Colour vision restriction & instructor rating

[Tom Tucker]

Hi all, am currently completing PPL with a view to obtain CPL and instructor rating but have colour vision problem.

PPL is restricted to day operations and I was wondering if anyone has been able to obtain instructor rating with similar problem?

Regards,

[Fonz121]

Hey mate,

I don't know the full details but I knew an instructor who was colour blind but did some test where he went to an airport and while being supervised by someone from CASA, the tower gave him different light signals and he just had to correctly say what they were. This lifted some condition off his medical. Like I said, can't fully remember the details but inquire about something along those lines. Best of luck.

[LeadSled]

TT,
Talk to Dr. A.M.Pape, Bellpost Hill Medical Clinic, Geelong, Victoria.

Arthur is the Australia expert on non-standard colour perception and pilot licensing standards.

There are many pilots who are only flying because of his efforts. He fought and won the original AAT case against DCA, on this subject.

Google his name, that should bring up some interesting information.

Start with <http://www.ozipilots.com.au/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&id=693&catid=1&func=sb_pdf>

Tootle pip!!

[Tom Tucker]

Many thanks for the quick reply I will follow up.

Great forum and appreciate the referral from the CFI @ MFS

Fly high fly safe,

TT

[YPJT]

I know of a few pilots who cannot pass Ishihara or Farnsworth tests. Their medicals are endorsed something like "Valid in Australian airspace only up to CPL". So I think you will be fine for an instructor rating.

[Tom Tucker]

Just incase anyone else has the same question here is a bit more info I have gleaned.

1) Instructor Rating requires CPL
2) CPL requires either Night VFR or Command Rating
3) Currently colour vision restriction precludes Night VFR
4) Command Rating comes in two parts (I think) day IMC and night IMC

So here are the options as I currently see them in order of cost and complexity:

a) seek exemption (aka wise and proactive Dr)
b) look to have CASA supervise flight check at night and identify coloured lights
c) Obtain day IMC Command rating and seek confirmation from CASA that this fulfils requirements for Instructors Rating

Any thoughts, confirmation of the implied assumptions etc greatly appreciated.

Regards

TT
Fly far, fly safe

[Andy_RR]

3) Currently colour vision restriction precludes Night VFR


Are you sure that is the case in Aus? I have CVD and no explicit restriction on my (currently lapsed) medical. In JAA-land though, I had a Day-VFR restriction on my medical.

Has something changed here in Aus?

[conflict alert]

presume you did a latern test??

Often someone slightly colour blind that can't do the 'book of dots' can pass the latern test.

What sort of colour blindness is it? eg red green deficient

[YPJT]

TT, take LeadSled's advice and contact Arthur Pape. Something in what you are saying just does not ring correct. I was recently approached by a guy up north who was very much in the same boat as you. Doing his PPL and couldn't pass the Ishihara (like 8% of males). He got his medical back with the restricion I mentioned earlier ie, Valid in Australian airspace only up to CPL. Therefore OK for NVFR, OK for IR, OK for instructor rating.

Out of interest, do you have your medical yet?

I ask the same question as Andy RR, has something changed recently in Australia and CASA's rules?

[conflict alert]

out of interest, in OZ do they test for this every renewal? Used to in NZ but for some years now only on an initial medical, deemed to be something that doesn't 'happen' over time so only tested for once.

[YPJT]

In my experience, there is no subsequent colour vision testing. Although my DAME pulls the Ishihara plates out occasionally for sh1ts and giggles and says "you are colour blind aren't you" :}

[conflict alert]

sounds like my Doc who takes great delight in after a piss test holds the container up to the light and says 'look at those crabs'

[flyhardmo]

Ive got a mate who couldn't pass the Ishihara test but did the lantern test and has an unrestricted license. It won't get you into the RAAF but should be no problem for civil. He has shown the results to several CAA's around the world while converting licenses and never had a problem.
good luck

[conflict alert]

did the lantern test and has an unrestricted license

that was where I was going with my posts - lantern test seems to be the 'ultimate' test and if you can get through that - in civil land thats okay, and then your never tested again...well at least where I'm from

[YPJT]

Conflict Alert,
That's the way I understand it too. In fact I think it extends even further to successfully passing the practical light gun test.

Before Arthur Pape successfully took CASA to the AAT and won, us CVDs were restricted to day pvt VFR only. I think it was changed in abou 1996 that you could basically do everything except ATPL.

[conflict alert]

CAA Rules Class 1, 2 and 3 under vision

have no history or diagnosis of any vision disorder that is of
aeromedical significance

not sure what aeromedical significance is but at any rate doesn't differentiate between PPL CPL ATPL. Class 1 CPL Class 2 PPL Class 3 ATCO and under VISION for medical standards all start with quote above.

[triadic]

I know of one Dash8 Capt who is CVD and holds a medical that says Australian airspace only. Suits his needs. Obviously Day/Night/IFR..

Talk to Arthur P as indicated above - he is the wiz! You will find him on the CASA DAME list in Geelong.

a) seek exemption (aka wise and proactive Dr)
Suggest you don't go down this path until you have spoken to AP and done all the required tests and know what the restrictions on your PPL are. If you ask the DAME to do a CPL medical that should place it all before you.

[Biggles66]

flyhardmo - I would be interested to know if he showed it to any JAR (Europe) countries as they won't even normally allow you to get an instrument rating without a night rating and with CVD - no night rating... So I am wondering, if i come from here with a "clean" medical and go to the Europeans, would they issue me with a unrestricted medical? I should say I started off in Europe and could only get a medical with the typical restriction "no night flying" and no CPL, etc.

