Collective Colour Vision Thread 4

[Scottish.CPL]

the only difference between the two tests are that the city test is for diagnosis only and the cad at gatwick is the certified test, the protocalls for gatwick are that if you score a boarderline result ie deutuan being pass of 6 units, and you get 6.5 when they will ask you to take the test maybe 3 times to get 3 more scores and then average out the result, if you have passed at city then yes gatwick should be giving you certification, and that should be it, but we all know how accurate and fair the caa are over this :mad: and if anything they should be offering the cad at gatwick for free is they have results from city, and as you might be aware city designed the test and spend nearly 3 million on it.

[Smiless]

Could anyone just confirm for me whether it is 100% possible to still fly privately(PPL) in the daytime if I have red/green colour deficiency?

My previous dream of becoming a commercial airline pilot is definitely out of the window due to my colour vision (I had a colour vision test at City Uni). But if I could still at least be able to learn and fly aerobatics with a PPL in the daytime, I'll be more than happy.

So if anyone could confirm whether it is still possible to get a Class 2 Medical, then it really would be much appreciated. :)

[India Golf]

Had contact with my colour-deficient friend today. He took the CAD test three more times at Gatwick. The main difference being that the CAA use an old CRT monitor for the test, while City use a state-of-the-art LED flat screen.

Despite this, he still managed to pass - albeit with a slightly worse score, but still with a good enough average to record a pass. Just the rest of the Class 1 medical to go now.

Incidentally, he was told that he could have had the three extra tests done at City University in the same session as the 'marginal' pass, and saved himself having to pay a further £150 for retesting at Gatwick. Worthwhile knowledge for anyone who scores a marginal pass at City.:ugh:

Should I decide to go for a Class 1 myself, I know my old lantern test result will not be enough for an initial Class 1, but would probably use the same method of doing the City test independent of the CAA. I know my friend felt more confident doing the test at Gatwick with the knowledge that he knew the extent of his colour deficiency; he had experience of taking the test, and that he knew he had the ability to pass it!

[India Golf]

There are a couple of members at my flying club who have Class 2 medicals despite being colour deficient. They are restricted to day VFR only, but that suits the type of flying that they want to do.

[Flyboy543]

I have a red/green problem and have in the past (2005) been issued a class 2 day VFR restricted medical. It required me to push for it because the doc who conducted the initial test refused to believe I was still able to have a restricted class 2. After a couple of letters to the CAA and the doc, the CAA office in Gatwick issued me a day VFR restricted medical. Unfortunately personal circumstances meant I have not renewed the medical.

Best of luck with your quests.

Edit: Spelling

[dobbin1]

There is no problem getting a restricted medical with a colour vision deficiency. The restriction added to a class 2 (or even class 1, see my earlier post) is not "day VFR only" as some previous posters have suggested, rather it is "flights by day only". It is perfectly possible to fly IFR with a CVD restriction and I often do, using my IMC rating.

There are some other restrictions as well - you must have a radio for flights from and to airfields that have ATC and for a class 1 certificate, no commercial air transport is allowed.

The sad thing is that if the IMC rating is killed off for new pilots then the potential safety benefit of instrument flight will be denied to anyone with CVD because they cannot currently get a full IR. This is clearly very discriminatory, which is why the night qualification is not a pre-requisite for the proposed modular and en-route IRs. I would not hold my breath for these last two to be introduced though, as I understand some airlines are against them.

[2close]

Hi troops,

I would be very grateful if anyone in the following categories can contact me via PM.

Issued Class 1 Medical ONLY, with restrictions
Issued Class 2 Medical ONLY, with restrictions
Issued BOTH Class 1 and 2 Medicals with restrictions on one but not the other

Issued CPL ONLY
Issued CPL/IR
Issued PPL ONLY
Issued PPL/IR
Issued CPL and PPL on same document

Issued Night Rating
Issued FI Rating

I want to build a database of EU CVD pilots as I am currently looking into an issue which has the potential to result in this being taken forward in the Courts.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the UK is the driving force behind EASA Part-MED and that they have made some very valuable concessions to the CVD fraternity.

However, reading Part-MED I would conclude that the baseline has been built on UK legislation, which differs quite considerably in some critical key areas from EU legislation and it is this that needs to be exploited.

We will require the assistance of the CVDPA and especially the Australian CVD pilots currently working in CAT operations.

But first of all, I need to know numbers and where people expect/want to go in their flying careers.

[pponte]

cvdpilots already has a public member list available and a private list available for logged in members.

check it there..happy to help with data you need or to give the members a call for action.

skype me pedro_ponte

[A320LJ]

Despite I already hold a Class 1 medical without restrictions (ATP) in my Country, my color vision deficiency always makes me reluctant in trying any position abroad.

I think a good idea is to carry by my on means, the CAD test, and so, have more chances to pass the medical exams in other countries.

So, anyone knows were could I submit myself to the CAD test?

Since now, thanks for any information.

[Scottish.CPL]

what level of colour vision defiency do you have, and what tests have you done, the cad is only available at two sources in the UK Gatwick, and city university in london.. CAD is not approved by EASA only via UK CAA, it is not an aviation specific test, if you read the last few threads, it will give you more information,

[brissypilot]

The battle over CVD standards in New Zealand has been heating up over recent months, with a review into the standards currently underway.

The issue has even made it into the NZ Parliament where the standards were recently questioned:

New Zealand Parliament - 6. Pilot Licensing?Colour Vision Requirements (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130530_00000006/6-pilot-licensing%e2%80%94colour-vision-requirements)

I have been informed that in July there was also a meeting by a group including representatives from CVDPA, AOPA NZ, AIA and several more supporting the interests of CVD pilots. They met with the top brass of the NZ CAA and are lobbying hard to align the NZ standards with that of Australia.

There is certainly momentum starting to build at all levels internationally to challenge the standards. If you would like to see change, get behind organisations like CVDPA to show your support!

[Scottish.CPL]

Can't see CAA making any changes ESP over this

[brissypilot]

A worthwhile read below for anyone interested in the progress being made in NZ.

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

Combined with an additional legal challenge being mounted in Oz, successful outcomes in these two countries will likely have positive ramifications for the rest of the world in the future.

[arut]

Hello,

Two quesions regarding the tests at City:
- I have been trying to book a colour vision test for a few days now. The phone number on the web page seems to be for a different clinic (or at least the lady who picked up said so), and I was given a phone number to a lady called Marisa, who doesn't seem to pick up her phone. I left her a few messages, but no response so far. Does anyone have a valid contact for bookings for the colour vision clinic at City?

- Secondly, would the pass at City be enough for a class 2 medical, or would I also have to go to Gatwick for a test afterwards? I haven't had any "official" test yet, but I know I will fail the Ishihara, as I always have failed it (although I have been tested using lanterns and other methods a few years ago for another thing, and was declared only margianlly colour deficient, so should be colour safe for flying)

[Rockets11]

Hi,
Growing up all I wanted to be was an airline pilot.
I just have a question with regards colour vision. I went to the CAA in Gatwick a few months back. Failed on the ispharia plates and then also failed on the CAD computer test. Everything else I passed with flying colours. They issued me with a restricted medical to day time flying only.
Now I never knew I had a problem with colours previous to this and still in everyday life I don't find it an issues.
I'm just wondering is that the end for me with regards flying commercially? I no in Australia that you can be a 1st officer apparently but can't become a captain.
I have around 10 hours done building towards my PPL which I can obviously complete with the medial Ihave.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Dash8driver1312]

Did you ask the CAA when you were there about it? Or the instructor you are flying with now?

