that makes it easier to pass the Ishihara plates under a given type of light might work well for that specific situation, but might make things a lot worse under other types of light, and might make overall color vision in any other circumstances than an Ishihara test considerably worse.

This is why colored glasses aren't allowed for aviation. They only change things under very specific circumstances, enhancing perception for those circumstances at the expense of making things worse in all other circumstances. This is different from glasses that correct refractive errors, which do not remove information from visual perception but simply transform it (although the transformation may be one that also works best in certain circumtances).

The difficulty is in finding a set of color filters that would consistently improve color distinction for color-deficient individuals under a wide variety of flying conditions and for a wide variety of color deficiencies. While refractive errors are common and much research has gone into solving this type of problem, almost no effort has been made to try to compensate for color deficiencies in the same way (CVD being much less common than refractive errors). And while glasses can make a blurry image sharp, effectively providing more information rather than less, filtered glasses always remove information, so they may enhance certain differences but the overall image quality is always diminished.

Also, since filtered glasses always remove part of the light reaching the eyes, they greatly diminish night vision, whereas ordinary glasses don't (the light waves are redirected, but there's no reduction in light intensity).

[ChiefDM]

Makes a certain amount of sense I guess. Out of interest are there any rules governing the use of sunglasses while in the cockpit? I.E. are you allowed to wear them whenever you want, or at anytime except landing and take off? Surely they would have the same effect as CVD contact lenses? I do appreciate with this however that you can always just remove them if you're having trouble seeing things clearly ;)

Just curious really as if there are no guidelines on the use of sunglasses then theoretically a pilot could wear them from gate to gate, and this would surely substantially reduce the wearers colour perception.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey guys, ok the sunglasses, caa recommends neutral grey 70% .

second, come on guys, i know people are getting possibly annoyed, but we are using up cyberspace, and i know im bad at this, but wee need to stop using space on issues that are clearly not helping, do you not see a certain amount if slagging goin on.

we are disputing the standards of colour vision, ie to make it faire, or more human friendly,

on offend but writing a paragraph on sunglasses and cvd, yes it has been disputed, but people who say mathematically based results, OMG , thats like plonkers who ask, what are the statistics on people who fail the plates but pass thae holmes-wright lanter, WHO CARES, TAKE THE TEST, and stop annoying us.

[2close]

Save me the trouble, please, ScottishCPL of reading endless pages of material by advising me of your own position.

I take it from your 'User Name' that you hold a CPL, possibly with a restricted Class One Medical.

Cheers,

2close :)

[Scottish.CPL]

my cpl, is an icao, issued in the states, with a unrestricted faa class 1, no soda for color vision. I can pass more than the requirment for ishihara, im in the process of looking at gaining a canadian cpl/ir, through conversion.

after i failed at the intinal jaa class1 at gatwick and failed the lanterns, i got a restricted jaa class 1 medical, and was waiting for the stupid cad test to come, not worth 120.00 for a test which in my opinion, was several flaws to it.

[Captcook]

I had this problem back in 87, i couldn't pass the colour plates or the lantern test, I had to take a special flight test with an examiner to determine the colours on the ground, i.e. Yellow rape seed, green grass,
brown for dirt and ploughed fields etc, and then he made a report to the CAA if you can do that you get a restricted instructors licence, no night flying

[ndr1804]

Hell,......maybe its time to start the most rediculous way you have passed a cvd test to gain a class 1. My lantern test consisted of red,white ,yellow and geen light in a dark room with different appetures of light shown..........and thats how its been for 27 years.:ok: i could fly night day ifr vfr.....

regards ndr1804

[ndr1804]

I know what you are saying captcook..............restricted instructor rating on knowing the colour of fields...............Its so important to know the colour of fields on a night:ok:. So if you know the colour of fields during the day ,why does it stop you from flying at night, surely all fields are black at night and that doesn't help anyone cvd or not.........unless of course its a brightly lit retangle of white lights that depicts the shape of a runway how would we find that.? I don't know:D Over the last 27 years I have some times spent 10 hours a day frequently in an aircraft and never had a problem........:ugh:

regards ndr1804

[N3rull]

Hello people. I'm new here, so please don't be too harsh if I do something silly. I tried to use the search engine for what I'm looking for, but didn't find anything.

I am looking for people who:
- are protanomal (red-weak)
- took an anomaloscope test at some point on their way to their medical certificate

If you are such a person or know of such a person, please let me know (pm/post) if you/he/she managed to obtain an unrestricted license and how.

I am a protanomal person with the following results on a Nagel anomaloscope:

Moreland (test for blue deficiency) - Patient is colour-normal

Rayleigh - Patient is protanomal(red-weak)
I took two tests:
AQ = 0,33 ; B = 07 to AQ = 0,28 ; B = 07
AQ = 0,32 ; B = 06 to AQ = 0,19 ; B = 06

I would like to know if there are people with a deficiency similiar to mine who managed to get a class1 unrestricted in europe (by taking another test).

Thanks in advance.

[ChiefDM]

Tomorrow I'm off to City for a full colour vision assessment. I will post detials of test etc once I'm done for those who wish to know.

Fingers crossed...... :ok:

[ndr1804]

oh,,,,,, best of luck chief DM. report back every detail please.

regards nsr1804

[Scottish.CPL]

cheifDM

same for me, all the best, i would say that if you pass the CAD test, then great, but i would like to know, what the setup is, specifically if the remote that you use to select the answers is connected to the laptop/pc, thats important..

[ChiefDM]

Morning all!

Well, here is my account of the colour vision assesment that I took at City. I chose City simply because at £125 +VAT for various tests it seemed like I would get a better understanding of my CVD that I would if I paid Gatwick £130 just for a pass fail on the CAD.

Got to City and was taken into a small lab type room where I did the following tests. For all of these the room was darkened and the tests were illuminated by what appeared to be a daylight type bulb (unsure of the exact name).

Started of with the Ishihara plates, most of which I couldn't make out. What I would say at this point is that while many people say lots about how you can't practice these on a computer as the lighting and colours will be all different etc etc, I would say this is probably only relevant to people with very very slight CVD (which it turns out mine isn't but we'll come to that in a bit!)

Next up was a test similar to the IP's but with symbols, triangle circle square etc pretty straight forward. Can't really guage how I did in this yet as my full results are being sent out to me in the post.

Next up was a test involving looking at a book with 5 small (about 6 or 7mm across) coloured dots on each page (black backgroud) with one dot in the middle and the other four layed out to the top bottom left and right. I had to choose the dot closest in colour to the centre. The important word here is colour, not shade or brightness. For example the centre spot might have been green, with a brown a red a green and a purple for effect as the coloured dots around it. Obviously the green one would be the right option, but those with green CVD will know that identifying the green one isn't easy, so you tend to go for the one that looks closest in shade instead, which invariably turns out to be the brown or the red! lol

Next up was the D-15, standard 'here's 15 coloured discs, arange them in order so that the next one is closest in colour to the previous.

Then came the moment we've all been waiting to hear about. The legendary CAD test. Now before I go into it let me just explain that I in actual fact did the CAD test twice yesterday. Not because I was close to a pass but because the standard City CAD test differs slightly from the CAA CAD Test. I'll go into these in a sec.

So the City CAD test comprised of sitting on a stool with my chin resting on a support looking at a screen that was about a meter and a half away that had the familiar CAD square in the middle of it, however it was quite small, very small in fact, I would say that the whold grid was no more than 2 inches at most, which viewed from a meter and a half starts to shrink rapidly! The remote I had only had four buttons on it and was connected via a cable direct to the back of an old DOS based PC. And away we went. As has been already posted here somewhere back among the million other pages, you see (or don't in my case) a coloured square moving its way across the diagonals of the grey, almost white noise like, backgroud. The box moves to one of the corners and then you have to identify which corner the box moved to by pressing the corresponding button on the remote. The test only shows you one box at a time and doesn't move onto the next one until you have pressed a button on the keypad. So you can take a break at any time simply by remembering which button you have to press next but not pressing it until you are ready to start again. A lot has been said on here regarding being able to guess the right answer if you don't know, while I agree that its true, your chances of getting it right are one in 4, I must have pressed that button at least 15 times in a minute and been sat there for at least 8 minutes, thats 120 times, at least. A good portion of those were guesses, I would estimate over 50% so at least 60 were a guess...... now I'm no mathmatician but the chances of getting 60 complete guesses right are, I suspect, quite large.

The lady conducting the test explained that it was normal that there would be some I couldn't see as they neeed to find the threshold at which my CVD hits. It's difficult to offer any advice for how to approach the CAD as everyone will be different, but I found it easier to starte at the little white dot in the middle and let the 'grey noise' almost become a blur, as opposed to trying to locate the coloured square as it flies accross the box(it moves quite quickly!).

Once I was done with this, the lady said that as I'd expressed an interest in aviation that I could also sit the CAD they use at Gatwick if I wished. An interesting comparison I though so why not! Off to another room where there was a similar setup with a few small differences. Firstly the computer connected was a shiny laptop running Windows not DOS. Secondly the remote used to control the test was indeed a wireless device (essentially a bluetooth numeric keypad with some red plastic buttons glues to the 1,3,7 and 9 keys). Thirdly, the monitor on which the test was done was a nice Flat screen monitor, adn fourthly the test grid itself was substantilly bigger on the screen, I would say a good 4 or 5 inches across. I did 2 seperate runs on this version, one to look at my blue yellow vision and the other for the red green. The test worked in the same way, in that if you press a button on the control it moves on to the next one (meaning that if there were a problem with the control, or that the button presses weren't being recognised by the laptop the test itself would just sit there and not move on).

Results for this one were given to me straight after. Turns out my Blue Yellow vision is in fact better than normal with a value of 0.8 (1 being normal, lower being better and higher being worse), however my red green (green inparticular) vision was a country mile away from being good. I scored a whoping 22 and a bit on that one, meaning my green colour vision is 22 times worse than most people. 'Surely you should have known it was that bad before you went you fool!' I hear you cry. Problem is (and other CVD people may or may not agree with this) that knwoign you have CVD and knowing how bad it is are 2 completely different things. because someone with CVD will never see what you are supposed to see there is nothing to compare it against and so while you may know there is an issue there is littel way of knowing how bad it is, until that is, you take a test like the CAD which can put a value on it.

Anyways, I feel better now at least knowing that i'm not borderline and that I can look into other things. I now have a couple of options:-

1:- Lobbying to have all the aviation red green colours changed to a blue yellow system so I can see them and pass tests without issue (anyone up for writting a few thousand letters with me? LOL)

2:- Exploring the possibility of becoming an Aircraft Engineer of some sort (I have an IT background, not sure if its any help though), anyone have any advice on this one?

Any questions feel free to ask! :ok:

ChiefDM

[Scottish.CPL]

ok so you did the cad test twice then, to different setup, one on a pc with a wired up remote and the other like at gatwick, wireless remote,

you said the results where r/g 22, and y/b 1 unit, so what did you get on the other test,

did you get another set of results from the other cad test ?

[ChiefDM]

Thats correct. The results i got were from the Gatwick version of the test, which I have to be honest here was the easier one of the two given the larger grid size. I didn't get the numerical result from the City version as it was run on a PC that looked like it had just be delivered by the Ark and didn't give them, I assume I will get those in my report.

I did however get to see the output graph from the City version which matched quite closely to the Gatwick versions graph.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi mate, sorry for the late reply our bb was down.

So they had two versions, there one and the gatwick one, i would be interested in the city ones as well.

yeah the gatwick version is as you say a bigger display, pesonally it made me feel a tad sick,...

so you did ishihara, city university test, richmond PIP test, D15, and the CAD, no lanterns then..

my results from my cad, red/green 7.44, so 1.44 over pass and .44 over retest. lol

im still not happy that the controller for the gatwick version is bluetooth, becuase how do i know that some of the responces were picked up by the sensor, i would have wanted the remote connected so at least i new it was a fair run.... and it was done through a normal tv, so how do i know that the colour temperature and gama setting were done correctly, im my opinion caa had opened a can of worms.

[AnthonyGA]

yeah the gatwick version is as you say a bigger display, pesonally it made me feel a tad sick,...