[OZZI_PPL]

I am Red /Green colour deficient. Always have major problems with the colour plate test. "Major" as in 8 out of 24 correct....

I have done the Farnsworth Lantern test a number of different times and always score better. The main issue I have with the plates, is that I can see a figure but always confuse a 6 with an 8 or a 3 with an 8 etc.

I had to do the Farnsworth test on my initial Class 2. They tested me again on the Colour plates at my last medical renewal. Even though I had an abysmal score, me medical was processed without any dramas.

[conflict alert]

I am Red /Green colour deficient.

same - cannot do the dots but passed latern test. Told the dots are a lazy way for Doc's to do the test. Passed a latern test and noted on file so have been able to get any licence with no restrictions. As previously mentioned - they only do colour check on initial now over here. Prior to that always had to tell the quack after failing miserably when he would show me the book of 'dots' that I had passed the latern test...every medical renewal...it was a pain in the ass..but they just noted it down and signed the medical off.

[Tinstaafl]

ust incase anyone else has the same question here is a bit more info I have gleaned.

1) Instructor Rating requires CPL
2) CPL requires either Night VFR or Command Rating
3) Currently colour vision restriction precludes Night VFR
4) Command Rating comes in two parts (I think) day IMC and night IMC

Not quite correct. There is no requirement to hold a NVFR or instrument rating to hold a CPL. However (there's always a 'however'), if you can't pass a colour vision test your licence may (or will) be limited to 'Day only' so even future night or instrument training won't give night privileges.

An instructor rating requires NVFR privileges. This can be achieved by holding either a NVFR endorsement *or* a Command Instrument Rating + the addtional experience that then allows a CIR holder to use NVFR procedures. A 'bare' CIR isn't enough.

A CIR doesn't come in two parts. A CIR is a CIR. Once you have the rating you can use IFR procedures by day or night. If your licence has a Day Only restriction you might be able to get an IR that is limited to day only too.

Similarly with the instructor rating: You might be able to obtain an instructor rating without the NVFR requirement and have it limited to Day Only.

[Andy_RR]

Not quite correct. There is no requirement to hold a NVFR or instrument rating to hold a CPL. However (there's always a 'however'), if you can't pass a colour vision test your licence may (or will) be limited to 'Day only' so even future night or instrument training won't give night privileges..

Tinstaafl, can you give us chapter and verse on this please? I've had a browse on the CASA website, but I've not yet found anything that might suggest this. Maybe I'm clueless as well as CVD! :}

[Andy_RR]

Oh, and whilst we're on this subject, which part of NVFR and IR flying requires colour-safe vision?

[Tinstaafl]

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Part V Section 5.104 specify the requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence (Fixed Wing). Nowhere is a NVFR or IR mentioned. In fact, in other sections the regs. even specify that a pilot, including a CPL holder, may not command a flight that requires the use of a rating if s/he doesn't hold the relevent rating.

The CARs also allow CASA to issue a licence with conditions attached to it. A condition can be Day Only and I'm aware of Day Only licences being issued in the past.

As for colour safe vision, the colour blindness that causes the problem is red-green blindness. Consider how those colours are used in aviation:

* Position lights: Green for starboard, red for port. Those colours & their arcs of visibility are there for the purpose of determining orientation of another aircraft to maintain separation.
* Obstacle marking: red light.
* Signal lights: red, green (and white)
* Some cockpit lighting: red
* Taxiway lighting: Green centreline (or blue sideline, but the pilot doesn't get to choose which is used)
* Runway lights: Green at one end, red at the other
* Colours on charts: red is often used for restricted, military or prohibited airspace. This may be less of an issue if contrast is sufficient to see the markings.

Most of these are night issues. During daytime there are rather more visual cues to supply equivalent information.

[Andy_RR]

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Part V Section 5.104 specify the requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence (Fixed Wing). Nowhere is a NVFR or IR mentioned. In fact, in other sections the regs. even specify that a pilot, including a CPL holder, may not command a flight that requires the use of a rating if s/he doesn't hold the relevent rating.

The CARs also allow CASA to issue a licence with conditions attached to it. A condition can be Day Only and I'm aware of Day Only licences being issued in the past.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I understand clearly that NVFR/IR isn't a prerequisite for CPL, however I was more interested in what legal mechanisms exisit for CASA to preclude a night/IR rating from "colour-unsafe" persons. I presume from your response, it's just at the whim of CASA rather than any legal instrument?



As for colour safe vision, the colour blindness that causes the problem is red-green blindness. Consider how those colours are used in aviation:

* Position lights: Green for starboard, red for port. Those colours & their arcs of visibility are there for the purpose of determining orientation of another aircraft to maintain separation.
* Obstacle marking: red light.
* Signal lights: red, green (and white)
* Some cockpit lighting: red
* Taxiway lighting: Green centreline (or blue sideline, but the pilot doesn't get to choose which is used)
* Runway lights: Green at one end, red at the other
* Colours on charts: red is often used for restricted, military or prohibited airspace. This may be less of an issue if contrast is sufficient to see the markings.

Most of these are night issues. During daytime there are rather more visual cues to supply equivalent information.

This must be written by someone who is not CVD, surely! Almost all of this is a non-issue to most CVD's as CVD doesn't mean BLIND, nor does it amount to a complete lack of ability to distinguish colour! Adding to this, of all of that list there is very little of consequence where the information is entirely colour encoded - almost always there is additional information and visual cues or contexts that mean the CVD will wind up with the correct interpretation virtually 100% of the time. I say virtually only because we're human and never 100% accurate even without CVD!