[belowradar]

You should consider FAA route via USA

You can take a signal light tast an airport
With exonerated and if you pass you are issued
With a waiver. There may well be other eye tests
That you can sit.

You will need a visa for work in USA but
Many US aircraft flying globally

CAA wasted 15 years of my career due to
This but I passed the "new" CAD test so am Kosher
Now and enjoy training at night in UK and Sligo which
Was brilliant

Never give up on your dream but don't let
It take over your life either, keep it going
As best you can. Enjoy your flying

I kept going despite a solid wall of beaurocracy and now
Hold EASA ATPLf IR FI ME examiner so never
Let the "experts" stop you flying

Best of luck for your flying future

[Rockets11]

Thanks a lot.
I asked one of the doctors that was doing the medical and he just said I'm afraid that rules you out for commercial flying. I didn't ask my instructor I'm afraid no. I am currently in Australia, but done my flying so far In Sligo.
How does the FAA differ from the regs in Europe?
Would I ever be employable in Europe if it was the case I got an FAA licence. If I had a chance of still going commercially I would stick it out here in Australia for as long as it takes to save up the required funds. Had given up hope but just said I'd try here and see had anyone any advice. Thanks again!

[belowradar]

Have a look at the CVD thread under
medical for lots of info on this subject

As the rules stand under EASA you are
Not likely to be able to follow a professional
Career as a pilot

Might be better to stay in OZ

[redsnail]

You can be a captain in Australia with a colour defect. I have some friends who are colour deficient and they definitely sat in the left seat. ;)

It may have changed but at the time (15 years ago) that privilege was only valid for the Australian FIR.

Dr Arthur Pape is your friend with this one.

[brissypilot]

Redsnail is correct.

You can be a Captain in Australia and exercise the ATPL privileges provided you pass one of the colour vision tests which can include the control tower signal gun test.

However, even if you fail all colour vision testing, your medical will include the restrictions 'not valid for ATPL operations' and 'holder does not fully meet the requirements of ICAO convention Chapter 6 of Annex 1'. This effectively means you are restricted to Australian airspace only and you can only operate up to CPL licence privileges. This still allows you to fly any single pilot aircraft as pilot in command (which includes high performance turbo-props such as King Air's) and also allows you to operate as a First Officer in any multi-crew aircraft including passenger jets.

There is a further legal challenge currently underway in Australia with court hearings expected early next year to challenge this final restriction. There are now a significant number of pilots in Australia with many thousands of hours experience who hold this ATPL restriction and are denied the opportunity to become Captain's, despite impeccable safety records which indicates that their CVD does not affect the 'safe performance of their duties'.

Arthur Pape is indeed your friend with this and is also heavily involved in the aforementioned case, which has the potential to set an important international precedent. It will also further expose the far worse discrimination being experienced in other countries. You can contact him via the CVDPA website.

For those interested in the background as to how Australia arrived at the position it is now, the below aeromedical article is also a worthwhile read:

Colour Perception Standards in Aviation: Some Implications of the AAT Decisions Regarding Colour Perception and Aviation (http://cvdpa.com/images/further_reading/articles/implicationsofaatdecision.pdf)

[tatave]

Hello all,

I have just been through a colour blindness test and I failed the Ishihara test as well as the Farnsworth lantern test. I have a deficiency in the red cones of my retina. Is there still hope of becoming a commercial pilot via another test?

Also, is it true that being under pressure can affect the lantern test results? I took the test in a university and was surrounded by about fifteen students which was quite uncomfortable.

Thank you in advance.

[Scottish.CPL]

city university does not care about the world of aviation, Marissa does not care about what happens either, all the academics care about is their research and rewards, i have spoken to her and i challenged her over claims that the cad test was claimed to 100%, and that i was deemed the 'perfect test ' for aviation, she stated the its not 100% accurate and a pediatric test, its not designed for aviation!!

second she advised that the test at city and gatwick are the same and the results from them should be accepted by CAA, and no retesting is required..

also the caa are 'supposed to' use the quick screening test first, just like the plates, and if the cad picks up any issues, then it prompts further testing, and thats when they ask you to do the full test thats takes 15 mins,

allot of :mad:

[Arrowhead]

HI

This is the new test: City University Colour Vision test - YouTube

Its not the moving square any more. I think it would be accepted by most airlines. And for the first time, you can test each eye. But I dont know where I can take it outside City Uni.

Can anyone help with another tester?

[gijoe]

That is the old City test as used by the Fire Service and was never really employed in aviation testing.

The CAD is the moving box that goes across the screen changing colour.

[faroussa]

hello everyone

i want to ask what edition of ishihara test is used nowadays at the medical centers in europe
is there a difference depending on country ?

[Scottish.CPL]

All the same 24 plate version

[faroussa]

Thank you very much
But i think that the 38 edition is more "readable" than the 24 edition in my personnal opinion...

[pponte]

The 38 and 24 are exactly the same. The 38 plates are an extension of the 24 by having some more numbers, that's all.
There isn't any difference in terms of readability on both versions.

I urge everyone of you who are trying to pass exams and spending your money on aviation tests to also share your support on the case that is being held in Australia and New Zeeland and supported by the pilots pockets.

A Change in the rules there will allow the changes to proceed throughout the world! Please support the CVDPA organization by subscribing them.

I've been following them close and have donated them a good amount of money already. Please share at least one flying hour fee with them to enable all of us to stop visiting this thread and move to the FO/Captain threads in the future!

Thank you

[outofwhack]

Thanks solely to the CVDPA and Arthur Pape I am now allowed to get on with a career in aviation without restriction. In Europe I wasnt allowed to fly at night or for public transport.

In Australia I can be captain of an Qantas A380 (given time).

Stop trying to pass stupid colour vision tests - change the stupid rules!

[Scottish.CPL]

Unless you married to an Aussie or got a visa a job won't happen for us Brits !! Even with license conversion

[brissypilot]

An interesting read below regarding the B727 which crashed in Tallahassee in 2002. The FO's CVD was implicated as a possible causal factor and ever since many worldwide authorities continue to quote this accident as a justification for more stringent colour vision requirements.

The article raises some serious issues which must be examined and in particular questions the reliability of the PAPI to provide correct indications under certain atmospheric conditions:

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)

[dubbleyew eight]

what a load of blinkered nonsense all this colour discrimination is.

why is it that the accident safety investigators have never once thought to recommended changing the bloody colours!!!!

for :mad: why white and red lights? why not white and magenta? yellow and blue?

aviation regulators must be some of the blindly stupidest people on the face of this earth.

:mad: "standards" - fix the actual problem.

after all it actually only involves changing the colour filters in front of the red lights.

T-vasis didnt need any colours.

it is perhaps just an accident of history but on our airfield if you were to name all the really good pilots among the 200 and something of us I guarantee you that most of the people named are colour blind in at least red green.
a more valid screening would be to knock out the lowest 30% of the population on intelligence. that after all would exclude all the cretins populating CASA.

[outofwhack]

Bravo!
But we dont need the colours changing anyway - they are fine as they are even for severe CVD pilots because we have used them without error for 24+ years.