I suspect that the reason for using relatively small displays is that color vision is confined mostly to the central portion of the visual field. The fovea contains cone cells (which see color) almost exclusively, whereas the peripheral areas of the retina contain mostly rod cells. So a large display with colors moving out of the central portion of the visual field might cause everyone to fail, even people without CVD, because color vision declines substantially in the outer portions of the field. This is also why astronomers use averted vision to see faint stars (looking slightly away from the star allows more rods to see it), and why moving objects in your peripheral vision are easier to spot at night than objects that are right in front of you.

im still not happy that the controller for the gatwick version is bluetooth, becuase how do i know that some of the responces were picked up by the sensor ...

The nature of digital transmission systems is such that they are generally all or nothing: either the signal gets through without error, or it doesn't get through at all. An incorrect choice transmitted with an intact protocol is statistically unlikely, as it would require multiple, unusual circumstances. Either the connection should work perfectly, or it should not work at all. With some lossy protocols this changes, but I doubt that this particular protocol is lossy.

[Scottish.CPL]

so what are you trying to say, yes you agree with the first statement and its a flaw, or what, second any level of technology is not fail safe,

[2close]

It seems that a very fundamental and significant flaw with the CAD Test and the blatant hypocrisy of the CAA Medical Department is being missed.

They have, on public record, stated that the only safety critical operation involving colour discrimination is correct identification of PAPI lighting. However, they are adamant that the PAPI safety issue is so critical that no risk of error is permissible.

Yet they are quite happy to introduce a test which not only contains an element of guesswork but one where the operator actively encourages the candidate to guess.

Look at the realistic possibilities of practical testing of an individual's ability to identify PAPI lighting. Could it be tested during a flight test? Of course it could. Would that be difficult to administer? Of course not. Given the extremely small number of persons who would need such a test it would be simple to implement and I am certain those persons would be more than happy to cover the costs of the flight and the examiner.

But you could go on here for ever and a day.

Rest assured, NOTHING is going to change without direct action.

:)

[Scottish.CPL]

i agree, really i do, the amercans do that, gun signals from the tower. The staff at the amc are great, and i know for a fact they are annoyed that some cases they get were they know the person cv is safe but JAR states other wise. and i agree with ur comments with the CAD,

[Scottish.CPL]

guys and girls, right need some help, ive just been reading the jaa medical manual on the pdf file, and was reading the othlamology report, first i ve never got the chance to read it ok, so i was ready that for the ishihara test, it states the the number of plates passed, and the number of errors must be recorded, and the results used in accordance with the test guidlines, well 13/15 plates contitutes a pass, i'm right on this ??

second the homes wright lantern, it states should be set to high, and then the presentations shound be shown, im i correct, when i did the lantern i was tested @ low brightness???

people feedback on this cause i am cross referencing from the JAA bible... from the manual

Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given
by each test. It is important that the quality of the illumination is correct: either northern daylight or
an artificial daylight source should be used. Ordinary incandescent lamps or fluorescent tubes
make these tests easier to pass, especially to deuteranomals. The daylight source should give an
illumination equivalent to the standard illuminants ‘C’ or ‘D’ of CIE (Commission Internationale de
l’Eclairage). The plates should be shown at right angles to the visual axis of the applicant, at the
correct distance and for the time specified in the test. The applicant should not wear tinted
glasses. The number of failed plates serves to classify the subject as normal, defective or
‘doubtful’ according to the specifications of the test.

the lantern notice thr retest part

The lantern-tests may be retaken after 6 months


If any error is made naming green as red, or red as green, the applicant will be
assessed as ‘colour vision unsafe’ without further testing.
If any other error is made, two further runs (i.e. 2 x 9 pairs of lights) on ‘HIGH’
brightness will be carried out. If no error in either run is made, the applicant will be
assessed as ‘colour vision safe’.
If one or more errors are made, the applicant will be assessed as ‘colour vision
unsafe’ unless dark room facilities are available.
If dark room facilities are available, the applicant will be dark adapted for 15 minutes and
one final run of the nine pairs of lights in dark room conditions at ‘HIGH’ brightness is
carried out.

i am so pi55ed of now, becuase i know for a fact i was tested on low, and never on high settings, i believe i have now been cheated on my medical...... read this space

[osmosis]

I am interested to know how many of you reading this are from Australia and have gone through the DCA/DoA/CAA/etc mill or given up trying to?

[2close]

If a medical professional has failed to carry out and administer a test in accordance with published manufacturer's instructions that professional may have acted negligently and may be taken to task for medical negligence and a claim for damages made against him or her.

Ask this question - what would you do if a surgeon changed a procedure during an operation to one he thought would suit his objectives better, which resulted in a serious detrimental effect to yourself? Would you simply accept it and walk away? Of course not! You'd be down your solicitor's offices the following morning.

[Scottish.CPL]

ive pm u, but no im not going to accept it, the other thing is that my level of trust with amc is now in question, i can get access to another h-w lantern, but not a byne, and i am certinaly not wanting to touch the cad again..

[ChiefDM]

So they had two versions, there one and the gatwick one, i would be interested in the city ones as well.

My City CAD results arrived over the weekend, they were better but not by much 18.8. Obviously there is a lot being said about the CAD. From my point of view I saw no problem with it. If I was going to pass I would have passed if I was marginal, I'd have had to retest 3 more times, to reduce the chances of that marginal pass being down to guesswork. If I fail then I fail, end of story. The equipment that was used as has already been said is either it works or it doesn't. You press a button, if the test moves on the remote works if not, it doesn't. You have no more safeguard that the button you pressed is the one that registers using a wired remote than you do using a bluetooth one.

I agree it does seem odd that if the PAPI is the only thing they say you need to be able to distinguish, why this is not tested specifically rather than making people jump through the hoops of the CAD test. That said I was glad I did the CAD test as there is no other test out there at the moment that can quantify how bad CVD is. Even with the error allowance it gives you a much better idea as to the extent of your CVD. It may still be ballpark but its better than giving you a country the ballpark might be in ;)

From my point of view the bottom line is that I'm nowhere near passing it so unless regs change in the VERY near future it's not going to happen for me. Shame but I have to move on and consider other things. Sadly I simply don't see them changing anything with regards to CVD for a LONG time!

[AnthonyGA]

If a medical professional has failed to carry out and administer a test in accordance with published manufacturer's instructions that professional may have acted negligently and may be taken to task for medical negligence and a claim for damages made against him or her.

Replace "medical professional" with "pilot" and see if you really still want that to happen. Be careful what you wish for. The same actions that may bring you emotional comfort in one situation can bring you emotional grief when the tables are turned.

Color vision tests constantly improve. As they increase in accuracy, persons who have been on the borderline of the aviation standard for color vision may go from meeting the standard to not meeting it, or vice versa. For those who might have been able to pass a less accurate test but cannot pass improved tests, this is unfortunate, but it's not a problem with the tests.

Tiny variations in lighting and mysterious bluetooth failures do not seem to prevent persons with normal color vision from passing, nor do they prevent persons with acceptably mild cases of CVD from passing. At the same time, no change in lighting will help people with severe CVD—they will fail the tests no matter what.

As the accuracy of tests increases, the results for people who are on the borderline become more consistent. For the lucky ones, they pass more consistently, since they truly meet the imposed vision standards. For the unlucky ones, they fail more consistently, since they truly do not meet the standards. For every person who is excluded because of increased accuracy in the tests, there will be another who can now pass because of that increased accuracy. For every person who can no longer fly because he cannot pass the tests, there will be another person who now has the opportunity to make a living from flying, because now he can pass the tests. The evolution is always in the direction of greater objectivity and fairness.

Complaining about imaginary defects in the tests will not help people in the unlucky category. Their only hope is to get the standards changed so that they will be able to meet them. It is only the standard that matters, not the test. For someone who truly cannot meet the standard, the situation will only get worse in the future, as fewer and fewer tests are inaccurate enough to let someone below the standard pass.

[Scottish.CPL]

well sorry, but i will question anything that will cause a discrepancy, especially on the cad that involves the tech/optician advising to guess on the direction of a signal, erm no...

second, i am asking for a retest on the lanterns, specifically the beyne, as quoted on the page in the JAA medical book. I have have the Ishihara test for to other careers, the police and the transport service and i have read every single plate, the last time i went to gatwick was for an faa medical renewal, and did the plates and i struggled with one of 2, after i left, i dawned on me that the reason was, no light was used, you know the special light that simulates daylight, surley the doctor should have picked this up, afterall im just a patient.

also my trust level for a certain person, dealing with they eyesight, no names, because of the attitute the person gave me...

[ndr1804]

Hi everyone......still feel like I'm being tricked into failure..........Tell you what,,,,,I'll stick to flying around at PPL level only, to be able to fly at night or IR and sod the commercial...........With a medical without restriction on it for the last 27 years...........I can define a runway day or night very well thankyou with or without PAPI lights........some sort of Irony there don't you think...? It still baffles me as to why so much is put onto CV in flying anyway. Some of the poor landings I've experienced probably with a none CVD pilot have happened well after they have passed the PAPI lights. Anyway the majority pilots probably with CVD find other ways of conducting a safe landing. If the weather is so bad and you are IR don't we have something called ILS to which it is often displayed on a black and white analog instrument " Or so you have the latest glass cockpit do you well then its displayed as two different bars in the horizontal and vertical and it wouldn't matter a damn what colour they were. Surely in this day and age we can safely fly around the skies without so much colour required,? yes it looks nice, but does it really stop the deciphering of information to the extent of being unsafe.......?

regards NDR1804:ugh::*

[dobbin1]

I recieved my JAR CPL last week, together with a whole page of restrictions - no public transport, no night, UK only, G reg only, must have a radio at ATC aerodromes. This is good enough for me to become a paid flying instructor, at least until EASA comes along - who knows what they will do.

I fly a lot an an airfield with PAPIs and I don't have any difficulty telling the white from the red. I suspect I would have trouble telling green from white at night though and I suppose this could be a problem during a night flight. For info, I failed 13 of the 15 plates and the lantern tests at Gatwick. I have not bothered with the CAD test, since I have no ATPL ambitions.

[ndr1804]

Hi again, personally I would of thought that flying at night would of been ok. The colours are more distinct at night....but what about flying IFR surely flying IFR you are doing exactly that, In a lot of cases flying along looking at mono chrome coloured instruments. Please don't come this glass cockpit Sh**te with me. Learning IFR surely makes one a better pilot not a colour insight in cloud or above it...........It doesn't wash with me........The restrictions they have placed on your lisence WELL! Whats left is surely what an everyday ATPL flies into all the time anyway.......YES and PAPI lights are white and red not green and white and only an aid not a necessity. We are all aware of safe ways to get an aircraft on the ground and the majority of times colours weren't involved......If you can take a light aircraft over a hedge into a very short grass strip field chances are there were no PAPI lights or landing lights.......and our problem is?:

Regards NDR1804

[Scottish.CPL]

hello all..

just curious about a few things, can anyone tell me about their expernience with any of the lanterns, and how they felt it was administered.

[A329apu]

Hi there,
I've got a question for all of you guys.
I used to have UK PPL and quiet few hours, when finally decided to go for ATPL the failed me on my Class 1 medical due to "colour blindness". That was massive shock.
Few years later I went back to my home country and out of interest I went for Class 1 and I passed. I failed Ishara plates but passed all other tests (2 lamp tests).
Now I have about 2000 hours on heavy jets, all in Europe and full European ATPL and Class one.

I have a job offer in UK right now that is very tempting but I have to get UK CAA ATPL and I'm quiet afraid to go there.
What if they do not accept my medical from other country, even worse what if they contact my CAA and ask them why they issued me with a license if I'm color blind (need to add that I passed my Class one in 3 different medical centers here).

If any of you has gone through similar process and has got similar experiences I'll be very grateful for any feedback and info.
All the best.

[ndr1804]

Doesn't it just show what a farce the whole cvd situation is. If I was you I'd stay right where I am......Someone will want to throw a spanner in the works somewhere.

Well done you. If cvd is such a big issue how the hell have you done 2000hrs heavy jets safley I presume.

regards

[A329apu]

Thanks mate, it's really tough as I have all my friends as well as fiancee in UK....but then again I've got my shiny Airbus here.