[ozblackbox]

Couldn't help but notice this post.

I am colour blind, well colour vision dfective (CVD) to be correct. I have Protanopia which, in my case, is a red green deficiency.

I started flying in 1991 and was told that i just had to do my medical and then apply to CASA for a dispensation. I had to do a Student Pilot Licence medical and then go the the Vic. College of Optometry to do a Farnsworth Lantern test.

I fail the Ishihara test (coloured dots) and I fail the Farnsworth Lantern dismally.

After applying for a dispensation to CASA I had my medical endorsed:

1/ Valid up to and including CPL.
2/ Valid in Australian Airspace only.

Valid up to and including CPL has been updated to conform with ICAO and now says: Not valid for ATPL operations. The Australian Airspace requirement isn't as restrictive as it sounds. If, for example, you wish to fly to Fiji you will need permission from the Fijian CAA to fly in their airspace. This is the case for any country you wish to fly to.

Colour vision hasn't stopped my flying and has practically never really given me any issues that I am aware of - hahaha. The only restriction is that I can't be a Captain on ac >5700kg - at this stage!

A colleague at work recently mentioned that he has a friend at QLink who is a colour vision defective Captain and has his licence endorsed for Australian Airspace only.

I hold an ATPL, have over 5500hrs total time (1200hrs at night), 12 years instructing experience - many as a Grade 1 multi-engine IFR instructor. 700hrs FO time on the Boeing 727 and over 1300hrs command time on turboprop aircraft conducting aeromedical flights - doesn't really get more challenging than that.

I'm not familiar with the current procedures and requirements to get a dispensation but they shouldn't have changed much. You can apply for the practical Lantern test if you fail the Vic. College of Optometry Farnsworth Lantern. This is done through the CASA medical division. They will send you out a letter and then you have to organise the practical test with your local CASA field office.

Currently the test involves the light signal test from the tower. 3 random lights at 250/300m and 3 random lights at around 600m. They may have increased the number of lights shown recently, not sure. You MUST get them all right. If you pass, they will send you out an unrestricted medical - all your colour vision limitations will be removed. From memory, if you fail this test you may resit it.

Hope this helps out a little or gives you some confidence to go ahead with your wishes. Nothing is impossible or too hard!

I don't log in much but always happy to receive a PM for advice.

[Tinstaafl]

The legal instrument is the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Part 67.150 or 67.155, as appropriate. Those regs specify the requirement w.r.t. colour vision perception. They even provide three different ways to meet this requirement with the ultimate method a practical demonstration of ability if unable to pass using one of the other tests.

One must conclude that the drafters of those regs. consider colour vision to be a flight safety requirement. Maybe some of them are CVD and maybe not. Doesn't change the fact that certain colours are used to signal critical information and the ability to perceive the difference is required.

As for alternative cues, perhaps that's why a Day Only licence is acceptable but not night flight. There are far fewer additional cues at night. If you believe that equivalent safety is possible in spite of the above then you need to convince CASA with evidence, not feelings. If you do then I look forward to sharing the airspace with you by day and by night.

[Andy_RR]

The legal instrument is the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Part 67.150 or 67.155, as appropriate. Those regs specify the requirement w.r.t. colour vision perception.


So, presumably for all of us who have an "Australian airspace only and up to CPL" endorsement on our medicals (which is more than a few of us, it seems) there is no other legal impediment to getting an NVFR/IR rating?

They even provide three different ways to meet this requirement with the ultimate method a practical demonstration of ability if unable to pass using one of the other tests.


I must admit, I didn't realise this option was available here in Aus, although I had heard of SODA in the US, which is FAA-speak for the same thing. I might explore that a little further.

Thanks!

A

[Biggles66]

The SODA by the FAA is the same thing as ozblackbox describes above for Australia. I did the SODA at an FSDO in the US and passed.

[YPJT]

Andy RR,
With regard to the Aus airspace up to CPL restriction only on medicals. That's what I have and have CPL, NVFR and IR. No problems at all.

[Andy_RR]

Thanks YPJT. That's comforting to know, whiilst I'm screwing the landing lights onto my RV-8 wings! :)

[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 :( 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.

[YPJT]

Stimmy,
bugger about failing the colour tests. Welcome to the 8% club.
From what I know, the UK has far more stringent colour vision requirements than here or USA. As was discussed previously, in Oz you can have a CPL, IR, NVFR etc but your medical will be endorsed Australian Airspace Only. The best I've heard anyone having in the UK was a daytime IR which seemed a bit strage but there you go. I think in terms of getting a CPL over there and being colour blind you are going to find it difficult.

You might find better info going to the medical forum and doing a search on the colour vision thread. Good luck with it.

[Stimmy]

Thanks mate, are you in the 8% too then? ill go and search like you suggested :) I think im still going to do my PPL anyway so if an opertunity does come up or there is a way around, ill be able to take it....

[YPJT]

Yes mate, I'm in the 8% too.

[Clearedtoreenter]

PPL is restricted to day operations and I was wondering if anyone has been able to obtain instructor rating with similar problem?


Why have you got that? Presumably if you get a CIR or NVFR it gets removed in Australia?

I know a guy who has Restriction No 13 on his Class 1 medical certificate, which states 'Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1'. That apparently means the Med Cert is only valid in Australia. He has the 'usual' red/green colour deficiency but has current CPL, CIR and Instructor Rating. So the Answer is 'yes' it can be done, but probably only in Australia. Same guy also hs a JAA PPL, which is restricted to day VFR only and cannot be extended beyond that. Some of us have an enormous debt to Arthur Pape and the AAT!