Check out the CVDPA Facebook page for a new video.

It is of our Senator David Fawcett (an ex army pilot and UK ETPS graduate) raising questions in our Senate to the CASA CEO enquiring if they are trying to roll back the changes CASA were forced to make 24 years back after the Denison AAT case that allowed all CVD pilots to fly commercially by day and night up to First officer but not Captain in RPT.

The CVDPA (Arthur Pape et al) need you to join NOW and contribute directly to fund this case. They have court dates set for an appellant who has been an FO for several years and whose company want to promote him to Captain and the preparation for the show down is well underway. This case will likely result in all colour vision testing for pilots dropped in Australia and this will be a fine precedent for use in all countries.

If you know of other CVD affected pilots or wannabe pilots please alert them and encourage them to join.

[2close]

"aviation regulators must be some of the blindly stupidest people on the face of this earth."

How dare you say such a thing?

Who on earth do you think you are?

Everyone knows that they are unquestionably the stupidest creatures* on face of the earth....to restrict your statement to only people is to limit the unquavering ineptitude of the aviation regulator to a mere sub-species.

Grunt, grumble, harrumph!!! Strolls off into darkness........... ;)

*Editors Note: This includes all single celled life forms and plankton

PS. Only joking - we love all aviation regulators really!!! :)

[brissypilot]

It's great to see the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) has also joined to support CVD pilots in this campaign in meetings with members of the Australian Federal Parliament.

Media Release - December 9 2013 - Pilots' Careers put at risk by Court Appeal | VIPA (http://www.vipa.asn.au/node/155)

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Hi chaps
I haven't been very vocal on here of late. However I would like to encourage everyone to subscribe to cvdpa.com. Memberships are needed to help fund the upcoming legal challenge for Australian pilots to basically abolish restrictions due to CVD. I realise that if this case is won it may take sometime to effect change in other country's but rest assured it will be closely watched by your relevant authorities and pressure will be felt immediately.

Lets face it at this point its the best hope for major change. If CASA succeeds and wind back the clock no one wins and there is little to look forward to. Momentum is building and I believe the case will be heard in April 2014. So lets let the pro's do the work with our support yeah!

[outofwhack]

There's an interesting letter by a 6000 hour colour deficient airline first officer in Australian Flying magazine Jan - Feb 2014 edition.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Folks,

Recently at Gatwick I did the whole colour vision testing. Failing that (Deutan) I was thinking of doing the lantern test at the City Uni in London.

My only worry is that, will the CAA accept the Lantern results if passed, if I've already failed the CAD?

Like it says below;
[B][B]MED.B.075 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.



Class 1 and 2
(a) At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

Ishihara test to be conducted as per manufacturer’s instructions: test distance 75cm with plane of plates at right angles to line of vision under daylight or daylight simulated light (usually colour temperature around 6500K) allowing 3 seconds per plate for response. The plates should be presented to the applicant in a random order. Ishihara plates should be updated periodically or if showing any signs of fading.
(b) Examination
(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.
(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.
Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test is required if there are any errors on the first 15 plates.

Part MED.A.010 defines colour safe as ‘the ability of an applicant to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights.

CAD tests should be conducted under CAA protocols (available on request). The CAD test will only pass as colour safe, those individuals who perform as well as individuals with colour vision in the normal range on the most difficult aviation colour vision tasks. See CAA papers:



CAA Paper 2006/04 Part 1
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Flight Crew: The Use of Colour Signals and the Assessment of Colour Vision Requirements in Aviation

CAA Paper 2006/04 Part 2
Minimum Colour Vision requirements for Professional Flight Crew: Task Analysis

CAA Paper 2009/04
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew. Recommendations for new colour vision standards.

Implementing Rules

Acceptable Means of Compliance

Guidance Material

(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. Applicants for a class 1 medical certificate shall be referred to the licensing authority.

(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.
(3) Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test. this is considered oassed if the threshold is less than 6 SU doe deutan deficiency, or less than 12 SU for protan deificency. A threshold greater than 2 SU for tritan deficiency indicates an acquired cause which should be investigated.




The UK CAA does not conduct lantern testing as servicing and output of the machines cannot be quality assured. If the AMS is to consider the result of a lantern test, the report should include clear detail of the protocol used, responses made and documentation of the calibration/maintenance of the equipment. Non-UK tests must have been conducted by an Aeromedical Centre in another Competent Authority.

Class 1 applicants who fail advanced colour vision testing can request individual assessment by the Authority under MED.B.001 (“issued by the Licensing Authority”) and consideration will be given to restriction of privileges to “valid by day only” and “no public Commercial Air Transport” (VCL + SSL-ILA + SSL-NCAT).


Is it the top half of the box or the bottom half of the box they follow??

So confusing....

Thanks for your input, time and help folks. :)

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi wind force,

Thanks for that. If EASA again disapprove of CAD testing and choose to only use the other methods as secondary testing. Will the CAA have to stop doing the CAD test and go back to the Lantern testing?

Thanks again.

[Scottish.CPL]

That would be correct, but the issue would be that the CAA state that any lantern taken must be taken and a report regarding calibration if the rest, in other words they may not trust other institutes testing including city university which as we know designed the cad and Gatwick have sometimes refused results and made people retest there!!! And possibly lead to failure !!!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

So, it wouldn't do me any harm to make sure I request the calibration certificates from the City Uni for the CAA.

[2close]

Don't waste your time.

You could take a calibration certificate 15 seconds old together with a certified letter from the designer and original equipment manufacturer, signed in blood, with a guarantee that he would hand over all his worldly possessions and sacrifice his youngest daughter to the God of Aviation Regulatory Madness, should it be found to be out of calibration to 0.0000000000000000000001% and they still wouldn't accept it.

If it does not happen at the hallowed turf that is Aviation House Aeromedical Centre, as dictated by certain egoistical individuals, full of their own self-importance and not willing to accept the opinions of real-world time-served experts from the same industry with decades of real life experience (and not in the narrow-minded and massively restrictive artificial world of aviation regulation), then it will not be accepted......simple as that.....

......UNLESS the sweeping and very welcome changes (not quite as welcome at Aviation House though!) imposed on other CAA departments by Andrew Haines have managed to permeate the resistance-to-change armour surrounding the Medical Department. We can but hope!!! :)

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Haha thanks,

I suppose the question is, "Will the CAA ever buck up their ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE CRAP?" And maybe update it to follow the EASA protocols? Or will EASA be looking to change their views on CVD pilots?

At the end of the day, it's complete bull:yuk:!!

They've yet to actually prove that we, as CVD pilots are unsafe in the skies! The truth is, they never will. As people say, they've got nothing better to do than make peoples lives a misery. If they like pushing paper around all day to try and prove a point then let them. Hopefully one day soon their noses will be out of joint with some new relaxed protocol..:ok:

[Scottish.CPL]

All they need to do Is follow the rules of the test 13/15 is a normal pass on ishihara and for the lanterns test on aviation red/green/and white none of this light red or dirty white crap or changes in intensity bull

[150bugsmasher]

Interesting TedTalk here.

Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_optical_illusions_show_how_we_see.html)

Shows how fallible colour perception can be, and also how many secondary cues the brain uses to make sense of the colour data it receives.