[bypilot]

Hello everybody.I have many questions about the procedure of having alternative colour vision test.In fact it is a stressfull situation I am in.I have some problem on reading Ishihara plates.It is not very much but generally I see many of the plates but sometimes on the some of plates it could be difficult to see the correct number or seeing one of the 2 digits of number.Can anyone explain me about the procedure of the having alternative colour vision tests?I read on JAR-FCL 3 and I know I could have anomaloscope or other kind of alternative test but I would like to learn can you get alternative even though you fail one of the alternative test.That is you get anomaloscope but failed,can you still have another alternative test?then you failed on second alternative test you took,are you still allowed to have third or fourth or other tests?At the same time I dont know what are alternative tests which are accepted by JAR?Anomaloscope,Lantern any other?And I have another question about it that do you still have to get an alternative test for next medical checks if you pass an alternative once.Once you passed you never have to get it again for whole life?Lastly guys I need your help because I have no further information about converting medical report to a medical card(medical licence).Can I transfer my medical reports I took in X country (which I took from hospital not an medical card) to another country.That is suppose that I get an medical class 1 from hospital in country X but I would like to fly with that report at country Y and both of them are member of JAA.Can I convert my medical report which I took at country X to a medical card for flying at country Y?If it is possible how can I do it?Thank you guys.I know I asked many questions but I really need help and it is very urgent.Good day...

[PeteW]

Hi guys

I've not looked at this thread for a while since I was lucky enough to pass the CAD test at Gatwick, having failed all other tests (H-W latern included). At my Gatwick test I think I only got one of the Ishihara plates correct before the gruelling CAD test!

If you are trying to get an idea if you would pass I suggest going to City University to try their full range of colour vision tests which will give you a better idea if you'll get through the current regime and the true extent of your CVD.

From my experiences and those of a friend of mine who failed the CAD test I think we still both believe that the CAD is the most likely route to success - laterns and anomoloscopes gave worse results! For reference I was assesed by City as having a "mild deuteranomaly" and my friend as having a "moderate protanomaly". I believe that for the CAD test with deuteranomaly you need a score of 6 or better and for protanomaly a score of 12 or better.

Good luck everyone.

[jn45672]

I new to this so heres my 2 cents on my expieriences going through colourblindness. I failed ishara and lantern tests in ireland, badly. Yes i was heartbroken like everone else, but didnt give up & would accept been told that i would never fly by some Doc. Determination is the key to success!!
So I decided to take a signal test at my local airport just for myself to see if i could pass it as in the US it is accepted. I got all them right, it very easy and that was during the day, just a pity it not regognised over here. So on a BIG GAMBLE i got a flight to the US and went for my class one medical to fly commercially over there. Turns out i didnt even have to do signal test, i passed the ishara first go. Couldnt believe it, i have a unristricted 1st class FAA medical.
So for all you disheartend wanabe commercial pilots who are CB, dont give up you dream just because your Doc says it wont happen:=, maybe try the US, belive me when i say it is ALOT less restrictive when it comes to colourblindness there are so many test out there you can do you have a good chance passing at least one.
As for flying i got my ppl in the US but have moved onto heli aircrew for the mom. all going well but gona chance my arm again at getting my medical again back here in Ireland so fingers crossed. I just need a class 2 for crewmember. im not sure if coluorblindness is a factor or not.

[Scottish.CPL]

hi there and thanks for posting, questions for you.

the difference in the pass score for ishihara is always in question, for JAA land, and that includes Ireland, no errors allowed 15/15. Now in FAA land the 24 plate edition you can pass the test providing you make no more that 9 errors.. so what you may have experienced what this, the light gun lignal test is a great tool under the FAA, the problem is that JAA will not accept it, because it is not difficult enough, the CAD test that gatwick has is a complete waste of time, becuase it is a clinical test, not a practicle test for aviation. what makes me laugh is that if you were to apply to become a train driver, the req for colour vision is perfect , the requerment is no error, but you can have 3 mis readings, in other words you can one plate that has a 15 but you might see the 17 clearer, that a mis read, not an error, hmm lets go figure the common sense in that. ;)

[WelshHopper]

Hi All,

I've had a nose around the internet, and even spoken to the CAA (They wanted me to go to Gatwick and pay for the medical before they would tell me the answer!) but not found much of a solid answer.

The Background

I currently hold a JAR Class 2 medical (which is in date), to obtain this medical I had to undergo a Holmes-Wright Lantern Test due to my Colour Perception, after takimg the test (results of which are held by the CAA) I was passed as "CP 3 - Safe".

The Question

Would the results of that test, e.g. "CP 3 - Safe" be good enough for the issuing of a Class 1 Medical (I have no other sight problems).

I'd really appreciate any advice anybody (especially an AME) could give on the matter.

[Stimmy]

Hi all. I just went to Gatwick yesterday to do my initial class 1, im 17 and have always wanted to be a pilot as long as i remember... anyway, you can all see how this is going by now but ill carry on. I passed most areas of the examination easilly and was told i am physically fit except for my hearing which wasnt perfect (im guessing due to playing bass in a rock/metal band). The only thing i was worried about was my colour vision and sure enough, i failed the isihra plates. I paid the extra £120 for the further tests and then did the CAD, i failed with a red/green defficiancy. The thing that confuses me is whenever i am tested by other people they can never understand why im colour blind as i answer correctly... the only reason i was worried was becasue id done and failed the plates before when at an RAF museum.

Now i have a restricted class 1... where do i go from here? im absoloutly gutted http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif I havnt actually started my flying training yet but do you think it would be worth requesting to do a lantern test or the test where you fly with and instructor and have to identify coloured runway lights? Is it possible to earn a reasonable living from being an instructor?

Any advise is most welcome and thankyou for taking your time to read.

[ste07]

Hi all

a question on the Colour assessment and diagnosis test (cad test)

i was wondering is there any other location other than Gatwick that does these tests? Bupa have this test on their website and i called them but they are clueless as to what im on about.

any help would be very much appreciated

Thanks :ok:

[sueni]

Hi everyone


I'm from europe and I unfortunately have Deuteranomalie. I did the spectrolux lantern test in switzerland but unfortunately failed. Now I'm thinking about a pilot career abroad...
But I need some answers:

1. I read that in the US if you happen to pass one of the alternative tests listed by the FAA they then give you a letter certifiying that you meet the standard for colour vision which you present to the AME at all future medicals and you will never again be tested for colour vision.
Is that really true, I do the test once and never ever have to worry about taking it again? (or is that just in the US the case)

2. If I pass the test in the US and get my FAA Medical Class 1, get the CPL and IR in the US, and then want to get a job or just take up flying in Asia (HongKong, China etc) or the middle east or somewhere, or apply for one of the cadet programmes (like Cathay Pacific Cadet pilot programme), do I have to do again a medical with a color vision test, or is my FAA medical class one - or at least just the colorvision certificate - valid?
Does one of you know in which countries the FAA Medical is valid?

Thanks for any help

[niallp]

Hi guys,
I have a question and hope someone can help. I failed my class 1 in Dublin 2 years ago so went to Gatwick and failed the holmes wright and baine lantern there. I went to the Colour Vision research Centre in London City university to do the evaluation and CAD test. This was 2 years ago just before the CAD test was accepted by the CAA. In the university I scored a 7.2 on the CAD.
Apparently the pass mark for CAD now at Gatwick is 6 or lower? I also heard the that if you scored close to a 6 the let you take the test 3 times and take your average score.
What I am trying to find out is, would it be worth my while to go to Gatwick and have a shot at the CAD. Does anyone know can your score vary enough to go from a 7.2 to a 6??? Thank any advice or anyone with experience in a similar situation would appreciated. feel free to PM me if preferred.

[ste07]

Hi all

i went for the colour vision tests at city uni in london and i was wonderin if someone can decipher my results?

the tests i took was
1, Isihara plates ( 5 out of 25 correct )
2, Cad test ( Deuton deficiency, Red green 11.39 x - yellow blue 1.24x )
3, Farnsworth D15 test ( pass )
4, american optical company (H.R.R) plates, ( 14 out of 20 correct)
5, city university test 2nd edition ( pass )
6 nagel anomaloscope Matching range : 0-22 Deuteranomaly

Those are the test i took and results next to them, please can anyone tell me what they mean and would those results enable me to have my night restriction removed on my ppl class 2. thank you in advance, feel free to pm me if required.

[Monty1977]

Hi guys,
I see many people referring to specific color tests in different countries, maybe it's useful to make here a list per country which initial color test is used for a JAA class 1?
e.g. Holland: Ishihara 24-plate
others: France:
Spain:
Italy:
Germany:
etc..
If you know which test is used in your country, please post here!
Cheers folks!

[Scottish.CPL]

I just wanted to ask the general oppinion on this,

ok so the CAD test.. the present one runs for 15 mins.. there is news of a 30 sec run, to be like a quick screen to replace the ishihara test, ok so my thoughts, to sit and look at a tv screen for 15 min and looking for a moving colour block, and being told to look in the middle of the screen :bored:, im sure that would cause immense fatugue, and mistakes to be make, ie selecting the wrong direction on motion in error...:ugh:

can i have some feedback, positive and negative please..

cheers..

[ste07]

Hi scottish cpl

i totally agree with you on the CAD test, i was getting completely bored, my face was in an uncomfortable device and to put it in simple terms fatigue was setting in and was completely losing what direction the colour was going in, surely it doesnt take 15 minutes to do the test, i think around 5 minutes is sufficient time.

[Scottish.CPL]

yep ano the feeling, and to be honest, it ticks me off, and they say a fair test, and the technichian tels you if you cant see a signal , just guess, how is that fair and to a controlled standard..

they told me i can retest, but when i do it, they will take the previous results and average it out, so what if i get 4.8 or something, thats a pass, some peolpe report that when they are within 7 units, and they retest, if you get one score in the pass criteria, that should be it done and safe, but nooooo, i cat find the official standards to the CAD in the medical standards PDF, if someone can directme to this, please do..

[Scottish.CPL]

Just checked the caa website on the research on the CAD and they are promoting the fact that the test does have a fast screening application a 30 sec version, so i want to know why that is not used first and then the full 15 min if required, once again CAA making it harder, not easier to get a full unrestricted medical...

[AnthonyGA]

Logically, the more marginal the color vision, the longer the test. For someone with normal color vision, or for someone with very severe color blindness, 30 seconds might well be enough to obtain a score that is unambiguously pass or fail. But for borderline cases, it might take a lot longer to get a reliable score. If someone gets every item right or every item wrong in the first 30 seconds, there's no need to go further.

I don't know if this is the way the test is actually conducted, but it certainly makes sense that it would be conducted that way.

Guessing is useful because it allows a test subject to detect differences that he might not consciously notice. Here again, it would only make a difference for borderline cases.

[Scottish.CPL]

I do agree with the point, to test for longer to establish a specific level, but as the CAA stated on a presentation that was done for the CAD it states that a 30 second screening test to be used, and if a fail then to do the 15 min test..

ste07 made a great comment which does back up my issue in certain areas.

[natoPilot]

Wow this is a long thread!

Background: I have a waiver from the FAA that allows me to obtain any class of medical. I received an offer of employment in UAE last year and went over for 2 weeks and had to come home. Turns out that the UAE jumped onboard with this rather ridiculous CAD test (literally 2 weeks before I got there) and after passing the Ishihara with the 1st AME and then failing with the second (yes, they make you take it twice with two different departments) and then sitting the CAD twice (only to fail that too) I had to come back to the states unemployed.:ugh: I have since been fortunate to start flying again in the states.

The real reason for my post:

I just found this website as I was poking around. It sounds very promising in that, so far as I know, every aviation authority still administers the Ishihara test 1st and then moves on to the other tests if you fail it. This might not help all of you over in the UK if you can't make it to Baltimore but if you could...and this technique was accepted by your aviation authority (topic which I have not researched yet - I have a call in to the office and am very anxiously waiting response).

Anyway, check it out:

Color Max, Color Vision Correction Specialist, Color Blindness Correction (http://www.colormax.org/)

PS Has anybody gone to see this guy already? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts and experience.

[Scottish.CPL]

Hey

Ok the CONTINUOUS issue is that... ishihara testing is only reliable in the controlled inviroment it was designed for, proper lighting, and the plates do fade over time.. Seocnd the test clearly states the same old story 13 out of 15 plates, you are good to go, the crap about getting all the plates right comes from the old fashion armed forces standard, and this was only used to filter out people at the medical.. and that is the truth, and some bright spark at the CAA/JAA descided, yeah we will continue that standard...