[osmosis]

For all those reading this thread because of your own specific need, do your own homework. Although the regs do change from time to time their essence remains the same, restrictions on colour blindness are enforced though it does depend on the degree of severity. The legislation is bull**** and, I suspect, likely to be based on 1930's technology. Today, there are options and procedures available at your cost to sidestep this nonsense if you are not severely effected. If you are, well, be warned. In either case contact Dr. Pape. In my day this was the letter passed around:

"Dear Sir

You have passed your recent pilot medical examination except that your colour perception does not meet the required standard.

However, you are still eligible for the issue of a pilot licence with the following operational restrictions endorsed on the licence:

"The holder of this licence is not permitted to pilot aircraft :
(i) by night:
(ii) within control zones unless the aircraft being flown is fitted with radio apparatus such that he can maintain two-way communication on appropriate frequencies;
(iii) in international air navigation except with the permission of the appropriate authority of the country concerned".

If you eventually obtain a Commercial Pilot Licence you will be able to engage in charter, agricultural, and flying training operations provided you pass the appropriate theoretical examinations and flight tests. All operations will be restricted to daylight flying only, by virtue of the above endorsement.

In addition, although you are unable to meet the colour perception standard, the following ratings may be granted once you are appropriately qualified :-

(a) Class One Instrument Rating (Daylight only)
(b) Class Three Instrument Rating (Daylight only).

Under no circumstances will any of the following licences and ratings be issued:-

1. First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence
2. Second Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence
3. Senior Commercial Pilot Licence
4. Class Four Instrument Rating
5. Class Five Instrument Rating

A further requirement for the issue of a licence to you is the name and address of the organisation with which you propose to undertake your flying training."

[Easy Tiger]

Stimmy

Sat the CAD, YB OK but RG well off piste; "Significant Protan deficiency". := The breakdown of privileges as follows: day flying only, I could instruct, do aerial work, and no public transport. Major sh**ter as the goal was HEMS / Police work.

I failed the plates back at school (1985); I sense I'd have failed the lantern too, though I'd give it a go for sh*ts and giggles.

Have to say I am pretty ****** off with the international variation with CVD restrictions. :ugh: Let's us know how you fare mate.

ET

[osmosis]

There's a long thread going nowhere on this topic here:
http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/398330-collective-colour-vision-thread-3-a.html
Our own Aus regulator does give the option of an on-field test; speak with them directly. If you narrow your employment fields down enough and not move outside them it can, and has been, done. But don't forget you are generally competing with normal visioned candidates.

[chris12345f]

i got the icao convention chapter 6 of annex 1 restriction, but i can still fly at night even though i failed the ishihara, lantern and control tower signal test. i have also got no ATPL operations as a restriction.

[brissypilot]

As quite a few people have mentioned, in Australia we all owe an enormous debt to Dr Arthur Pape and his successes at the AAT in the '80s. Even today, these cases are still viewed as the most exhaustive and comprehensive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted - with the overwhelming conclusion of the tribunal being that colour vision defectives do not pose a risk to the safety of air navigation. Do a google search for 'Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association' which he has recently formed and you will be enlightened.

For those with CVD that have aviation careers in Australia and got there by virtue of passing the tower signal gun test - you have Arthur to thank for that. Previously we wern't even able to fly at night before these successful appeals cases. Having said that, there are still lots more CVD's that still need support though (both here in Australia and internationally) and Arthur's now in the process of coordinating further legal challenges to rid the discrimination once and for all. If you have any interest, I'd highly recommend getting in touch with him.

[Clearedtoreenter]

Wow, is it really that complicated for us slightly special people? I have CPL, unrestricted CIR and instructor. I can fly any time anywhere, certainly in Australia and have never applied for any kind of dispensation. My medical certificate was originally endorsed with up to CPL and Australian airspace only but now says 'Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 8 of Annex 1' (whatever that means, presumably the same). Nobody at CASA has ever asked me for anything different or special tests or reports ever. That is just the way my Class 1 medical certificate arrived after a standard medical examination in 1987 and every renewal since. It has not restricted me from doing anything up to and including CPL ever.

I might add in a previous incarnation in the UK, the situation was totally different. Medical flight test, then VFR, PPL day only and no way around it.

Good luck to budding Aussie CPL's with slightly different eyesight!

[LeadSled]

<http://www.cvdpa.com/>

Folks,
The above is the web site you need to look at.

As is all too often the case, a number of posts here are inaccurate and misleading, for the whole UP TO DATE CVD situation, go to the above, where you will find the whole history, including the various AAT cases that resulted in the current Australia licensing situation.

Dr. Pape has represented a sensible position on CVD up to an including being the IAOPA representative at ICAO considerations of the subject.

All the changes to date, to the advantage of Australian pilots, are based on a very simple proposition ---- there is NO DEMONSTRATED LINK between the "traditional" colour vision standards and a pilot performing any flying task "safely" --- ie: CVD does not increase the risk levels, compared to a "normal" colour vision pilot ---- and if you disagree, all that proves is that you haven't examined the facts.

All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.

Indeed, this is true of much of the medical standards for pilots, the "standards" were never based on objective consideration of the level of medical fitness needed to perform pilot tasks, but were copied from military medical standards, that were designed to exclude all but a very small percentage of candidates from pilot training.

When I first did a CPL initial medical, you had to pass the vision standards uncorrected ---- no glasses!! But you could subsequently continue to fly, if glasses were eventually required ---- either it is safe to wear glasses and fly professionally --- or it is not, and the then DCA was finally forced to recognize that, and drop the uncorrected vision initial standard.