[2close]

The point is that the existence of a VERY small number of aviation medical professionals, i.e. the optometrists, depends on this colour vision nonsense and in particular the introduction of the CAD. Get rid of this test and go back to the time served Ishihara Test and Lantern Tests (there ARE acceptable alternatives available to the now defunct Holmes-Wright Lantern).

We are no longer in the 1920's with coloured boards!!! This is the 21st Century and there are many alternative ways of conveying information other than simply by colour. :ugh:

A FOIA request should be submitted to the CAA to establish EXACTLY how much the CAA donated to the development of this laughable CAD test (Quote: "If you're not sure then guess".....so, although I am CP4 in one eye and monochromatic in the other, through nothing other than guesswork I could pass the colour vision test and be passed fit to fly in that respect!).

Once it has been established how much fee payers' money has been wasted a formal complaint should be submitted to the Transport Secretary demanding the heads of those responsible on silver platters.

Apart from academic advancement I fail to see any real benefit that has come out of the CAD test.

Apart from the CAD test, there is NOTHING that could not be achieved at a high street optometrist.

I'm sorry if the aviation optometrists have to get a real job and and work for a living but if the CAA is genuinely concerned about reducing costs they need to look at the obscene salaries they pay out in certain areas.

:ugh: :mad: :*

[dobbin1]

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
All they need to do Is follow the rules of the test 13/15 is a normal pass on ishihara and for the lanterns test on aviation red/green/and white none of this light red or dirty white crap or changes in intensity bull


9/15 on Ishihara will get you a night rating on a LAPL. How can that be safe for a LAPL if not safe for a PPL?

[Scottish.CPL]

I put it down to the fact that the Lapl medical is done via your gp and not CAA so that the so called risk is on the gp to sign u off !!

[2close]

Please note the following:

SECTION 2

Specific requirements for the LAPL for aeroplanes — LAPL(A)

FCL.105.A LAPL(A) — Privileges and conditions

(a) The privileges of the holder of an LAPL for aeroplanes are to act as PIC on single-engine piston aeroplanes-land or TMG with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 2 000 kg or less, carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, such that there are never more than 4 persons on board of the aircraft.

(b) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers after they have completed, after the issuance of the licence, 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG.


You can be issued a LAPL(A) after 30 hours of training and go on to fly a large (2,000 kg!) SEP aircraft with lots of fuel but admittedly only 4 persons on board in total.

Obviously it is impossible to cause much damage to either the four POB or any property with such an aircraft and an overwhelming 10 hours of post licence issue experience, hence, the decision to grant this reduced requirement to LAPL(A) holders.

As for the risk being transferred to the GP I'm afraid that is not the case - the competent authority bears the responsibility for licence issue.....full stop! If they chose to implement reduced visual requirements for a particular class of licence that must be based on solid evidence, studied through careful risk assessment. I suspect this decision was made over a glass or two of wine in a Horley pub and written on the back of a fag packet!!

:ugh:

[pponte]

From the CVDPA news on fb.

CASA confirm that there are no accidents or incidents on record attributed to a pilot's CVD. Why then are they wasting so much taxpayer money fighting a case, when the only empirical evidence available is that CVD pilots continue to meet the highest standards of safety and proficiency?

Interesting read: http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Questions%20on%20Notice%20Answers.pdf

[brissypilot]

CASA confirm that there are no accidents or incidents on record attributed to a pilot's CVD.

Here's the original questions that were asked by Senator Fawcett during the Senate Estimates hearings late last year:

CASA & ATSB Questioned on Colour Vision Issues - YouTube

More info is available through the CVDPA Empire Strikes Back page (http://cvdpa.com/highlights/the-empire-strikes-back). It's good to see that the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) has also thrown their support behind the cause. There's no doubt the debate is heating up!

There's also another thread running in The Pacific GA & Questions section of PPRuNe.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Scottish.CPL
Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
I put it down to the fact that the Lapl medical is done via your gp and not CAA so that the so called risk is on the gp to sign u off !!


The saying, "they're too scared to fart incase they :mad: themselves comes to mind....

They're scared to sign CVD pilots off so they'll pin it on the GPs. Who at the end of the day have nothing to worry about!

If they're that concerned why don't they let our own ophthalmologists sign off our colour testing for class 1 medicals?? Using the same 9/15 for the plates as the LAPL...

[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)?

[Arthur Pape]

Hi All,
The issue of the aviation colour perception standard is coming intensely under scrutiny, once again, in Australia. There is a great deal of political and aviation medical interest in the lead up to a new AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) appeal by a colour vision defective professional pilot. The fact that this sort of scrutiny can happen at all says a great deal for the fairness of the Australian political and legal system. As part of this process, the nature of the CAD test is of particular interest to a number of people who have political influence. I have been able to provide a deal of basic information about this test, but I am looking for evidence that the CAD test outcome has little relevance to the piloting ability of individuals being tested. I have access to several instances where pilots with impressive and extensive airline experience have had to do the CAD, have failed it, and have then gone on to demonstrate there "safe" status by some other means. I invite statements from more such people to add to the weight of evidence on this topic. I assure anyone who contributes to this appeal that their anonymity will be totally assured. Please send details as a private message on this forum or directly to me at [email protected]

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Folks,

Nice and simple. Do the CAA or EASA conduct practical lantern testing or signal gun testing?

Another thing also. What exactly does this statement mean:

Class 1 applicants who fail advanced colour vision testing can request individual assessment by the Authority under MED.B.001 (“issued by the Licensing Authority”) and consideration will be given to restriction of privileges to “valid by day only” and “no public Commercial Air Transport” (VCL + SSL-ILA + SSL-NCAT).

It's the last bit on the MED.B.075 Colour vision document.

Thanks again folks!!

[outofwhack]

CAA: Simple answer: NO

CAA: It means they will issue you with a class 1 medical but it will be stamped with restrictions 'day only' and 'no public transport'.

CAA: Appeal procedure? Internal to CAA (ha! As if they will decide anything different)

EASA? Can someone answer this?

[outofwhack]

VIDEO: Ex-military test pilot, Senator Fawcett, questions the CASA CEO in the Australian Senate over indications that CASA AVMED branch intend winding back the Ozzie colour vision regulations 25 years, ignoring the Denison case of 1989, and in so removing the careers of thousands of professional pilots with a CVD who have flown without incident for 25 years!

The CASA letter referred to effectively destroys the career of a current 6000 hour professional pilot on the grounds that he recently failed the newly introduced CAD Test in Australia.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atab_9NFPA8

N.b The AAT appeal case mentioned has not started because the applicant Mr. Obrien and the CVDPA have not yet found sufficient funds to fight the case which is estimated to be in excess of AUD$300k with the tax payer funding CASA's lawyers.

[tomasjames]

Hi all

I won't bore you with the usual 'I've wanted to be a pilot since I was born' introduction - I'll cut straight to the chase.

From reading the entire 17 page thread all evening, I am incredibly concerned from a scientific standpoint as to the statistical validity of CAA's tests.

I'm just about to graduate in astrophysics and one thing that my degree has taught me is 'repeat, repeat, repeat'. Doing something once isn't scientifically valid: it has to be run multiple times to allow any 'kinks' to come to light in your test/test method. Moreover every repeat reading should be performed under the same conditions as their counterparts. If anything changes it must be noted and compensation applied.