The cad is a student at one university's PHD, and the cad is a clinical test.. The one, the length of time to do the test 15 min, and that is too long to be playing a game to look for a signal box, fatigue and other things set in, and also the TECHNICIAN clearly stating ' oh and if you dont see a signal' ' have a guess' see if they allowed a 30 sec or 5 min test, that would be better..

Oh and a question to all, anyone found the ammendemtn to the JAA medical books about the process for the CAD... i can find it...

[blusky75]

Hi guys!!! Anyone knows the email address to contact the aeromedical center in gatwick?? I must do the cad test... Thx!!

[Scottish.CPL]

why dont you search for the email address yourself, clearly you have the interenet??..:rolleyes:

[blusky75]

if i m asking here maybe it means i was not able to find it..if u must answer this idiot message, save ur time

[osmosis]

This whole cv thing is a quagmire and won't get better soon; nor will this thread. I believe the cv standard needs to be removed entirely but that will never happen; the system is simply too monolithic for anyone apparent in this thread to move it. Live with it; or else let it fester within you. In Aus, if you fail the standard tests already mentioned in this post there is one alternative offered as a last resort; that is a live lamp test done on-field with a CASA rep. Lamp in tower. CASA rep radios instruction to tower. Tower flashes red/green lights at cv retard. Latter stands there & sees nothing. Pay hundreds for the privilege. You get the picture.

To any young wannabes out there, don't get bogged down here. Take the cv test early with your local gp, you'll soon know.

[Scottish.CPL]

blusky75,

are you serious, my god, what a way to answer your own question , idiot question, its like people who ask for the caa telephone number or in your case the email.. oh come one , think about it, ermmm mabye the CAA WEBSITE WOULD BE A Start.

:D

clearly some people are so lazy, and cant be ar***ed to do things themselves....

[Bad medicine]

OK, play the ball not the man, or you'll find yourselves taking an enforced break.

Blusky75 - the information you require is in the very first post of the BEFORE POSTING: Check here thread (the very first thread in the forum), or the very first result if you put "CAA aeromedical centre" into Google.

Cheers,

BM

[Domzy]

Im looking to do my ppl next year at some point and have a question about the medical regarding colour blindness. (i understand this subject has been done to the death)

I know im slightly colourblind and know i will fail the ishihara test plates as i have failed them on countless medicals before. Now i know that the next stage (if i want unrestricted flying) is to get a lantern test carried out...

Now, in 2009 i joined the fire service and part of the initial medical was to be tested for colour blindness (ishihara test plates) which i failed 7 errors from the first 16 plates (38 plate 1966 edition). The next stage in my process was to go to Glasgow Caledonia University eye clinic to get a more thorough test carried out to determine the severity of my colour deficiency. The test results are as follows -

City university spot test (second edition) - Binocular Pass no errors

Farnsworth D15 Test Binocular Pass no errors

Nagal Anomaloscope Midmatch point 33.1, Matching range 16.6 (diagnosis simple Deuteranomalous Trichromat)

FM 100 Hue error score 68 (average discrimination)

Holmes Wright Lantern Type A Binocular Pass no errors (light adapted)

Diagnosis: Mild Deuteranomalous Trichromatism.

I was accepted for the fire service after these results.

Back to my question - if (when) i fail the ishihara test in the medical do i then have to sit (and pay for) another lantern test or can i use the results from my previous test above. Also if someone can decipher my results for me that would be great - am i likely to pass another lantern test easily or will it just be my luck on the day - as i felt some of the lights where almost 50/50 green/white sometimes.

[Scottish.CPL]

hey there

if you cant pass isihara then the usual is the lantern, but now the cad is the replacement, so any results from the holmes wright are not accepted, and you did the holmes wright lantern A , it would be the B type, not does not make any difference..

[LukeBN]

Hi everyone,

I am new to this site and have a question which I hope someone can help me with.

I have always wanted to be a commercial airline pilot. I am now 29 years old but I failed an RAF colour vision test 10 years ago when I attended RAF Cranwell for a Flying Scholarship medical. I failed the test but was still granted the scholarship as it involved daytime flying only. Having failed this test, I didn’t pursue my flying dream any further.

I have recently re-taken the Ishihara colour plate test at my local optician. And I passed the test with a 100% score (24/24). So I am not sure if a mistake was made 1st time around or if I just got lucky on the 2nd attempt.

I am now thinking of a career change and applying to various airlines to enter their pilot training schemes.

My question is this – will the CAA (or JAA) have a record that I failed the Ishihara 10 years ago?

If I make an appointment for a class 1 medical examination will the CAA (or JAA) know that I have failed previously?

If so, is there any way around this?

Will the CAA just test me on the Ishihara plates?

Since the 1st test was with the RAF, will this show on CAA records?

Also, the 1st test was only for an RAF flying scholarship. Will they still have these records?

Or if I make an appointment for a Class 1 medical and then pass, will I then be considered colour safe for the rest of my life (and never have to do the test again)?

I am quite anxious about enrolling on a pilot training course only for the CAA to dig out a test result from 10 years ago which may hinder everything (and cost me my training fees)

Any advice would be gratefully received

[2close]

Previous tests count for nothing so don't worry about that.

No, it will not show on any records - such RAF records are only maintained for 5 years.

And DON'T TELL THEM!!!

However, if you have any doubts, first of all go down to your local optometrist and try again. If you pass there, book in for your Class 1 Medical at Gatwick but insist on doing the eye examination first - if you fail (and from what you are saying, you should be fine) then stop the Class 1 examination at that point and you should be refunded for all but the eye examination (That's how it used to work, at least).

Interestingly, there is some very credible new research which proves that people can see colours differently at different times of the day and under differing circumstances, including mood, lighting, etc. It is a known fact that certain medications affect colour vision.

Also, the condition of the Ishihara book may have played a part - faded plates are notoriously difficult to discriminate under artificial lighting conditions and the CAA WILL NOT allow you to take the test under natural lighting conditions, even though the test was designed for such. The examiner would have to walk all of ten yards to a window providing natural light........that's asking a bit much.

There are many factors which may have caused you to make an error first time around - many people with normal colour perceptiveness do, which is why the test allows two misreading errors (except in the world of commercial aviation).

The genes which affect colour vision have been known for many years and experiments with Spider Monkeys (Dalton & Sam), whereby they were injected with non-defective genes had remarkable results, in that it 'cured' their colour blindness.

There may be hope for you all yet, although I'm sure the CAA would introduce a rule that says anyone who has been treated with gene therapy is banned from flying, in the same way that you are not permitted to use tinted spectacles which may assist you with colour vision problems. You can wear sunglasses, which impair your ability to detect ALL colours, you can wear vision correcting spectacles, but you can't wear colour correcting spectacles.

:8

[coefficientoflift]

Hi all,

I'm looking to travel to the US later this year to convert my CPL and get an FAA ATP. I only have about 2 weeks max. to do this. Unfortunately, I cannot pass Ishihara due CVD. I have passed Lantern tests for other CAA's.

I've been in touch with one or two AME's stateside, but neither have or know anyone who has access to Farnsworth Lantern test.

Does anyone on here know of an FAA registered AME who has one in South Africa, or else in the Wichita region in the US?

Has anyone got specific details / have themselves passed the signal light test in the US for their unrestricted class 1?

Your help truly appreciated.:ok:

[ndr1804]

I have to agree with 2close for someone who has fought the battle for cvd pilots for years. If colour was such a big deal how the hell have i lived with a medical with no limitations for the past 27 years. No where can i remember having to use colour for the safety of a flight........oh so now there's the prity mfd's that the caa and probably now EASA will say is important total poppy cock. Hell all analogue cockpits were almost black and white and still are in a lot of cases. Can someone name me one accident due to colour deficiency. If you can have class one to wear glasses why can't we improve cvd with glasses hell i'll carry 100 pairs to comply.

[flybywire380]

Hi All,

Would anyone be able to advise as to which JAA Member States are most lenient regarding colour vision standards/testing please? Any help or pointers would be greatly appreciated.

On a separate note; has anyone with an alternative licence/medical (e.g. FAA CPL/Class One medical) and a few hours experience with no colour-related incidents, tried writing to the CAA Aeromedical to make them see sense?

[millonario]

Hi all,

I just returned to my home country of Sweden and I am seeking to convert my pilot license to get a job in Europe. Having completed my training in Australia, I was able to get a CPL and instrument rating despite being slightly color deficient (failed 4 plates on the 24 plate Ishihara). My question now is, what method does the Swedish CAA use for testing color vision? Should I expect the usual 24 plate Ishihara?

Thanks!

[dnsnlsn]

Hello,

I am an aspiring pilot - one with the way paved for him. Finances are of no issue, location, education, nada. Everything is set and ready to go.

I also recently found out that I am Color Vision Deficient. I FAIL miserably at the Ishihara test. I dream, really DREAM of becoming a pilot. I am located in the Philippines and was wondering if any of you guys have had miserable experiences with the Ishihara and still got a Class A medical. Please, I am in deep depression as I write this. Is there a chance?

[Scottish.CPL]

hi there,

Ok the facts on colour vision for a JAA class one medical, this may change when EASA becomes the new regulator.

The ishihara test, JAA standards for the plates, 24 plate edition, 15/15, Ishihara instruction pass recommendation 13/15..

The lantern tests are no longer accepted by AMC Gatwick, as the CAD test has replaced them,

The CAD test is only available at city univeristy and AMC Gatwick, if you fail the plates, you will need to pay another £120 for the CAD test, and you might need to test on a different day as they run the cad on specific days, that might be subject to change...

[paska]

Hi Everyone :O,

Im new to this website and found some really interesting posts relating to color vision.

I have failed the ishihara plate test and the farnsworth lantern test. I am yet to have completed a light signal test, but i dont have a good feeling about it... :(

I want to ask: Is it possible to obtain an ATPL having failed all possible color vision tests? Is there a way to obtained an unrestricted license however only valid within Australian airspace for example? Do airlines even consider people with color vision issues or just completely disregard their applications?

Sorry for so many questions, but its extremely difficult to find straight answers or people with information relevant to this topic.

Thank you all

[vee1-rotate]

Hi there,

this post mostly directed towards those in Australia, but may be interesting to others.

I've been on this website for about 11 years now I think ... found out I had colour vision issues early on in my flying, about 2005. It was discovered when I was going for my class 2 medical so I could complete my first solo. Obviously the common theme ... go to do the ishihara plates and could barely see them.

Obviously it was a big kick in the teeth for a youngster like me who lived and breathed flying. To cut a long story short, I followed the procedures and then went and got a Farnsworth Lantern test done at the College of Optometry in Melbourne. This was listed as a fail as well, so my career aspirations of flying were put to the side.

About 4 years ago I went to get a heap of testing done with a specialist eye doctor who also specialised in colour vision testing; Dr John Parkes. The overall consensus after about 3 hours of testing was that I had "moderate colour vision deficiancy" and the recommendation he made in a printed letter to me was that I would most likely not pass the Aviation Signal Light Test.

Fast Forward 4 years to about 1 month ago, and I had basically written off a career flying. I decided to book in the Signal Light Test for the heck of it.

I passed first go.

I now have no restrictions on my medical at all and am free to fly and obtain a full Class 1 medical. As opposed to what I did have, which was a medical with restrictions up to and including CPL and valid within Australian airspace.

I guess this is a message to those that haven't used up all their options, to do so before you totally write off a career in flying. Also, be persistent despite even the most (apparently) strong medical advice, because that isn't always true.

Any questions, just ask.

[ErikJohansson]

My dream has always been to become a airline pilot. So directly after i ended my highschool here in sweden i started my flight training at a professional flight school here in Sweden.

I already had a medical class 2 for my gliding license, and when i did it i passed the Ishaihara 24 plates whit no problems.

So when i was going to start the ATPL-theory i went to the medical centre in stockholm for my medical class 1, and failed the ishihara and lantern test.

After that i went to another medical institution and PASSED the Isharihara whit no problems.

So I read alot here on PPRUNE about the testing and i have some questions:

* When i did my lentern test i did it whit the lights on in the room, and one time whit the lights off. Is this correct?

* I also read in the colour vision thred that i was supposed to sit in a dark room 10min before i did my lantern test- is this a recruitment? Because i did not do that.

* Does anyone know how long the distance between the lamps and me should be during the testing?