Nobody, today, would suggest that a professional pilot with glasses represented an increase in risk, let alone an unacceptable increase in risk ---- and that is where we have to go with CVD, for the great majority of pilots or potential pilots with CVD, it is the same as "glasses" --- there is simply no demonstrated increase in risk ----- as opposed to an assumed increase in risk.

Tootle pip!!

[brissypilot]

Clearedtoreenter,

You're certainly correct - in Australia all CVD's have the ability to fly up to CPL level with no problems - the problem is at ATPL level. There are still quite a number of pilots (myself included) who hold a full ATPL, yet our medicals are still restricted up to & including CPL due to failure to pass the signal gun test. I've done this test myself & scored 7/8 lights correct - yet this was still classed as a fail and so the restriction remains.

Personally, I've now been flying for over 14 years with over 5000 hrs & have never seen a signal gun in real life. I currently fly as a regional airline FO and have no problems using PAPI or flying at night and pass regular simulator checks to the same standard as colour normals. However, due to the CPL restriction, I am prevented from obtaining a command despite the fact I hold an ATPL. There are a quite number of other very experienced pilots here in Oz too, all in similar situations and all with exemplary safety records who face the same dilemma. These are the ones Arthur Pape is again passionately working with to assist this time around, as well as our friends overseas too.

[LeadSled]

brissypilot,
You need to go to the CVDPA site, address in my last post,<Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com/)> join and get behind the moves that are intended to address your exact situation.

Folks,
Any of you are CVD, have a really close look at the CVDAP site, if you know anybody who is CVD, tell them about the CVD Pilots Association, it can only be to their advantage.

Tootle pip!!

[brissypilot]

Leadsled - I already joined CVDPA a few weeks ago and have been working closely with Arthur for some time.

Everyone else who has a CVD has most likely benefited from his hard work and success at the AAT 23 years ago and should support him too. As mentioned, there are further legal challenges in the pipeline and the preparation is well advanced with all advice being that our chances of success are high. Unfortunately, lawyers are not free though and that is why all of us with an interest in the cause should join up and take the time to have a thorough look at the website. That way we can collectively work together to bring about further change.

[YPJT]

Thanks Leadie,
I too am one who has benefited from Dr Pape's hard work. My original medical said Day VFR, pvt only.
Now it is as Clearedtorenter mentioned above which is fine but a bit of a bBummer if I ever wanted to fly overseas.

[Clearedtoreenter]

Personally, I've now been flying for over 14 years with over 5000 hrs & have never seen a signal gun in real life. I currently fly as a regional airline FO and have no problems using PAPI or flying at night and pass regular simulator checks to the same standard as colour normals. However, due to the CPL restriction, I am prevented from obtaining a command despite the fact I hold an ATPL. There are a quite number of other very experienced pilots here in Oz too, all in similar situations and all with exemplary safety records who face the same dilemma. These are the ones Arthur Pape is again passionately working with to assist this time around, as well as our friends overseas too.

That's really a bit rough. I thoroughly back up what you are saying also having no difficulties night flying. I do get worried about some folk I fly with who supposedly have normal night vision, having had to offer advice more than once to avoid them making a big hole about half a mile short of a runway. I hope things gets sorted for ATPLs because its just not on to stop them progressing in their trade on the basis of ths very spurious rule.

[Ando1Bar]

That's really a bit rough.


Sure is, if brissypilot is who I think he is (I'm 99.9% sure).

He's the most talented pilot I've ever come across and a damn nice bloke too. Would make a top captain - pitty this is standing in his way.

[Fantome]

I do get worried about some folk I fly with who supposedly have normal night vision, having had to offer advice more than once to avoid them making a big hole about half a mile short of a runway.


Any chance you can be a bit more specific? e.g. colour vision related? or faulty depth perception? or some other aspect of defection night vision?

[Clearedtoreenter]

I duuno... just seem to be able to judge too high or too low better than some... But then have been doing for a bit longer than some 'normally sighted' folk. gps distance helps too. :) I very much doubt it's colour vision related. Everything's black and white at night anyway isn't it? :cool: I think it's a learned thing - I guess us 'disabled' pilots (thats what ICAO call us) just learn to do things by better means.

[outofwhack]

Come on guys join the CVDPA.

I joined for life because this CVD thing has been the bane of my life [and my loved ones] and I mean to stop it ruining other peoples lives and careers.

These guys mean business and their membership is increasing rapidly!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!

OOW

[brissypilot]

He's the most talented pilot I've ever come across and a damn nice bloke too. Would make a top captain - pitty this is standing in his way.

Thanks Ando1Bar! The truth is that there's also many other talented pilots in Australia too, also with many thousands of hours each and who have the same restrictions.

A few examples - we have guys that have worked for many years flying Metro's single pilot IFR at night, yet that same person now also works as an airline FO and is unable to obtain a command. Another fella currently works flying modern full glass cockpit equipped King-Airs single pilot IFR. CASA deem us all safe to fly any single pilot aircraft as PIC using CPL privileges, but suddenly due to our CVD we're deemed unsafe to use our ATPL's in the support of multi-crew environments. There's also the example of another pilot who currently flys B737's as an FO. His restrictions were lifted a number of years ago due to providing impeccable references to the regulator, yet on his latest medical they were placed back on with the explanation of it being an 'oversight' - thereby now precluding him from obtaining a command also. There would have to be many other pilots in Australia also in similar predicaments.

All of us are able to (and have...) provided the regulator with many references, simulator check reports etc which demonstrate that our CVD does not pose any safety risk and that we pass these checks to exactly the same standard as our colour normal friends. Yet the discrimination remains without any proper justifiable answer and in many instances, their explanations are contrary to the case law and the findings/recommendations of the AAT cases in the '80's.