From what I've read here, one simple run of the Ishihara test with a score of 100% is sufficient for the CAA to send you on your way with a medical certificate. Anything below that introduces CAD testing. Everybody that undergoes a medical should be permitted to sit every test method they would like too a minimum of 3 attempts, with each attempt under the same conditions as the last as well as under the same conditions that everybody else had to be tested under.

This may introduce some argument of 'the candidate could learn the plates and recognise the pattern'. This is already possible, thanks to the large number of free Ishihara tests online. Moreover it allows, to some degree, the candidate to take a second look at a plate he/she found particularly troublesome and either reaffirm their answer or disregard it and put forward a different one.

I cannot comprehend how, as the sole issuer of medical certificates in the UK, the CAA use antiquated and non-aviation specific CVD tests to assess pilots. I cannot imagine a pilot looking at PAPI lights, navigation lights or cockpit warnings for 3 seconds before turning away thinking 'nope, Ishihara said thats it now'. I do appreciate that on approach/take-off it is necessary to scan instruments and move quickly between say PFD and PAPI, but these use well established patterns/boundaries to distinguish themselves as opposed to their colour as the CAA would have you think (in the case of PAPI it would appear that distinguishing the angular resolutions is the most important aspect).

It also doesn't explain how an Australian pilot with CVD is legally allowed to fly into a British airport with a documented deficiency yet I, as a British citizen with a potentially smaller loss of colour acuity, can do no such thing in an airliner. Why? There needs to be some form of worldwide standardised test with which every pilot wishing to fly abroad should be tested against.

It is frustrating to say the least that so many great pilots have been denied a career on the back of what seems more of an old wife's tale than a medically sound procedure. I just hope that everybody that was denied this has since been able to find something else that they love doing for a career.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi tomasjames,

I 100% see where you're coming from. I work in an oil field fluids laboratory in Aberdeen. We repeats tests 4, 5 sometimes even 6 times. One test is simply not representative. Like you say, conditions change all of the time.

The way the CAA test people for colour vision deficiency is completely wrong and in my opinion is very backwards.

It also has absolutely no significance to flying an aircraft safely in the dark. All the tests do are confirm that the individual is colour deficient, which we already know!! What we need is a test that shows we can properly execute flying operations in darkness!!

It's frustrating and very sad that today in the 21st century, ICAO haven't changed their standards and methods of testing CVD pilots.

[WrongWayCorrigan]

Reading up on glasses to correct colour vision. Anyone know anything about these?

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi WrongWayCorrigan,

To my knowledge the colour correction lenses are not approved for working or driving. They work on something like Ishihara Plates but when it comes to identifying light, they dim the light. They're more hassle than it's worth to be honest...

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Folks,

What are your thoughts on EASA adopting the compliance that Austrailia have when it comes to colour vision deficient pilots. When it comes to medical matters, a lot of ideas and procedures get copied from one aviation organisation to the next. For example look at the regulations that EASA now implement for type one diabetics (insulin injecting). That all started in Canada. Other regulators realised that there was no danger, so they realised they were in the wrong with grounding them.

Now that's it's clear that no apparent danger exists when a CVD pilot is flying thanks to Austrailia, when will other regulators realise that? And start adopting what's been successful in Austrailia.

Any thoughts would be excellent....

[garethep]

Guys,
I may have missed this earlier in the thread but thought it worthwhile to point out that you can take the cad test at caledonia university in Glasgow....I just did it, cost £50 and saved me a train ride to london....didnt help me I failed it badly but hopefully it might help someone.

[Shunter]

Reading up on glasses to correct colour vision. Anyone know anything about these?

I tried some of these. They're really strange. Yes you can pass an Ishihara test in them, but the world looks very different and I'm not remotely convinced they give the view of a person with perfect colour vision.

The problem with all these "tests" is that they are a solution to a problem which does not exist. Whilst everyone has an element of selfish about them to some extent and simply wants to get a clean medical and get on with their life, the ultimate aim should be to get rid of these tests completely.

Back in the day when I was busy being a thorn in the side of Sally/Adrian at the CAA the only incident they could reference in which CVD was a factor was Fedex/Tallahassee. Tenuous at best.

Fortunately for me (and at great expense) I managed to pass the Spectrolux test over in Dubendorf after getting 1 plate wrong on the Ishihara and 1 each wrong on the Banes and H/W at Gatwick. Apparently the scores I got at City Uni when the CAD was under development would constitute a pass, but I have it in writing that I will never be tested again and my medical status will remain colour safe so I'll probably never know.

Everyone stuck in the position I was has my greatest sympathy.

[mtanz0]

I did the CAD test at Gatwick, having failed the Ishihara during the Class 2. I also failed the CAD test, but I was quite tired, and others who have done it I think would agree that it is mentally quite draining. I'm not convinced that it is purely a reflection of colour perception ability.

As the videos suggested, I think the CAD test is still somewhat irrelevant. The CAA (like most other British institutions) take pride in implementing everything to the letter of the law, therefore if medical experts have concluded that the CAD test is an accurate reflection of a person's colour perception ability, and some other expert has concluded that a certain drop in colour perception ability is hazardous to flying, that will pretty much be the end of the debate.
I'm not sure common sense frequently comes into British decision-making.

As the content of the videos suggested, the important question is not, whether these tests provide an accurate diagnosis of a CVD, but whether or not a CVD will prevent you operating an aircraft anymore safely than someone without.

The problem for CASA, is that ICAO standards are largely based on those established by both the FAA and CAA, who have both adopted this test, or at least the FAA are planning to adopt it.

If they continue without adopting it, they probably perceive themselves as risking their credibility, which might be crap, but they will probably submit to international pressure.

[Scottish.CPL]

having heard on here about the CAD being offered, i contact Glasgow Caledonian university, and the offer the test for £25, i take it garethep you did all the clolour vision test at the eye clinic!!!

today being friday the 4 april, no more appointments are available till after the Easter break,

for me, i will try it again, as i scored 7.44 .44 over retest, so therefore that should not be used for scoring, if i get a clean pass on 6, or below, then even better,

plus they are supposed to test you for short initial screening and then the full test if a failure occurs!! makes sense!!!

[Scottish.CPL]

If anyone has been to the Glasgow caladonian eye clinic for the cad , please share your experience!!

[Rob0704]

Hi,

I'm planning to take the Class 1 Medical - before I apply for training. I know I have a colour deficiency, but have seen the CAD test on YouTube and I can follow it all the way through. Should I try the medical or will it just be a waste of money?

[Scottish.CPL]

The cad on utube is nothing like the real thing, the real thing is harder and time consuming. Either go to city uni or gcal eye clinic and do the test and if you pass take results to Gatwick

[pponte]

Rob, he CAD is a waste of time and money. and don't forget to join cvdpa and cvdpilots. Pvt me if you want to know more about the Ishihara plates. good luck

[Scottish.CPL]

Rob

How many plates CAN you read, and under the proper lighting!!

second it is not advisable to 'learn' the plates, the plates are presented to you in a random order to prevent this, if the AME feels that there is cheating going on, its not going to achieve anything!!

the cad test on utube is a sample of the actual test, but its best to try at either city, or glasgow caledonian eye clinic, as they can also offer the holmes wright lantern as well, and that test is still valid providing you follow the CAA protocals for it.

believe me, ive been there, i score a pass to the test standards but not to the CAA standard, and didn't pass the cad test as it went on far to long, they are supposed to use the fast screening cad to start with, and the long version test deeper into the red/green area that was found to the weak!! feel free to PM me.