* And is it a recruitment that the ishihara test should be taken under daylight or under artifitial daylight or is it okey to do the test under normal "room light?"

I also passed the ishihara test TWO times when applying to the swedish airforce.

Tank´s for a very good forum.

[FlyEJF]

Hello All,

I currently have class 2 medical and have been down to Gatwick to take the Lantern test as I fail the Ishihara plates. I passed the Lantern test in 2008 (approx). I was told by the lady who conducted the test that because I passed it if I came back for a Class 1 medical I wouldn't have to repeat it. After a few years I now need to get my Class 1 medical and have noticed that they have changed the colour vision test. They no longer perform the Lantern test but a new CAD test.

My question is will I have to pass the new CAD test or will they accept my pass on the old lantern test?

Hope someone can shed some light.

[covad83]

To get a class 1 medical you need to pass the Ishihara plates and the "Fast-CAD" test. If you fail then you need to do the extended version.

If you have taken and passed the lantern test then you shouldn't have a problem passing the CAD tests but you'll still have to take them.

[FlyEJF]

Hi,

I phoned the CAA today and the chap on the phone said that I would not have to retake the colour vision assessment as I had already passed it.

Hopefully that will still be the case when I attend the medical later this month.

[Scottish.CPL]

covad83

can you be more specific on the cad statement, you said fast cad, and them if failed the extended cad test.

can you explain this???

[ndr1804]

"Tower flashes red/green lights at cv retard". Could we have less of this. Please. Do you work for EASA.? Although I do agree with the tests performed as a basis for qualification for your medical.

I saw this web page for the states.

Color Perception And Visual Acuity (http://avstop.com/medical/eye.html)

So why can't we have the same test for us here. Who the hell is EASA anyway.?

So if the CAA or JAR or is it EASA anyway,( Hell it must be nice to have the same organisation ruling for years coming from the same country) If, which ever organisation is ruling allow the FAA or other World Aviation Authorities pilots to fly a their registered aircraft over here on the medical standards of the relevent authority after passing their CVD test and I'm prevented from flying a G reg in my own air space is that not against my human rights to allow one standard in and yet prevent another just because of his origin location.????????????????? or are EASA going to rule the world and try stop the rest of the worlds airlines pilots from flying in EU airspace unless they have passed the EASA regs......? Why does aviation in the US and elsewhere seem so pleasant and easy.....the rest of the world can't all have it wrong surely........Come EASA lets have some thinking outside of the EU please....

[jetcareerseeker]

Do you have to keep getting your colour vision retested after passing the practical signal test (for Australian CASA), every time you take your medical? Or is it a one time thing?

[Fruet Mich]

Hi guys,

I am a colour devicient pilot, fail the Ishihara, farnsworth, Holmes wright and just recently the CAD test in a big way! It diagnosis severe CVD. I do however pass with ease a practical environmental test in an aircraft testing papi, tower signal gun and all other aeronautical lights known to man.

This just goes to show that there is very little understanding in the field of science when it comes to colour vision and it's application to aviation.

I believe the CAD test is a result of a study group that was put together after the only accident in the history of aviation that involved a colour deficient FO in the 2002 FedEx B727 Tallahassee crash. The rather dubious findings put part of the blame on the FO having a history of CVD not correctly identifying the papi approach lights. He was an ex navy pilot with thousands of hours experience. Interesting thing was that 66% of the crew, the Capt and Flight Engineer, all pilots on board that day told the enquiry the all saw the aircraft on papi slope yet the findings put part of the accident down to CVD. The FAA asked for a study group to be formed, from there the infamous CAD was conceived!

The interesting thing is, has the FO from the Tallehassee crash ever been tested on CAD?

In Britain I believe there is a law against discrimination? Don't let these authorities dictate your future without backing their scientific theories with hard evidence. There would have to be millions of flight hours flown safely under CVD pilots with no accidents against a scientific theory. It's a bit like FAA signing off a new type of aircraft or engine after so many test flights.

Don't give in to these academics. Take them to task, if you can prove you can see the colours in aviation that's all you have to do.

I also failed the Emirates CAD, oh well, maybe it was a blessing in disguise!

Happy flying

[G-ALICE]

Good day, I am a commercial pilot with over 2500 hours experience and looking to move overseas for a job overseas. I have a full class one jar medical.

I had to pass the lantern colour vision test to get this medical (red/green colour deficiency). Are there some countries that will simply not give me a class one medical because of this?

[ILS 26R]

I have some good information on this. So, if you are interested drop me a line.
Thank you

[jetcareerseeker]

If you pass the practical signal light test, or any of the other colour vision testing do you have to retake it upon renewal? Colour perception does not change. So with that being said, what happens during the renewal of your medical? Do you have to go through the hoops with having to take the practical signal test again (if that is all you can pass)?

What experiences have people had with this test?

[Hopetofly]

Hi Folks, I posted this question in the wannabe section http://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/474958-colour-vision.html its a bit long winded so ill sum it up here.

Basically I am unable to identify most of the red/green test plates in the Ishihara test, I took a Holmes wright lantern test, and was told by the AME that i passed and i could hold an unrestricted class one medical if i passed the other parts of the examine.

What i am wondering is, do most airlines hold their own company medicals before offering you a job, and if so will they cut me from the list when i fail the ishihara or will the accept the fact that i have passed the lantern test?

Anybody being in this situation?

Thanks in advance!

[jetcareerseeker]

All the airlines in America have done away with internal medical flight departments except Anerican airlines. With that being said, so long as you have a valid first class medical, then you are good to go. No additional testing required to get that job with an airline. Now for American, I am not sure if they use the Ishihara. I had my color vision tested with them back in 2006 using a binocular type testing device which I passed with flying colors.

What is the Holmes wright lantern test like? Have you taken the Farnsworth, and if so would you say the Holmes wright is easier to pass?

[jetcareerseeker]

Sorry I made the assumption that you were based in the United States.

[Hopetofly]

Hi Jetcareerseeker, thanks for your reply, even though im from Ireland it is good to hear information from any country so no need to apologise.

I have only ever done the ishihara and the holmes wright test. For the Holmes wright test you basically sit in a room about 5 meters away from a little black box which shines two LEDs at a time. The LEDs can be any mix of red, green or white in colour and you have to identify them correctly to pass. During my test i was given about 150 different sequences which took about 30 mins. If anybody wants more detail about the test PM me and ill go into more detail.

[John R81]

I hold a class 2 medical with restriction to day VFR as I failed the colour test.

I found this online test A new web-based colour vision test | City University London (http://www.city.ac.uk/health/research/research-areas/optometry/a-new-web-based-colour-vision-test)

I lose the square from 1 minute 01 to minute 03. I can follow it the rest of the time

[jetcareerseeker]

The university in Victoria that does indepth colour vision exams offers the farnsworth and the modified farnsworth test. If you fail the farnsworth and the modified farnsworth, does that preclude you from taking the practical signal light test? Is the modified farnsworth considered equivalent to the practical test, is specifically what I am asking. Also, what are the experiences people have had with the practical signal light? How vivid are the colours they shoot at you?

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Jetcareerseeker
I failed the Ichihara and the farnsworth back in the mid 90's. Did the modified farnsworth at the Vic College of Optometry and passed 100 percent. Back then it only displayed red and white with no green at all. The colors were tainted with a bit of brown to simulate dust in the atmosphere etc but overall I found it quite doable. You take the test under standardFarnsworth conditions. You are in a darkened room and view the lights reflected through a mirror about 10 ft in fron of you with the actual lantern and operator being behind you.

I believe if you fail the modified lantern that's it your done and dusted. I did it because the practical test was not available back then and in hindsight that worked in my favor as if green was displayed I'm sure I would have failed it. These details may have change since I did it but that's my experience. Perhaps you can attend the college and ask to do the color vision testing without being refered by CASA?

[jetcareerseeker]

Thanks for the reply. So only red and white are the colours they use for the modified. I wonder if they would allow a practice run before doing the actual test. I'm sure I could pass the modified or the signal, I just want to have another option. I have passed other colour blind tests, but fail miserably with the Ishihara and obviously did not do well with the Farnsworth - the lights are just so small. My vision has been sharpened with laser surgery, so I may have better success at focusing and identifying the lights. During the farnsworth I did take, I got an average of three errors on the second and third runs (series of nine lights), with the third run having zero errors. Does that constitute a fail for a farnsworth I wonder.

[jetcareerseeker]

It seems in the following; "CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 67.150", a person meets medical standard 1 (on the farnsworth) if they:

...readily identify aviation coloured lights displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour-perception lantern, making:

(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or
(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of lights

I was wondering what people's opinion would be on whether CASA should deem me 'colour safe' when I had the following outcome with my farnsworth test:

5 errors out of 9 with the first run,
3 errors out of 9 with the second run,
and 0 errors out of 9 with the third run.

The way I interpret this is that I satisfy (i) with no errors on 1 run of 9 pair of lights. If I submitted a "Reconsideration of decision on medical certification", what chance would I have of reversing their decision on my colour perception?

_________________________________________________________

Does anyone have any insight on this? If I can get 0 errors on a run of 9 pairs, shouldn't that be considered a pass? 14 FEB 2012

[2close]

Interstingly, despite the UK CAA claims that their CAD Test would be the new standard for all Colour Vision testing under EASA, this is the Acceptable Means of Compliance straight off the EASA website. This is EU LAW!!

No mention of the CAD Test as an acceptable means of passing CVD tests.

Anyone heard anything about this?

http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-015-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20on%20the%20medical%20certification%20of%20p ilots%20and%20medical%20fitness%20of%20cabin%20crew.pdf

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision

(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

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

(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

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

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

[george7378]

Hi

I have been wondering for a long while (ever since I found I was mildly colourblind) whether or not I can still become a pilot. I am 18 at the moment, I start my physics masters degree this year. I have got good school results, and I am fit/healthy, etc... but a couple of years ago I found I was mildly colourblind (I failed some of the ishihara plates) but it is pretty mild. There is probably a lot of this about (my brother has it too), but I wonder - is it worth trying the lantern test or should I just forget it? Is there anything online that can assess my colour vision better than the crude knowledge I have now? I recently took this test: color blind test ( free and complete ) by jean jouannic optician (http://www.opticien-lentilles.com/daltonien_beta/new_test_daltonien.php) and got 29/32, if that means anything.

You probably get this a lot, but it's a big decision for me!

Thanks!

[ramseyoptom]

Hi, I don't post that often, but to answer your questions.

Firstly do not rely on online colour vision tests as the representation on your monitor is not accurate. There are a couple of professionaly available programmes and what we have to do to calibrate them is lengthy. One of the other problems that the test you linked to is that it relies on colour naming - a not very reliable procedure, except in forced choice tests eg lantern tests where you only have a choice of primary colours as opposed to hues.

Regarding Ishihara (and other pseudoisochromatic tests) they should be done using the correct illumination ie daylight or standard illuminant C. But be aware, and I have mentioned this earlier in the thread, the results with Ishihara can vary from edition to edition and also printer.This is due to ink variations as Ishihara never actually specified them using say the Maunsell system. More reliable are the likes of the HRR test and the City University Test as these use specific Maunsell colour chips.

The note about illumination applies to the colour matching tests like the Farnsworth-Maunsell 100 Hue test or the Farnsworth D15.

As to the prevalence about 10% of all males have some form of colour deficiency and it is X-chromosome linked which explains your brother.

Certainly try a lantern test, you may pass it because of the reasons above, Ishihara can be give false positives as well as shown up the mildly colour anomalous.

[george7378]

Hi ramseyoptom,

Thanks for your reply, that's informative. Yes, I have found that I can sometimes see or not see different Ishihara plates under different conditions - they only really seem to be able to tell you whether or not you have colourblindness, rather than how bad it is. I am one of the people who never knew they actually had a problem until they took the test, and I like the idea of doing a lantern test, but you have to go to Gatwick, right?

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people similar to me come on here and ask the same questions so I would like to thank you again :)

[osmosis]

I suspect a great percentage of those with restricted colour vision don't actually know it or even suspect it until they have colour vision tests. And don't think you can take your own at home on a computer screen; it's not the same, particularly when scrolling the image. The ulitmate test is in the field and if your regulating body allows field tests and reconizes predetermined pass rates, that is where one should be concentrating one's efforts.