All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.

Even ICAO's own Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine states "The problem with colour vision standards for pilots and air traffic controllers is that there is very little information which shows the real, practical implications of colour vision defects on aviation safety" (section 11.8.29)

These guys mean business and their membership is increasing rapidly!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!

With the legal fees we're currently faced with, this is almost impossible to achieve on our own. But like OOW says - if everyone with an interest in the cause supports CVDPA then it won't take us long before we can get some positive changes happening both here in Australia and abroad!

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Brissypilot
I am a protanope defective. Back in the mid 90's I did a modified lantern test at the Vic school of optometry after being refered to them by the CASA, this test is still available. To my surprise I passed and as such was issued an unrestricted class one and an ATPL. AP sure made a big difference and I plan on providing support for the cause going forward. Anyway I couldn't find in your posts that you have done that modified lantern test. If you havent I would certainly recommend you give it a go.

SN

[brissypilot]

Hi Soup Nazi, thanks for your support. I too have been diagnosed as being a protanope and unfortunately have tried and failed the same practical lantern test in Melbourne. The problem with a lot of these tests is that there is a certain amount of luck involved in passing them. For example, I personally know a few guys who have passed the signal gun test and now have unrestricted medicals - most of these guys readily admit they only did so due to sheer luck. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I did this test and scored 7/8 lights correct yet and so the restriction remains...

The real problem with these tests (and Arthur Pape agrees with this) is that they are contrary to the recommendations from the Denision AAT case. These AAT cases from the 80's are still the most exhaustive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted in the entire world. As many would be aware, the overwhelming conclusion from this case was that CVD's do not pose an aviation safety risk. They did however recommend the introduction of a 'practical' test for protanopes such as yourself and I.

This is why CASR 67.150 (6) (c) now enables a CVD affected person to meet the requirements of the regulations by passing a test which 'simulates an operational situation'. The two tests that CASA devised to simulate this operational situation are the tower signal gun test & the 'practical' lantern test in Melbourne. I've never seen a signal gun in real life (nor have I met anyone who has). Similarly, I don't fly an aircraft in a laboratory like with the test in Melbourne. So how is it possible then to say that these two tests reflect an 'operational situation'?

I'm more than happy to demonstrate to my competency in the aircraft or simulator for example by flying a PAPI approach or by interpreting glass cockpit display screens. (As we do anyway by virtue of the fact that we pass regular CIR renewals, proficiency checks & line checks...) That would be a far better way of ensuring that we meet the regulatory requirements and would then also be in line with the AAT's recommendation of a practical test. Unfortunately this has been suggested to CASA and the answer is always an emphatic 'no'.

The ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine also provides for a certain amount of flexibility when making aviation medicine decisions and recommends that an individual's 'abilities, skills and experience' be considered. It can definitely be argued that the CASA approach so far has been far from flexible and continues to discriminate against very capable and competent pilots such as some of the other guys I mentioned in my last post.

As such, this is the reason why another appeal case is being coordinated so that we can get this issue resolved and we can continue to progress our careers. Hopefully with more support and membership through CVDPA we can make this a reality and eventually take the fight to assist the guys in the rest of the world too!

[Typhoon650]

This has been an interesting thread. I wish all you guys with colour vision problems the best of luck.
Unfortunately, I am "functionally monocular" according to CASA, so I can never get past the PPL stage, so I know how disheartening this all can be.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

Unfortunately, I am "functionally monocular" according to CASA, so I can never get past the PPL stage, so I know how disheartening this all can be. :sad: and you feel disheartened? Isn't their a pair of special glasses or contact lenses that can help with depth perception?

Brissypilot can I please ask you have you or have you not conducted the tower signal gun test? And can you or can you not tell the difference between the rotating beacon at YMML tower?

I'm also colour blind, green deficient actually and according to my optometry exam I conducted at the Australian college of optometry my green cones in the back of my retina are poorly dysfunctional :}! Yet I do not have any restriction on my Class 1 medical.

I took both lantern test, one which shows a series of 3 colours; red, green, and white. The second test only shows two; red and white. Not surprisingly I failed both. I assumed my career as an airline pilot was over due to the restriction I had on my class 1 medical.

However despite all the bad news, I took the chance of contacting CASA and arranging a signal gun test which was conducted at Moorabbin. What they do is they arrange for an ATO to come out onto the tarmac and from 250-300 meters they point a laser signal gun consisting of the three colours. You do this by 3-4 sets x 3 flashes and then again at 500-600 meters! Once you've completed the test the ATO will send you home, which you then anxiously wait for a week bitting your nails for the results to come back! :} In the end I received the results and a new Class 1 medical certificate stating my restrictions have been removed! :) I highly recommend you too take this test. Best of Luck! :ok:

P.s This doesn't come at a cheap price :E

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Brissypilot
Yeah I reckon it was luck I passed the modified lantern test, love your work AP!

SN

[Typhoon650]

Touch and go:
No, my eyesight in my right eye is uncorrectable. No amount of lenses helps, the opthamologist first put the strongest lens he had, then the second strongest, in tandem and I still couldn't pass the test!
However, it's not as if I have no eyesight in that eye, it just doesn't focus clearly. reading is impossible, but I can easily recognise shapes, fairly fine details and movement. The eye just doesn't focus.
As for depth perception, I guess my eye has been as it is for so long, I've never had an issue. It was certainly good enough to obtain a PPL with CSU/retract endorsements, which means at least I can get up there and fly, even if it is never for financial reward.