[The presence pilot]

Hi there ,

I'm mustafa 21 years old from iraq , I have complete my hight school of studies three years ago and looking for my dream till now
My dream is to become a commercial pilot but as you read above , there is a problem that I couldn't pass Ishihara test while I really could recognize the colors as well as the red , green and white , it's clear for me

And really I couldn't left this dream even there were more obstructions I have already faced but really there were something inside made me keep going to achieve my aim ,,

So, guys I'm asking you kindly to guide me on the right way and the right place
And I just want to know how could be the procedures right there in order to get the medical class 1 and start studying ( In U.S. or UK or even in EUROPE )

Last thing if there is something to do , how will be my chance at the future employments in this case ?

I hope I will get the right answer from you guys

[pponte]

Message edited:
second it is not advisable to 'learn' the plates, the plates are presented to you in a random order to prevent this, if the AME feels that there is cheating going on, its not going to achieve anything!!

Rob and The presence pilot:

pvt me and I'll give you more details

The presence pilot, the states have some exams which are very easy to pass, compared to the normal ishihara. Try the keystoneview for example, they've got 6 compatible ishihara plates, if you pass then it's a go, no need to be tested with 24 or the 38 series! Also Canada used to have an easier exam to pass (the Farnsworth D15 - not a lantern)

Cheers

[campagna]

Hello guys.
I have a question about the FAA CVD standards.

Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates: Concise 14-plate edition: six or more errors on plates 1-11; the 24-plate edition: seven or more errors on plates 1-15; the 38-plate edition: nine or more errors on plates 1-21.

Do they really follow those procedures? Will I be considered color vision safe if I fail 5 plates(official 14 plates test) or the doctor can disqualify me even with this score ?
I'm asking this question because I read cases of pilots in the US that weren't tested with the official Ishihara plates but with a shorter version with just 8 or 9 plates and no errors were allowed.

[pponte]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item52/amd/

each exam has different criteria, therefore the ones that use 6 plates will allow less errors. by the way; the plates are not exactly the same as ishihara.

[outofwhack]

You will get positive changes in Europe if it is tackled in the right way but it needs good coordination.

Australia got rid of 95% of its colour vision regulations thanks to Dr. Arthur Pape in 1989 who proved that deutans (the majority of cvds) are Colour Safe and able to fly perfectly safely - and we have enjoyed the results, with CASA being forced to accept us, for 25 years.

The last remaining restrictions currently hold back a protan cvd DASH 8 first officer (CPL only required for first officer and does not have to pass any colour test) from becoming captain (ATPL required). Protans were left out of the ruling 25 years ago. However his flying record is impeccable with 6000 hours by day and night and written recommendations by all his flight checking captains and simulator check captains.

The court case is set for July 2014. He has a crack set of lawyers and full support from Arthur Pape. If he wins it (and the odds are in his favour) it will have to apply to all protans and thus ALL the regulations are removed in Australia. What a precedent that would be for European courts to consider when combined with 25 years of incident free flying in Australia by thousands of CVD pilots from private to airline level (including cvd captains currently flying their 74Xs and A3XX into your major cities).

See CASA facing questions in the Australian Senate from our Senator Fawcett (ex-army test pilot) prior to the pending court case on the CVDPA Facebook page. Who do you think are going to win ;) https://www.facebook.com/ColourVisionDefectivePilotsAssociation

This is your fight whether you are living in Australia or Europe! Support them with all your might and passion because you will need this help in your country in short time!

[brissypilot]

Senator Fawcett's questioning of CASA including our Principal Medical Officer is below. Like outofwhack says, this case will have resounding effects around the globe. Get behind CVDPA and support it!

Thanks Senator for your passionate advocacy of CVD pilots. :D :D It's a shame the authorities don't have as much common sense as him. :ugh:

AIVWO0conJ8

[outofwhack]

Aviation authorities may reject the Australian facts but a court would not.

Courts act strongly on cases of unjustified discrimination.

Talking is not going to achieve anything. Send some cash to the CVDPA, relax and enjoy the show!

[Liam_Mulholalnd]

I was at the CAA the other week and finally received the news I was dreading, I failed the CAD test which puts to bed the dream of flying commercially. To be fair I already prepared myself for the bad news so I wasn't too bummed out when they said I'd failed, but I always held onto a glimmer of hope I would pass fine.

So now I'm stuck with a restricted class 1 which is now just a glorified class 2, what use is that!

I was wondering if anyone has found themselves in the same situation and what they've done next?

[RONTOM-EGPD]

I also have a Class 1 with that annoying 4 letter NCAT stamped on it! It's frustrating to say the least.

I've been considering on asking a friend of mine who has studied law and is now practising at solicitors firm to draft me up a letter. It wouldn't be a, "I'll see you in court" letter but instead just one asking for concrete evidence on why colour deficiency plays such a negative role in getting a night rating. I'd also put on the letter that I'd be willing to sit in an approved CAA flight simulator and prove that there's absolutely no problem in distinguishing lights both inside and outside the flight deck during the hours of darkness.

I want to expand on my PPL and ICAO need to understand that CVD pilots in no way jeopardise the safety of commercial flight.

[Fruet Mich]

Guys, I am a Captain with an airline flying jets in the Southern Hemisphere. I have many thousands of hours flight experience and have been flying now for over twenty years. I have not once experienced issues with colour deficiency in my professional aviation career.

I have sat the CAD test and have failed. Previous to this I have sat many colour vision tests, some I have passed and some I have failed. The tests I have consistently passed with 100% pass rate are any practical environmental test. I have passed PAPI test, tower gun tests and a pratical flight test during day and at night, I do not pass the CAD however.

As I have said, I have sat the CAD test and have failed. The CAD test has zero relevance to a pilots environment. For one, it's a synthetic light test done in a synthetic environment asking the applicant to to distinguish rapidly moving coloured targets in the dark after your eyes have had time to adjust. Please explain where in aviation would you ever have to distinguish multiple coloured lights moving rapidly in a controlled synthetic environment? But hey, I'm just a mere professional pilot with no idea about colour and aviation, I should leave that to the non colour deficient, non professional pilots that designed this test.

The CAD test is only good for distinguishing if the applicant is in fact colour deficient, that's all.

As a professional aviator we use an assortment of visual cues to establish whether we are safely "on approach". In the modern day cockpit we have many tools at hand, not just the PAPI lights. We must utilise all the tools at hand to safely fly an approach. On CAT2 and CAT 3B approaches you do not even use the PAPI as guidance. We certainly don't confuse ourselves with rapidly moving lights.

As professional pilots we adjust to our environment, much like colour deficient drivers having to distinguish traffic lights. You might see the lights as a slightly deferent colour, but your brain learns to adapt to your environment of which we work, day in, day out.

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.

I have contributed to the legal challenge in Australia and suggest anyone who is pursuing a professional pilots career in the future should do the same. Google CVDPA.

[Liam_Mulholalnd]

Good to hear you are able to fly Fruet Mich but the likelihood of any changes happening within the next 10 years in Europe are slime I believe. Even with the good work the CVDPA are doing any type of change in EASA/CAA regulation will take years to go through. One thing I don't understand is how the CAA can get away with using the CAD test as a valid vision test even though it doesn't list it as a valid means on compliance.

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.