[george7378]

Hi, yes I also don't want to pretend that a test on my computer is accurate. I would love to take a proper test and find out once and for all, maybe the chance will come around soon :)

I was contacted by a fellow member (ILS 26R) claiming to have undertaken a medical procedure which 'cured his colourblindness' - I don't believe it for a second, but maybe I'm behind on the times...

He sent me this link - it looks like the epitome of dodginess to me!

Removed commercial link

Even if I can't fly heavy metal, I will still be able to get my private licence - I have 20 hours on the Cessna so far, and I'm loving it :)

See how it turns out.

[ramseyoptom]

Dodgy isn't the description I would use! My description is complete unadulterated :mad: .

Everytime I see or read about these so-called natural ways of curing sight all I want to do is :ugh::ugh::ugh:

They are similar to sacrificing a goat to cure HIV.

[2close]

They are similar to sacrificing a goat to cure HIV.

Worked for me! :)


george7378

You CAN hold a PPL under EASA Part MED, with a VCL limitation, which limits you to flight by day only and no IR.

The previous VCL NPT deviation for Class 1 medicals has been revoked under EASA Part MED, despite the guarantees of the CAA that it would stay in place.

[Tank Bottoms]

Has anyone undergone the PAPI sim at City University London? Is it a factual representation of the PAPI we all use in our flying?

[2close]

Has anyone undergone the PAPI sim at City University London? Is it a factual representation of the PAPI we all use in our flying?

My personal opinion from experience is that it is absolutely nothing like it whatsoever.

They claim it to be representative of a PAPI at 4 NM but rest assured, it is more representative of a PAPI at >10 NM, powered by 2 x AAA batteries on an aerodrome with no other lighting whatsoever, located on a desert island in the middle of a very dark ocean.

If it had been meant to test the ability of a pilot to land an aircraft in total 'black hole' effect, I would give it a big tick but anyone landing an aircraft using ONLY a dimly lit PAPI with absolutely no other cues would be taking a big chance. If the power has failed all other lighting would you really trust the PAPI is operating properly? If the airport authority can't afford any other lighting, would you trust they've calibrated and tested properly the PAPI lighting?

When landing at night, you use runway lighting perspective as well as PAPI, cross checking distance against altitude or height AGL on the approach profile Remember, it is called a PRECISION APPROACH Path Indicator - Precision Approach = ILS or MLS so, for the approach you must have calibrated and operational airborne equipment. The PAPI is an additional aid to the ILS/MLS equipment plus Approach Procedure and NOT a be all and end all, as has been suggested by one well known aviation authority.

The last time I dropped a GP on vectors to an ILS, I requested a LOC/DME Non Precision Approach and was immediately asked by ATC if I wanted distance calls, which I accepted and they provided every 1-2 NM. They didn't ask me or suggest to me that I should use the PAPI - oh yes, I couldn't, I was in IMC. How is a PAPI supposed to be of any use, even on CAT I let alone II or III.

Pardon my cynicism but if you ask me, the PAPI test, in fact the whole CVD/CAD study, was designed to facilitate the desired end result. The study was not allowed to fail; there was too much money put into it.

[jetcareerseeker]

Does anyone have a similar farnsworth test taking experience to the one I took? Is there any chance I can appeal their decision?

[Tank Bottoms]

I assume you have experienced the PAPI "simulator" first hand? If it is an actual representation of the 2 colored system in use worldwide, one shouldn't have a problem?

[2close]

Yes, been through it twice, to find I have a problem with light scatter, which means instead of seeing 4 x lights I see 4 x starbursts, each one comprising 4 x lights.

Extremely bizarre, very difficult to explain to someone who doesn't experience it and something which doesn't manifest itself on real PAPI's, by day or night, although it is a problem I also have with stars - I don't see one, I see three or four, even more after a bucket of Stella ;). Bright lights are not an issue, just pinpoints, which the PAPI Simulator comprises.

As I said above, my personal opinion from hundreds of approaches as a student pilot, CPL/IR holder and instructor is that it is not representative of an actual PAPI. I have never had a problem with any approach systems, VASI, T-VASI, PAPI or any other but because of the light scatter I found the PAPI simulator impossible. I told them so and they told me to guess, which made me realise they weren't actually interested in the results - it was a fait acomplit.

:)

Jetcareerseeker, drop me a PM.

[The Grim EPR]

Could anyone tell me when the CAA introduced the lantern test for colour vision please? I thought that it was some time in the 1970s. Is this correct?

Thanks everyone.

[172andup]

Hi there, it's my first time posting here.

So, I'm 19 years old and for the last 10 years, a day hasn't passed without me thinking of being a commercial airline pilot. So I found a flight school where they recommended me to a Civil Aviation Medical Examiner where I did my tests for my Category 1 medical. I passed everything flawlessly until the examiner took out an Ishihara booklet. I found can't read some of the plates so I was told to take a Farnsworth d15. In the d15, i found out i have a green colour deficiency, but I didn't think much of it and sent it with my application to Transport Canada. I thought everything was fine so I continued with my flight school application. They asked me verbally if i passed my Category 1, I told them I was expecting it in the mail. So I was accepted. One day, I come home to find a letter from Transport so I excitedly opened it expecting my Cat1. It turns out it was a letter saying I have to do a D15 or lantern test to get rid of my "day flying only" restriction. So I immediately booked an appointment.

I did the lantern test, but failed. Interestingly, in the results, for every green I said white and for every white I said green. I absolutely did not mix the green or the white up with each other, if I reversed my answers, I would've gotten 100%. I want to do the test again, but do any of you think because I was nervous? when I stepped into the exam room all the kept running through my mind was that if I failed that, I wouldn't be able to do the only thing that i have ever wanted to do after high school. Do you think there's still hope for me?

[capTan]

Hi, i would like to ask if there are color blind pilots? I'm currently based here in the philippines, about to finish my CPL training and i'm afraid that i won't be able to pass my medical exam becuase of color deficiency? Can i make it on airlines? Or can you suggest what to do for me to work on airlines? it's my dream to ba an airline pilot but i have this color problem on my eyes. :confused:

[fgol]

Does anybody know wether colourblind people can join qatarairways?
I have class 1 medical exam in Brazil and i´ve never had any problem with that over here. I also fly for Gol linhas aereas wich has 737. This means that colourblindness does not interfere on aviation operations.
In 2006, when I got my first class 1 medical exam the doctor said that i couldn´t fly for air force, but there were no restrictions about civil aviation.
If somebody knows anything about qatar requirements I would be pleased.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Chaps
Just thought I would update the situation as it currently stands in Australia as I have have several PM's lately requesting info. I had reason to speak with CASA Medical department today regarding another matter but I also asked for clarification on what testing is being conducted here at the moment.

First you do the Ishihara 24 plate version;

When you fail that you do the Farnsworth;

When you fail that you can do the Signal Light Gun test at your local airfield, and or

the practical lantern test conducted at the Victorian School of Optometry.

You can do all four tests if you need to, you only need to pass one to be cleared with an unrestricted class one medical. I passed the practical lantern test.

Cheers

[Matulee084]

Brother,
Look for Dr Vânia Malheiros at Santa Casa de São Paulo. She is a JAA and FAA certified medical examineer in Brazil. If you can pass a JAA class 1 you can pass the qatar phisical. There is a clinic in BH where you can go for the lantern tests If you need to.
Boa sorte!

[outofwhack]

Captan,

Yes there are lots of CVD pilots flying in Australia. I am one of them. I fly professionally yet I cannot pass any of the clinical colour visions tests and I think I have tried them all: ishihara,farnsworth,beynes,Holmes-wright,CAD all at great expense - nice little industry those 'professionals' have! (12% of all prospective pilots paying for one test after another)

23 years ago in Australia an aviation medical examiner called Arthur Pape took the aviation authority to court over his own colour vision defective restrictions and won! Before the case he was not allowed to fly at night but for 23 years now we colour vision defective pilots have been flying at night and even flying for the airlines and most definitely flying into your own country piloting 747s and airbuses.

The court case sat for over 30 days and examined the myriad ways the aviation authority claimed colour was important in aviation and the courts decision was that CVD deutans (most of us) do not pose any risk to the safety of aviation. Undecided on protans (much more rare). This guy Arthur Pape is a hero to us CVD 'wavelength cripples'. Look him up he's on Facebook. Never mind Schindler's List we should have a Pape's List! for all the hundreds or thousands of CVD Pilots he has allowed to find a career in Australia. We owe him dearly.

Did you know that one of the NASA shuttle pilots had severe CVD! Migrate to Australia (I did) or follow in Arthur's footsteps in your own country!

[michaelmedley]

Had my class 1 today and all was fine apart from ive got to go to park hospital Gatwick to see a specialist about my squint as they were unsure wether i may develop double vision in the future.

should i be worried or is this standard procedure??

any PMs would be highly helpful as would any replies from past experience.

[johnobr]

Hi all,

As outofwhack mentions, get in touch with Dr Arthur Pape. He has very recently formed the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (search Facebook). Things are starting to heat up again here in Australia now with a further legal challenge in its initial stages. Apologies in advance for the long post, but let me share with you my testimony.

I have been flying now for 14 years and have logged over 5000 hours in a variety of operations. I in fact hold a full Australian ATPL licence and achieved this licence 7 years ago now. However, I am one of those pilots who are still being discriminated against by CASA and the archaic colour vision standard that not only remains here in Australia, but also around the world. Despite the fact that I hold an ATPL, my Class 1 medical certificate still has two restrictions:

(1) Not valid for ATPL operations; and
(2) Holder does not fully meet the requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1

This is due to the fact that I am a ‘protanope’ and have failed CASA’s colour vision tests. These restrictions therefore preclude me from exercising my hard earned ATPL privileges and effectively mean that I can only fly using CPL privileges and only inside Australian airspace. I use the word ‘discriminate’ because that is exactly what these restrictions are. Here in Australia, CVD pilots such as myself and many others like me have been operating safely now for over two decades at the highest levels in aviation ever since the Pape and Denison cases at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These cases were instrumental in allowing us to progress our careers far beyond what was previously possible. However, the great work that was done back in the 1980’s still needs to be finished, not only for the benefit of Australian pilots but also those of you who wish to have fulfilling aviation careers overseas.

I started my aviation career instructing where over the years I progressed and eventually became a Grade 1 Instructor. I was responsible for all levels of training through to CPL level and also night and multi-engine IFR training. I thoroughly enjoyed my instructing experience and over this period have trained many pilots who themselves have also gone on to have successful general aviation and airline careers.

Additionally, I have worked in the charter environment where I flew high performance multi engine aircraft on both freight and passenger charter operations. This flying was all single-pilot and predominately IFR, including many hours at night and often in very poor weather conditions. As a senior pilot at the company I worked for, I was also responsible for conducting line training for new pilots to our company. All this flying taught me valuable lessons and it reinforced to me the fact that my colour vision deficiency simply did not matter! I was able to pass all flight tests undertaken to a high standard, I operated glass cockpit aircraft with EFIS display screens and I had no problems interpreting visual approach guidance such as red-white PAPI. Indeed, I was no ‘less’ safe than those pilots that I was training or my peers that I worked with every day.

Since that time, I have advanced my career and now work as a First Officer flying Dash 8’s for an Australian regional airline. I am able to do this using my CPL privileges as I am currently operating only as a co-pilot. However, I am now at the point where I am ready to obtain a command position and become a Captain. This leads me back to the discrimination in the CVD standard and my medical restrictions which are preventing me from achieving this goal. Apparently, according to the authorities, I’m ‘safe’ to operate by myself using CPL privileges and can completely legally fly any single pilot aircraft as pilot in command (such as Chieftan, King Air, Metroliner just to name a few examples), yet I’m suddenly deemed ‘unsafe’ when it comes to flying a multi-crew aircraft as pilot in command.

This makes no logical sense – as a First Officer we are required to pass exactly the same simulator checks as our Captains on a regular basis. As all airline pilots would know, simulator checks are one of the more stressful requirements of our employment. Here we are assessed in all aspects of normal and abnormal operations including engine failures/engine fires after take-off, rapid depressurisations and various systems abnormalities.

Additionally, even in normal line flying we operate ‘leg-for-leg’. Flight sectors are shared evenly between both the Captain and First Officer and when pilot flying, as a co-pilot we are generally tasked with making decisions in exactly the same way the Captain would if it was his/her sector.