[brissypilot]

Touch-And-Go, as mentioned in previous posts, I have conducted the tower signal gun test and scored 7/8 lights correct. I got the very last light wrong and so the test was a fail. :ugh: This one mistake has now had my career on hold for the past seven years since I achieved my full ATPL. It's a crazy situation where I hold the actual licence required to obtain a multi-crew command and fly that aircraft everyday without issue, but my medical only allows me to operate up to CPL level.

I still maintain that the signal gun test does not simulate an "operational situation" as required by the regulations, just like the practical lantern test in Melbourne doesn't either. I wonder how many people out there have seen a tower signal gun used in real life? Especially in an ATPL environment which is where the issue is at the moment.

Could you imagine you're on finals into a busy international airport flying an approach to the mimima and have suffered a radio failure - the possibility of seeing anything other than a green light is almost zero. Tower are hardly going to give you a red light indicating to go-around! Just like if you suffer a radio failure approaching a holding point, they're not going to give you a green light issuing a take-off clearance either. The signal gun is simply old outdated technology and does not at all reflect today's modern aviation envionment. In the type of aircraft requiring an ATPL, we are equipped with not only dual VHF radios, but also HF and sat phones in addition to carrying mobiles. Even many approach plates these days list phone numbers for ATC as part of their loss of comm procedures - they don't make mention of looking for the tower signal gun...

Having said all that, for all those that have had their medical restrictions waived by virtue of passing the signal gun test then count yourself very lucky indeed! Prior to Arthur Pape's AAT cases you were never even able to do that test and were restricted from flying at night (as is still the case in a lot of countries around the world). This is why he still needs the support of not only the pilots still battling the discrimination, but also guys like Touch-And-Go who have benefited from the previous AAT decision.

Touch-And-Go, If you haven't already looked at it, I highly encourage you to check out the CVDPA website for a full run down on the history. Join up as a CVDPA member so that we can start working to bring change to others who are desprately fighting around the world to have the same opportunites as us in Australia.

P.s This doesn't come at a cheap price http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
If you reckon the signal gun test was expensive, you should see the expected legal fees we're facing! You've only got to look at some of the other threads going on PPruNe to see that there is much unhappiness about the avmed section at CASA. Here's one opportunity we've all got to start to bring them to account and to test their unfounded and irrational bureauocratic processes. We need your support through CVDPA to make this happen though.

[iceman71]

Hi guys,
It's really great to read all the posts from other pilots who share a common problem. My life was turned upside down 24 years ago when I was completely shattered by the news that I was never going to be a commercial airline pilot, fly at night.. etc etc. From that point I fell in and out of flying training, thinking there was no real point, except that I just loved fying.
Well, i'm back in the swing.. I bought myself an aeroplane, started my own little aviation company and am finishing off my PPL over the next couple of months and determined now to keep going as far as I can.
I came across the CVDPA site last night after reading an article in AOPA.
It really gave me such relief to feel part of such a great group of pilots and am joining up today as a member!!!
Ironically, when I couldn't become a pilot all those years ago, I became an electronics technician & telecommunications technician... looking at colour coded resistors, components and wires all day long and never made a mistake... go figure!!
BIG thanks to Dr Arthur pape.:D

[brissypilot]

For any Kiwi pilots, you may be interested to know that there is significant progress being made towards challenging the colour vision standards in NZ. It even recently had support on the floor or Parliament. See below for more info and a worthwhile read:

Colour deficient pilots: Is there light at the end of the tunnel? (http://www.caa.gen.nz/?p=3577)

A further legal challenge at the Australian AAT is also imminent, likely to be early next year and is again supported by Dr Arthur Pape. More info is available through the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA).

There is certainly significant momentum starting to build now in our favour - should be exciting times ahead!

[dubbleyew eight]

some of the most talented people I've met are colourblind.
they cant help it.
it doesnt make them stupid and the problem cant be corrected.

if we can change wiring standards from red-black-green to brown-blue-green striped to remove the problem why then cant aviation make similar changes????

it is utter systemic organisational stupidity that this even remains a problem.

[Rodolfo]

Sirs,

How can I book a CAD test in England?
Is there any place on Web I can find this test? (to test before go to England)?

Thks

[Mimpe]

Your quest was well answered on the first page - you will need a Farnsworth Lantern test and the matter will go to the medical panel at AVMED. You may pass legally and get the medical clearance to fly but still be unsafe in certain combinations of circumstances.

For instance for practical purposes, if its a problem with red , you may get into big trouble on a PAPI glideslope on an instrument approach late final.

In certain weather conditions, pilots with a red vision problem and some distraction have interpreted 4 reds as 4 whites, and flown themselves and their passengers into the ground thinking they were above slope. I can't quote the exact crash report - my memory was it was in Canada and not that long ago.

[brissypilot]

How can I book a CAD test in England?

Rodolfo,

You'll probably find some better advice on that in Collective Colour Vision thread (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/487847-collective-colour-vision-thread-4-a-16.html) in the medical section of these forums. The use of the CAD is more widespread in the UK and some of the guys in that thread will probably be able to recommend where to go. The test was developed by City University in London and you can find more information on it here (http://www.city.ac.uk/health/research/research-areas/optometry/a-new-web-based-colour-vision-test). It's just another laboratory based test that has no resemblance to flying an aircraft.

For instance for practical purposes, if its a problem with red , you may get into big trouble on a PAPI glideslope on an instrument approach late final.