Hopefully one day all CD pilots are able to fulfill their dreams of flying commercially all over the world hassle free however I fear that day will be too late for me.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

I don't think we'll have to wait that much longer to be honest. ICAO know that the way they are testing CVD pilots is wrong and in fact doesn't prove that we're unsafe to fly IFR. I think what the Austrailians have got going is good and if that's successful other aviation organisations will have to follow in their footsteps.

[brissypilot]

A great article (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/07/colour-vision-deficient-pilots-see-red/) from Paul Phelan from Pro Aviation on this week's saga down under...


Colour vision deficient pilots see red

While the topic of aberrant regulatory conduct dominates the nation’s aviation dialogue, we’re wondering whether a letter from CASA to all employers of pilots might represent a practical joke, an early example of a scorched earth strategy, or an act of rebellion against the ASRR’s erudite recommendations.

We’d speculate that such a bizarre missive could hardly have originated from the aviation medics, who would be well aware that when you want to quote medical research convincingly in support of a position, you need to provide a reference to the relevant original medical research papers that present the evidence referred to. (We’ve requested that reference from CASA and are still awaiting a response.)

It also seems unlikely that the letter got the nod from CASA’s legal office, because it seems to be asking AOC holders and/or pilots to make decisions which CASA’s not prepared to make itself.

No, it’s signed by the executive in charge of CASA’s” Permissions Centre,” sometimes referred to by disenchanted permission seekers as the “Sheltered Workshop.” But what on earth it hopes to achieve is difficult to discern. It tells employers that “the possibility exists that your pilot’s CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued,” and then it goes on to tell their employers to make decisions they are not equipped to make because CASA simply hasn’t told them what the hell it’s on about and it doesn’t tell them what the problem is and what it considers is an “appropriate” course to take.

Here’s the letter which all AOC holders received on June 5. We follow it with a commentary by Dr Arthur Pape, who is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading expert on the issue of colour vision deficiency (CVD).
If you’re bewildered by the letter, you’ll find Dr Pape’s analysis enlightening by comparison, and indicative of a clear way forward for any responsible medical official seeking to develop intelligent and effective policies on this not-so-complex issue.

5 June 2014

Dear AOC holder,


Colour Vision Deficiency


I am writing to inform you of actions the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has taken in relation to pilots with a recognised colour vision deficiency (CVD) in the light of recent medical research involving the assessment of CVD, and the possible implications of these developments for affected pilots and the operators who employ them.

A number of pilots have taken their medical certificates issued subject to a limiting condition because they do not meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception specified in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). You may employ one or more pilots whose medical certificates are subject to such a condition.

Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be, and the possibility exists that your pilots CVD may be of a type and/or severity that could adversely affect aviation safety to a degree greater than was believed to be the case when the medical certificates were issued. CASA is reviewing the situation and will consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken on the basis of that review, at which time affected medical certificate holders will be notified accordingly.

In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD-related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or designated aviation medical examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.

As I told recipients of that advice I would be doing, I write to you now, as the holder of an air operator’s certificate (AOC) who may employ one or more affected pilots, to encourage you to consider whether it is safe to allow those pilots to continue to exercise flight crew privileges under your AOC, subject only to the existing condition, and what adjustments to those arrangements you may consider to be appropriate, in the interests of safety, pending CASA’s further determination of the matter.

For more information visit CASA’s website at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARDpc=PC_91593.

For further details, please contact Dr Pooshan Navathe principal medical officer, on 131757. Yours sincerely,

Peter Fereday
Executive Manager, Industry Permissions


Enlightenment from Dr Arthur Pape


The Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS), as specified by ICAO and replicated by practically all signatory states, requires that: “The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.”

At its philosophical/scientific core, this so-called “standard” represents a conclusion (or argument) based on three implicit assumptions, as follows:

Assumption 1
There is extensive use of colour-coded information in the aviation environment.

Assumption 2
The “safe performance of duties” in the aviation environment is dependent on “the ability to perceive readily those colours necessary etc etc……..”.

Assumption 3
Without ‘the ability to perceive readily those colours, the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties”, these duties will be performed unsafely.

Discussion
The validity or “truth” of the ACPS relies entirely on the validity or “truth” of each of the three assumptions. In turn, the validity or “truth” of each of the assumptions relies on evidence, as opposed to opinion and/or established prejudice.

Let’s consider the first assumption. At the dawn of aviation, over a hundred years ago, colour coding was used solely in the form of signalling by means of coloured flags or lights, as the means of communication between people on the ground and in the air. It was suggested that people who could not readily perceive the colours of those signals might perform their duties “unsafely”, and that suggestion, under the circumstances of the day, would have had some merit. Out of this there arose the ACPS, whose wording has changed little from those heady days of cloth covered aeroplanes and simple instructions to pilots using simple coloured objects in a simple “code”.

Since then there has been an exponential increase in the use of colour throughout the aviation environment, both in the aviation physical environment and in and on aeroplanes. The list of uses of colour is enormous, and the validity of the first assumption is self-evident to anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the aviation environment.

Result: Assumption 1 is “True”.

Assumption 2 is, however, problematic. For this assumption to be valid, it needs to be demonstrated that the perception of the colour(s) is sufficient and necessary to see the information that is required for the “safe performance of duties”. In other words, “see the colour” equals “see the information”, which results in “safe performance of duties”. This assumption could be tested empirically, but this type of work has never been done in respect to the aviation environment.

Result: Assumption 2 remains an unproven assumption

To paraphrase assumption 3, would go like this: “see no (or different) colour” equals “see no (or wrong) information” which results in “unsafe performance”. To digress briefly, let me state that the existence of individuals with colour vision deficiencies (CVD) is a proven reality. That 8 to 9 percent of the male population and just less than 1 percent of the female population have one or other of the various types of CVD is beyond any doubt. Further, there are numerous reliable and proven tests available to detect and classify the severity of any particular CVD condition. Let me add also that the CAD test is an excellent test to diagnose and quantify CVD conditions.

So, in short, the ACPS, via the implicit Assumption 3 would predict that people with CVD should perform the duties (involved in flying an aeroplane) unsafely. This proposition could be tested empirically (i.e., by measurement, observation and analysis). No formal empirical testing of assumption 3 has ever been conducted.

Result: Assumption 3 is also problematic.

It is a fact that pilots with CVD have been around for a very long time and in considerable numbers. For almost a century, the FAA has applied a wide variety of colour vision tests and practical tests, whereby tens of thousands of CVD pilots either passed the ACPS or were granted waivers against the standard. Since 1989, a few thousand Australian CVD pilots have enjoyed the freedom to fly at night and many hundreds have achieved successful careers in airline operations. If Assumption 3 were “true” one would expect there to be evidence of “unsafe performance of duties” by these pilots. This should be particularly evident in the incident and accident records kept by the aviation authorities of the USA and Australia. A landmark study in the mid 1970s by two researchers (Dille and Booze) working for the FAA examined the accident records of the large group of CVD pilots with a “waiver” and found not even one accident where the existence of a colour vision defect could have contributed to the cause. Furthermore, the accident rate for this group was no different than that of the general pilot population (accidents per 100,000 hrs of recent experience). Until 2002, the FAA had no record of any accident attributed to CVD, and since 2002 there have been none. The significance of 2002 is that in that year a Fedex B727 crashed while on a PAPI-guided night visual approach, and the CVD status of the flying FO was attributed a causal role in the crash. However, two other crew had normal colour vision and also did not see what the PAPI should have been showing them. The relationship between this crash and the significance of CVD is highly contentious. The ATSB and CASA have admitted they have no record of any accident attributed to CVD.