I readily admit that I cannot pass colour vision tests – but as my experience demonstrates, this does not in any way affect my ability to operate an aircraft safely at the highest levels possible. In Australia, as many pilots would be aware following the Denison AAT decision, CASA introduced a ‘practical’ test to further assess pilots with colour vision deficiencies. One of these tests was the control tower signal gun test. I have attempted this test three times now and on each occasion only scored one light wrong – yet that was still deemed a fail and has meant the difference between me being able to exercise my full ATPL privileges and having my career being put on hold as it is currently. Of all the CVD pilots I have spoken to who did pass this test, most readily admit that they only did so due to sheer luck.

The real problem however is that the signal gun test is not a ‘practical’ test in the way that the Denison AAT decision recommended. I am yet to speak to one pilot who has ever seen a signal gun light in a real life environment – so therefore how can it possibly be considered a ‘practical’ test?

Picture this for a moment – you’re flying a Dash 8 or B737 or A380 (or any aircraft for that matter!) into a busy international airport and have suffered a radio failure. Can you seriously imagine the control tower shining anything other than a green light issuing a landing clearance? They’re hardly going to want to give you a red-light indicating to go-around while you’ve got no comms. Similarly, how about you taxi to the holding point and suffer a radio failure? Do you think that ATC are likely to give you a green light issuing a take-off clearance?

Aside from these points, the regulations clearly state that an aircraft suffering a radio failure is going to be given one of the highest landing priorities possible. Furthermore, aircraft that we fly in the ATPL environment are equipped with not only dual VHF radios, but also HF and satellite phones in addition to personal cellular phones. Many instrument approach plates these also include a telephone number for ATC in the event of a loss of communications. None make mention of looking for the out-dated signal gun light. The chances of ever having to resort to one of these lights are miniscule. It is simply another ‘colour vision test’ and does not in any way reflect a pilot’s ability to operate safely within the aviation environment.

Not only are there many pilots in Australia such as myself who are still being discriminated against, there are many others around the world such as those of you here on Pprune who need a starting point in challenging their own authorities. The time for talk is now over and we need action – but this can only be achieved collectively and requires enormous funding towards legal costs. Here in Australia, our legal preparation is now well advanced in taking this next step, but the financial burden is significant and not something that we can do on our own. If we can all contribute a little, then I’m sure a lot can be achieved!

Thank you for taking the time to read my testimony and please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me should you like more information.

[outofwhack]

Arthur Pape's real website is Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)
The Facebook page is just what gets 'liked' when you go to cvdpa.com

Looks like it's finally happening. Sounds like it's worth joining.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Hi chaps
Have had a brief look at the CVDPA website. I am very pleased to see a co-ordinated tilt at getting rid of the current range of tests. I recommend you contribute to the fighting fund whatever you can reasonably afford even if you live in another country or you are one of the lucky few, like myself, who have been able to get passed one of the CASA tests. Eventually you will benefit by what's going on here and if the rest of the world follows we can fly there too!

Having said that when I tried to contribute the link did not work and a little more information about how the cash will be held and/or spent would be nice. It's time to get rid of this thing once and for all.

[outofwhack]

I just successfully made contributions (albeit with PayPal) in two halves.
One using the top donate button and one using the bottom donate button so it looks like its working to me.

I also joined up!
Someone might want to try making a donation by credit card and email the webmaster at [email protected] with your findings.

Hell I have been hoping for 20 years that a real coordinate effort could get going and it looks like its really going to happen.

If 5000 of us joined even just for 1 year that would raise $600k! Enough to kick start an international band of lawyers! And with Arthurs track record we are all onto a winner.

Its best we all stop talking and worrying about it, dig deep and support a proven team!

[Bad medicine]

OK, I think that's enough advertising/fundraising. Back to the substance of the tread please.

[outofwhack]

No advertising here.

I would like to propose a summary of the substance of this thread.
(5000? posts over 15? Years).

The thread mostly contains reports from a fraction of the hundreds or thousands of people running around Europe trying to find an accepted colour vision test that they can pass. I know because I did it for myself 20 years ago and spent thousands. I couldnt find one.

Do any of you feel that there is any task in flying aeroplanes/helicopters that you do unsafely because of your suspect colour vision? I bet not otherwise you wouldnt have the motivation would you. Trust your instincts - you fly perfectly well - but don't let your instincts make you think your vision is normal.

You all drive to the airport. The department of transport let you have a licence because they have found colour deficient drivers do the right thing at lights.

So do CVD pilots with the lights used in all aspects of aviation and it's been accepted by a court in Australia and we CVDs go fly airplanes professionally.

The UK / European regulations are denying you your chosen career but let perhaps a trickle through to let you have hope - the standards are wrong - you must question them! An aircraft doesnt ask you to name colours and numerals are not displayed with ishihara dots.

Don't think the CAD test is any different to the other tests. It's bull****. They say it passes more of us than other tests - likely a trick to get people to try it (and thx for the money ;)) I've done it. I'm a 2000hour CPL(A) CVD and I am telling you the CAD Test is nothing to do with flying an aircraft. You are being hoodwinked.

The only valid test should be the piloting of an aircraft and comparison of that performance with your colour normal brothers.

But there's more ....... The testing has already been done for you by your ozzie brethren!

For over 20 years CVD pilots have been flying airliners in and out of Australia safely and passing emergency simulations during simulator check rides just as well as their colour normal colleagues.

No one person can afford to put this right as the authorities have tax payers money to use to defend the standard. (Except perhaps would-be-pilot colour blind chef Jamie Oliver).

So short of Jamie coming to help I suggest we unite in great numbers. We could not be defeated in court and there is a well qualified proven court ready leader.

So please wake up the sleepers on this thread and stop hoping you might be in the 10% of CVDs who will get through a test. You probably wont.
Stop thinking to yourself "I only have a mild case of CVD" and 'I can see the colours really'. Any simple colour vision test will show you up as a fool.

Instead look at what's been happening in Australia and begin to see things clearly.

[Arthur Pape]

To johnobr,
I congratulate you on a brilliantly written post. Many would know my past involvement in the fight for CVDP justice, but I have to say that in getting to know you, and having become very familiar with your personal and flying history, I am inspired by your honesty, patience and professionalism. I have no doubt that when all this conflict is over, any airline will be delighted to have you on board on the flight deck. All along the long trek on this struggle it has been people like you who have kept me motivated.

[Arthur Pape]

Hi Bad Medicine
I have followed the colour vision thread for some years and had come to the conclusion that over those years nothing much had changed on the world aviation colour vision scene. Indeed, following the Tallahassee accident, where the co-pilot's colour vision deficiency was given such significance that the NTSB saw fit to make recommendations to the FAA that effectively punish perhaps many thousands of US CVD pilots for the accident. If those recommendations are put into place, we can say things will get worse for many. The website discussed here is a not for profit organisation equipped and dedicated solely to making a positive difference for CVD pilots around the world. I cannot imagine a more relevant post could be made to a thread whose title is "collective colour vision thread". :rolleyes:

[Bad medicine]

Arthur,
There is no doubt that this is an important topic, and your contribution is well known. Your website does contain information of great interest to many, but as a general rule the posting of links to sites which solicit money, whether for profit or not, is not allowed. There is enough information here to find your site without needing a link, and no attempt has been made to remove references to your site, or to suppress genuine discussion. Of course you are welcome to contact the admin team if you wish to advertise in a more formal manner.
Cheers,
BM

[windforce]

It’s great to see finally a united group against this unacceptable discrimination, working together will mean getting over this nightmare that has gone way far too long. I really urge all CVD pilots to join this group, it’s worth it!

Arthur and co. I salute you all for the great effort in the last 20 or so years of battling and winning in Australia. I already know we will achieve a similar result in Europe; it’s only a matter of time.

I, myself, managed to escape recently from this nightmare and get a full clean medical/licence; it took me nearly 5 years of letters, phone-calls, visits and last but not least money (lawyers and consultants cost a lot of € $ £) but I am still upset about the way I have been mistreated and discriminated and I really want to help this community.

Whilst I cannot comment much about Australia, let’s have alook at the European skies especially now that EASA is about to take over.Let’s start with some facts (all references are from EASA part-MED):

1)Colour vision restricted class one medical are no longer issued. Like 2close previously mentioned, VCL will apply only to class 2 only.

GM1 MED.B.001 Limitation codes

VCL Valid by day only The limitation allows private pilots with varying degrees of colour deficiency to exercise the privileges of their licence by daytime only. Applicable to class 2 medical certificates only.

2)Despite CAA claiming the CAD test is the future gold standard for colour vision testing, it is NOT approved to be used under EASA, fact!
AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision
(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

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

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.
This makes a CAD test result (PASS or FAIL)a useless waste of time/money - it’s simply not and approved test and UK CAA have to stop using it. It’s the law.

Now,it is very difficult to predict what is going to happen in the next few months…at least here in Europe. I personally don’t think EASA will change regulations anytime soon as there are enough and more important problems to sort out!

I would therefore assume it is safe to say that CVD restricted class one medicals are no longer issued. And this is a major problem for those who have a CPL ME/IR and work as flight instructor when their medical is due for renewal.

My personal feeling (please don’t quote me on that!) is that those that have a very marginal/mild deficiency will have, one way or the other, their restrictions lifted. Those that have a more significant deficiency might be asked to carry out a flight test or possibly even the class one medical pulled in favour of a class two. I suppose we will find out within 2-3 months what is going to happen.

Before I conclude, I would like to highlight something that hasn’t been mention yet. Something I find very interesting and I think shows the changes that slowly and finally are happening!

These are the colour vision requirement for class one/two:


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

(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

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

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

And these are the colour vision requirement for LAPL:

AMC15 MED.B.095 Colour vision
Applicants for a night rating should correctly identify 9 of the first 15 plates of the 24-plate edition of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates or should be colour safe.

Interesting isn’t it?

[Anomaly0]

I wanted to let everyone know about a growing group of very intelligent and passionate people working to have the color vision standard overturned, or at least looked at with unbiased judgement:


"This website will show in detail why the Aviation Colour Perception Standard is wrong and unnecessary.

The arguments we make in this website have in the past formed the basis of two highly successful legal challenges to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard in Australia.

The Australian experience over the last twenty-three years since those successful challenges can become a positive example to the rest of the world.

There is no place in Aviation Safety Regulation for the confused approach that currently characterizes the Aviation Colour Perception Standard.

With your support, the CVDPA will work to achieve the same success in all countries".

Dr. Arthur Pape


Another gentleman, Pedro Ponte, has also created a website of his own for this purpose... If nothing else, they provide wonderful guidance to pilots (or potential pilots) who are going through this problem. Standards for each aviation administration are listed, as are articles, and plenty of other very useful information that most people are unaware of.



By getting involved, it would be a wonderful way for AOPA to help people out, and to gain more pilots in the population. Countless thousands have given up when their AME told them: "Sorry kid, choose a different career."

The problem with this is that it is often bad information. The AME himself probably didn't know the alternate tests available or the Operational Color Vision Test / Medical Flight test that the FAA allows. Either way, this affects 10% of the male population and .5% of female. If you ask me, 10.5% is a lot of people being unfairly discriminated against. Hopefully if you take the time to read Dr Pape's article, you will find why color "blind" individuals are NOT unsafe to fly.

Thanks everyone, and I hope this somehow helps other people out that feel alone about this dream killer. It certainly almost killed mine.

[outofwhack]

The website of the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association CVDPA is an amazing read.

It will cheer you up to see the massive success story and restore your hope.

There is a Wiki that we are all invited to improve comparing every countries CVD regulations. It's a real eye opener!


Arthur is offering his experience in briefing lawyers, personal guidance and funding for legal action in any country. It's amazing what he has achieved in Australia and he is working very closely with a number of British pilots flying commercially over there encouraging him to focus on the UK/Europe regs next as they want to return home to their families yet continue to fly commercially at CPL and ATPL levels.

However, all this depends on raising sufficient money from subscriptions. So join up !