In certain weather conditions, pilots with a red vision problem and some distraction have interpreted 4 reds as 4 whites, and flown themselves and their passengers into the ground thinking they were above slope. I can't quote the exact crash report - my memory was it was in Canada and not that long ago.

Mimpe,

Your remarks highlight the common misconception that CVD's have trouble with PAPI. CVD pilots have been operating in Australia now for 25 years without any safety issue and with no records of any accidents or incidents (confirmed by CASA in response to Senator Fawcett's recent questioning). This is exactly what the Empire Strikes Back thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html) was all about. Contrary to your suggestions, the only empirical evidence available shows that CVD pilots meet the same high standards in their flight & simulator checks as those with normal colour vision. Professional pilots with CVD fly PAPI approaches every day without issue.

The accident I'm guessing that you're referring to is the crash of FedEx Flight 1478 in Tallahassee, Florida in 2002, where the CVD co-pilot was implicated following a black hole approach at night using PAPI.

The medical evidence given in relation to the pilots CVD was from a single source who's enthusiasm for promoting more stringent colour vision standards is legendary. His evidence was not subject to the fundamental legal process of cross-examination. Dr Arthur Pape and his colleagues have researched this accident extensively including reviewing the almost 200 submissions which were relied upon in producing the NTSB's final report. In these submissions, there are numerous contradictions which infer that that the real culprit was the failure of the PAPI device itself to provide correct glideslope information to the three pilots on the flight deck under the prevailing meteorological conditions.

Of the three pilots, one had defective colour vision and two had normal colour vision. In the crash of FedEx Flight 1478 all three crew were actively involved in the approach and none saw the four red lights that the PAPI should have been displaying. They flew the aircraft as if the PAPI was showing four white lights, indicating to them that the approach was too high.

This alternative explanation for the crash is supported by three separate scientific studies which were conducted years earlier, from Australia, the USA and Canada. These studies showed that under certain meteorological conditions the signal from the PAPI could be degraded to such an extent that the observer would perceive a “fly down” display when in fact the approach angle was already dangerously low. This “fail unsafe” condition is independent of the colour vision of the observer.

You can see a summary of these findings in an article that Dr Pape wrote for the Journal of Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine last year:

The Puzzle of the Crash of FedEx Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation (http://cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/Pape%20and%20Crassini%20The%20Puzzle%20JASAM%202013.pdf)

[Arthur Pape]

Hi Mimpe,
Thanks for your post. I am a fanatical believer in evidence-based aviation regulation, and particularly so when it comes to colour vision standards in aviation. I therefore challenge you to produce the evidence upon which you make the claim about the crash you mentioned. It is simply not acceptable to make a claim in the way you did concerning a crash (which if it were true would constitute vital evidence) without any reference or detail. Please give all of us the information that backs up your claim.


Cheers,


Arthur Pape

[LeadSled]

you may get into big trouble on a PAPI glideslope on an instrument approach late final.

Mimpe,
Absolute rubbish, and as Dr. Pape says, produce the evidence, no assertions, just the evidence.
There are already enough nonsense ideas around aviation, too many examples of the triumph of the dictum: "Don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up".
As Sgt. Joe Friday said, often, many years ago: "The facts, man, just the facts".
Tootle pip!!

PS: The CASA head doctor is a little bit astray ( a nice way of saying he doesn't know what he is talking about) when he/CASA claims that increasing use of colour demand Denison is out of date.

Aircraft instruments have always used the primary printing colours, and combinations, whether "round dials" (many of which are actually square, as in 2/3/4 ATR faces) the use of these colours in "glass" cockpits has not changed since the original TSOs were produced something like 35 years ago.

[Bill Smith]

Please actively engage your Senators to help in this important issue. This both affects employees, employers.

CASA stated that they will not change existing holders medicals, well that is emphatically untrue as they revoked my ATPL. The inconsistency beggars belief.
If you want change you have to make some noise this will not go away.

Here is what I sent.

Dear Honourable Members,

My name is (Fill in the Blank). I am a (...) year old Airline Pilot with a Colour Vision Deficiency. I have held a Private Pilots Licence since (...), a Commercial Pilots licence since 1992 and exercised the privileges of my Airline Transport Licence since (.....). I currently am employed as (......) and have accumulated total flight time of around (....) hours. I am assessed at least three times a year on my ability to safely operate my aircraft in simulators and in the aircraft and pass.

I am writing to you all regarding the aggressive stance CASA is taking on CVD pilots and their careers.
Recently I renewed my Australian medical and was advised that I would no longer be able to exercise the privileges of my Airline Transport Licence, as I have been doing since (....), due to being “Unsafe” as I’m Colour Vision deficient.

There has been no industry consultation on these changes and they are without any safety justification. Senator David Fawcett has been actively trying to keep CASA honest regarding these changes however CASA seems intent on steamrolling changes through ignoring two AAT cases regarding this very matter and the indisputable fact that are a large number CVD’s have been flying in Australia for over 20 years. They have amassed 10’s of thousands of hours completely incident and accident free.

Re Arthur Marinus Pape and Secretary, Department of Aviation [1987] AATA 354 (9 October 1987)
Re Hugh Jonathan Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84; 10 AAR 242 (7 April 1989)

This new aggressive stance by CASA not only is a waste of the tax payers money, as I’m sure that it will be challenged by many CVD’s, but will also destroy many pilots careers and take a huge amount of experience out of the Industry if CASA is allowed to wind back the clock 25 years.
There is already one case scheduled for the AAT in July.

Please get on board this important issue. Senator David Fawcett has been a loyal and rational advocate on this issue please support him and let Australia lead the world rather than just blindly follow suit.

Your Sincerely,