[Arthur Pape]

Hi List,

I'm working on presenting a paper soon on the 2002 Tallahassee crash of Fedex flight 1478. This accident, as most know, has since become a cornerstone justification by proponents of the aviation colour perception standard. I have read the full report by the NTSB and found the surname of the co-pilot (the "pilot flying") who has the colour vision deficiency. His surname is Frye, and I would love the chance to meet him to find out more. The purpose of my research is to examine why two other crew members, who both have normal colour perception, also failed to interpret what the PAPI should have been showing them. Does anyone know Mr Frye or have a contact detail that could get me in touch with him. I am sure that he would not be interested in a public discussion, but if my private email address could be given, that would be just great. It is [email protected] Thanks!

[Scottish.CPL]

this might be a strange question, but what is the LAPL?

[dobbin1]

this might be a strange question, but what is the LAPL?
Light Aircraft Pilot's Licence. Has the whole EASA thing passed you by?

[Scottish.CPL]

haha, no. I was looking at the medical requirements for the LAPL, and was concerned about the colour perception, to what i read, to get a night rating, only 9 plates out of the 15 needs to be read correctly, but the requirements are still the same for class 1, and that the CAD test looks like not being accepted by EASA at present

[windforce]

i really find this very amusing!

to fly at night legally on a EASA LAPL you need to get 9 plates correct. yet, if you get 2 or 3 wrong on a class one/two you become all of the sudden unsafe. where is the logic in that? :ugh:

i really wonder if the ice is starting to crack. No CAD at all and 9 out of 15 for the ishihara (lapl only). i would not be surprised at all to see such limits to be imposed in future for class one/two (alignment towards the FAA maybe?).

i woudnt be surprised either if the anomaloscope (german test... where is EASA based? :E) limits were increased as quite often they were referred as being too harsh... who knows, let's wait few more weeks and see.

wf

[Scottish.CPL]

ANO, its going backwards, i wonder if it because the medical is done via your GP or AME, like the nppl, and cause jar are not involed on the medical side they are placing the risk on the GP, i dunno, correct me if i get anything wrong.

so i can get an LAPL, and get a night rating, did you notice that the amount of errors on ishihara is similar to FAA guidelines...

[2close]

If it wasn't so farcical I'd be laughing my head off now.

With a LAPL you can fly a 2000 kg aircraft at night with four persons on board.

This is after "passing" the Ishihara Colour Vision Test with no more than six errors, even though the manufacturer's instructions clearly state that a pass is obtained if the reader makes no more than two errors. Then again, these are the same instructions that the authorities choose to ignore when setting the criteria for the Class 1 and 2 medicals.

Why is that the aviation authorities always think they know better than the manufacturers? :rolleyes:

[Scottish.CPL]

i knew that one day things would start to turn round, it had to, its going to be funny to see the high popularity for night ratings to be added to LAPL, myself included...

[windforce]

great paradox, 2close isn't it? i suppose plenty of people will be able to fly at night soon! :ok:

now, interestingly enough no more class one one will be issued with cvd - only class two. What is going to happen to those JAR CPL holders? like i mentioned before, i suspect those borderline will end up with a unresticted medical. Also if i understand correctly, any dubious or uncertain case is going to be referred to the licensing authority (PLD for the caa) for a final decision and no longer to the medical department. This might be a good thing! ie demonstration/testing of ability vs medical non-sense.
indeed, a mate of mine managed to have a jaa cpl me/ir and work as a IR instructor... as crazy as it might sound not only he had a night rating (cpl requirement) but he was also a night FI... with a cvd restricted class one!!! where is the logic in that?!

also other good point, NO CAD.... fairly pleased with that!

i knew that one day things would start to turn round, it had to...
hopefully this is just the beginning of a new era... thanks to those that kept fighting and never gave up

[Scottish.CPL]

I think its funny how the testing for easa advises no CAD, but the lanterns are back on the agenda, this is after the cad replacing them, i wonder this because the caa stated a few pounds were invested in this software and now, no mention of it?

it still makes me laugh that city universirty stated 100% accuracy and yet the technicial that i took the test with advised me to make guesses if i was unsure of a direction???? how can that be 100%,

if borderline like many, get to to a practical test, as you guys said before, i will be interesting to see if the tides do change,

[outofwhack]

Do you guys really think things will change for the better by themselves? You must be joking!

See a tabular comparison of each countries CVD regulations here arthurpape.com/wiki

Read it and weep...

[Scottish.CPL]

hey what with the negativity, ok things might be slow, but at least there is change happening, it might be starting at the recreational level, but hopefully will allow change for commercial level pilots,

i would rather see change, than no change at all

[outofwhack]

You guys need to wake up!

[Scottish.CPL]

excuse me,

first of all, whats your story with colour vision, second your been mean regarding your comments, i dont know what the story over that side of the pond is, but please dont attack me or anyone else with 'You guys need to wake up!'

I would like to know that gives you the impression we need to ' wake up '

are you a pilot?

thank you

[outofwhack]

I don't target you in particular. I target all individuals on this thread who waste their time talking about change but do nothing else about it. Study what one person achieved in Australia to allow all CVDs to fly professionally by day and night - and do the same in your own country - he is even offering his vast experience in briefing your countries lawyers! That's the kind of wake up message I bring you.

We have proof CVDs are safe pilots- 23 years of it!
I failed every test in UK and have been flying commercially in Australia for many years. Arthur is back and offering to resolve these CVD restrictions in every country but you have to do more than post on a forum to make it happen! Yes wake up! If I could I would give you all a good shake :ugh:

[Scottish.CPL]

ok, i do take your point on that, but do understand that there are people that might take your comment the wrong way, 'I target all individuals on this thread who waste their time talking about change but do nothing else about it'..... there are people that are sensitive to this subject...

secondly, you are making a living from flying, as a airline pilot, or instructor, you said you failed all the UK tests, which one did you pass in Australia?

and this comment 'That's the kind of wake up message I bring you.' we don't need people to post this kind of stuff... so please dont...

[outofwhack]

Everyone on this thread should be sensitive to this subject ! Their chosen career has been denied them for no good reason!

Returning to my home country (UK) has been denied to me because I choose to fly for a living. I have not passed any Ozzie colour test and you can go all the way to airline first officer failing every colour test.

I want to make persons who just accept their lot without question (a British trait for sure - and I am British so I can say it) that it doesn't have to be that way! It seems the Brits enjoyment of a grumble is alive and well.

So you dont want me to post messages like this enlightening you to a tried and trusted solution to your predicament - so your regulations can get even more restrictive as they will with EASA - I was right - there are people here who really need a wake up!

[Scottish.CPL]

fair play mate

yeah feel the same and ive had the same issues, you can post what you like, thats your right, i maybe did not come across right.

the issue i have was that i do pass the ishihara plates, acc to the the instructions, but it was caa that increaed the pass rate, and failed the lantern by like 1 error, the cad test is a joke, but thats another story..

EASA regulations have not been finalized yet, so until July, we need to see

'I want to make persons who just accept their lot without question' I agree and i dont accept it myself...

[StOrMsCaTcHeR]

I am a JAA PPL holder. Before my PPL skills test 2 years ago, i was under JAA Class 2 medical with restrictions "VFR Only", as i failed the Ishihara plates test at the local AME. Since i wanted to have my night ratings, I booked a retest at Gatwick, and had my CAD and Lantern Tests being conducted there, and i was declared absolutely normal color vision and had the restrictions removed. And eventually got my night ratings before my skills test.

Earlier this year I wanted to have my JAA Class 1 done, in order to go for commercial, so i had it booked, and went to CAA Gatwick to have it done. Everything including the color vision was normal and i got my JAA Class 1 medical. Since CAA Gatwick knew i had failed the Ishihara Plates over 2 years ago, they did not test me on them, instead they tested me directly on CAD which i passed with hardly any errors ( thats what i was told).

I want to go for my hour building in Florida for commercial, since the requirement for under 1500 hours is only class 2 in US, and when i had my FAA Class 2 done, the FAA AME has put restrictions back on "Not valid for night flying or by Color Signal Control", as he only tested me on ishihara plates. When i asked him about the other options, and showed him my JAA Class 1 and JAA class 2 valid medicals without any restrictions, he said since he doesn't have the authority in the UK by the FAA to test for color visions other than Ishihara plates method, and i have failed in reading them, hence he has to put restrictions. However he printed out this 27 page document issued by FAA in regards to the Color deficient pilots and retests.

I was also told that once i am in the US, i will have to book an appointment with the local medical examiner, who will conduct a similar type of CAD test over there, and if passed he will then be able to remove the restrictions.

Any thoughts and comments,or any help on this one please?

[outofwhack]

You should find out if the FAA still issue a statement of demonstrated ability (SODA) on the passing of a tower light signal test. That will get the restrictions lifted. Ask the FAA directly whether this can still be done because there is anrumour they may have removed or tightened up on this test.

Please you must let me know their response so I can get the WIKI updated.

[outofwhack]

Scottish.CPL,

Then help support change and get others to do the same.
CVDPA have 2 major court cases won already and two more in progress. If enough support is mustered from the UK it will be next on the list.

[Scottish.CPL]

StOrMsCaTcHeR, how many plates did you read and fail, ame would have been able to advise on alternative tests, light gun signal is a test, practicle test, you can find the test on utube, faa tower gun lights.

did caa charge you twice from when you did class 2 up till initial class 1? to be honest they should not be testing you again if you have passed for class 2,

hours building on a faa medical is fine, if you hold restriction on your medical, then just fly in the daytime, as you are not going to be staying in the US, build the hours...

[StOrMsCaTcHeR]

I don't remember how many plates i failed on, when i was having it done on class 2, but recently for FAA class2, altogether i tried to read about 10ish plates ( sorry did not count how many), and i think more than 6 occassions i was unable to see properly, as only 1st 2, and the one in between i was confident but others were guesses, and on 2 of them i simply told the AME "sorry don't know, next please".

When i went to Gatwick for Class 1, i was not tested particularly for CAD, it was all in the process, since they were testing my eyes and it took nearly an hour for eyes only and they had my previous history of being there in the same room, so the computer test was very brief and i passed everything.

For JAA medicals i have paid 3 times, One was the restricted Class 2 at local CAA-AME, 2nd time at CAA-Gatwick for class2 without restrictions,(when i went for retest, it was only the color vision test, and i did not pay the full fee, just a color vision re-test fee, but was issued a new Class2) and 3rd time this year at CAA for unrestricted Class 1. (4th time i had to pay for FAA Class 2) £££££££:ugh:


OutOf Whack
I will be contacting the FAA in regards to their procedure soon, since the documents which i was given by FAA AME were quite up-to-date, and i'll be asking FAA about them documentation aswell. but i just wanted some info if anyone else have any knowledge about it.

[pponte]

Another gentleman, Pedro Ponte, has also created a website of his own for this purpose... If nothing else, they provide wonderful guidance to pilots (or potential pilots) who are going through this problem. Standards for each aviation administration are listed, as are articles, and plenty of other very useful information that most people are unaware of.

Hi Anomaly0,

thank you for your comments.
I've been banned before from this forum and had to register again so I'm still catching up on what has been said here for the past 2 years.

I understand we can't share links in here so I'll respect this in order to comply with the forum policy and to be connected to all of you guys.

CVDPilots was created with the purpose of creating a network for cvd people to share info, testimonials, contacts, and to do something about this injustice.
I've been in contact with Dr. Arthur Pape and the webmaster in order to push forward Arthur's website. Please subscribe to CVDPA - Color vision Defect Pilots Association, we need to fundraise by subscribing in order for us all to fight this united, step by step.

I plan to continue having CVDPilots because it could complement with other interesting info and also it will be useful to capture new contacts and also to pass them on to CVDPA which I proudly support.

If there's a time for us to do something, the time is now.
I started linkedin and facebook discussions to track down more people who have been rejected and still have no idea about all the others facing the same difficulties. Me 2 got an unrestricted Brazilian medical licence class 1.

Let's work together and thank you for not giving up, specially you Arthur for info with all the rest and your webmaster for pushing things forward.

[Ianp83]

I failed Ishihara as a kid and still make mistakes on it now even having done it several times. This stopped me going for Raf and commercial previously. Having seen info on cad on the Internet, I went to city university and did the test, passed with 3 deutans (limit is 6 for pass). Still nervous about it until I went to gatwick for my class 1 med (and passed). ophthalmologist said seeing as I had done cad no point doing Ishihara. Chief med examiner said no need to ever retake cad.

I hope to work for uk airline so hopefully won't need FAA or other med cert in the future.