The Australian experience since the Denison case in 1989 has provided excellent positive evidence against the “truth” of Assumption 3. There are estimated to have been several thousand CVD pilots operating with either no restriction or minimal restriction in the period in question, and a significant number at the highest level of airline operations. I can say with confidence that we have examples of even the most severe kinds of CVD working as captains and FOs on the full range of airline type aircraft. These pilots are surveilled, trained, tested and examined in exactly the same way that pilots with normal colour vision are handled. They pass and keep on meeting all requirements “necessary” for the “safe performance of their duties”, and these assessments are made by duly qualified examiners of airmen, as opposed to aviation medical doctors or optometrists. This is taken by many informed commentators as evidence that Assumption 3 is “false”, and raises the question as to whether the ACPS serves any useful role in modern aviation.

It is abundantly evident that the appeal by John O’Brien [A pilot with CVD] and the unprecedented interrogation of CASA on this topic in the Australian Senate has triggered a tsunami of hysterical and irrational activity within CASA. It is my view that CASA’s actions and the responses by the Director and the Principal Medical Officer to the Senate Estimates Hearings reflect an absurd and indefensible position. Claims of “medical evidence” by both in support of their stance cannot be substantiated because such evidence does not exist.

There is no “rocket science” in any aspect of this saga.

:D:D

[dobbin1]

There is an interesting thread running on another forum about LED aircraft lights not being visible to pilots flying with night vision goggles. Apparently there are quite a few helicopters flying around at night with the whole crew using NVGs.

So it is apparently safe for these military/police pilots to fly at night with devices that give a very restricted monochrome view while it is seemingly unsafe for me to fly at night because of my CVD, despite my better than average 6/4 distance vision. Doh!

[dobbin1]

I don't think we'll have to wait that much longer to be honest. ICAO know that the way they are testing CVD pilots is wrong and in fact doesn't prove that we're unsafe to fly IFR. I think what the Austrailians have got going is good and if that's successful other aviation organisations will have to follow in their footsteps.


RONTOM, There is nothing to stop you flying IFR in The UK with CVD restrictions on your EASA medical. You do not need a night rating to obtain the IR(r) rating, or indeed the new EIR or competency based IR. You just won't be able to use them at night.

[outofwhack]

Today's national TV coverage on our CVD challenge in Australia.

Nb. Hundreds of Cvd pilots who failed Ishihara and Farnsworth passed the tower light signal test [ forced in by Arthur Pape's court win in 1989] and made it to airline captain and have been flying safely for 25 years.
The pilot in this news item failed even the tower test but according to his airline check and training captains he is at no disadvantage compared to a colour normal pilot in being able to safely operate - yet casa denies him use of his ATPL because he has not passed this last colour naming test - a signal light that could not possibly be used in airline operations. If we win this case all colour vision testing will be redundant! Please help the CVDPA support this pilot to create a very useful international precedent! The 10+ days in court starts next month!

Queensland pilot challenges CASA over colour blindness restrictions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/queensland-pilot-challenges-casa-over-colour/5540446)

[Chris Opperman]

Limited research done by us in South Africa shows that none of the current tests available (including CAD) reliably differentiate between safe colour deficients and truly unsafe ones. We have found that some colour deficient persons are unreliable in critical colour perception based on testing in full simulator facilities, but there was no correlation with Ishihara, Farnsworth CAD or Signal testing.
The problem will remain: How do we identify the risky vs the safe pilot? Should a colour deficient pilot be tested in a standardised and calibrated simulator by means of a set of set tests. Should this testing be left to the instructor rather than the doctor, or should it be assessed by partnering the instructor and doctor? How many colour related mistakes are made by those with normal colour perception during similar testing?

[outofwhack]

Chris,

If a task does not rely on colour for safe decision making then there is no need to classify as colour safe/unsafe.

Driving and flying do not rely on colour. Colour is used but its redundant. There is no colour testing for drivers because colour deficient drivers are able to make the same safety decisions as colour normal drivers - just like pilots.

In marine navigation there are tasks where colour is the only clue and thus it is sensible to determine if someone is safe and unsafe.

[Anomaly0]

Awesome that this is on TV!! If nothing else, it educates the public on the not so (for lack of a better term) black and white issue of color vision! There are varying degrees of deficiency and even that isn't widely known by the public. So at least that part is agreed upon now.. There is still much work to be done to open the minds of the unaffected, however. A task oriented test should suffice 100%.. Not some damn color vision test. And by task oriented, I don't mean being asked to name colors during a flight or with some silly obsolete light gun. I mean ACTUALLY FLYING THE PLANE.. whether that be in a sim or real life. I'm pulling for you here from the USA John! I gave what I could to Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com) and will continue to do so. It WILL affect the rest of the world.. So let's hope for a good verdict. It's awesome that this made it to TV! I'm proud of the CVDPA and what we have accomplished even to this point. It just proves that the internet is truly a wonderful thing, when not censored, biased, or over-regulated. This wouldn't have been possible even 20 years ago. Best of luck!

[Anomaly0]

I also posted this on FlightAware (A big aviation news and information resource) in hopes that the upcoming case, and the CVDPA get the exposure they deserve. Perhaps it would help to do the same in other worldwide news places...

[Sarcs]

:D:D...Well done JO, VIPA, Dr Rob Liddell, Senator David Fawcett...:D:D

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

Please fwd, link, like, email, tweet, facebook etc..etc to the World..:ok:

[Kharon]

Please consider the following, sent to a local MP...

June 20 2014

RE: UNILATERAL DETRIMENTAL ACTION BY CASA AGAINST SELECTED PILOT GROUP.

My name is XXXX. I am a professional pilot of 40 plus years standing and 17,000 accident free flying hours; bar one successfully mitigated helicopter engine failure in 1979. Flying has always been my passion and my life. I currently work in an overseas environment although I always maintain my Australian licences.

In 1970 when I took my first aviation medical it was quite a shock to be classified as colour vision abnormal as there had been no previous indication of any detrimental effect on my life thus far. However, this medical assessment had a significant impact on me in many ways for the rest of my life.

Despite a sense of discrimination and imposition thereafter on behalf of the aviation regulator, I, like many other similarly assessed pilots, persisted in the pursuit of a (somewhat limited) rewarding career.

Within that pursuit I have obtained Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) qualifications in both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft capacities, as well as Instrument Ratings (IR) for both categories of aircraft. I have also flown both fixed wing and helicopters at night under Night Visual Metrological Conditions (NVMC) rules, (a capability brought about by the successful case of Denison vs CASA in the 1980’s). There has never been an adverse circumstance from this undertaking; i.e. night flying.

I also hold an Australian Airline Transport Pilot Licence Helicopter (ATPLH) which is the licence required for regular public transport but it is endorsed such that I cannot exercise the privileges of that licence. This is a strange imposition because although I am considered safe and capable of flying a helicopter by myself under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) at night I am further considered unsafe to fly at night in a multi crew environment most likely conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), a style of flight requiring little or no visual reference to the outside world. So it seems I am safer by myself at night than with another equally competent pilot??

Recently I received what appears to be a generic letter from CASA which seems to infer that Australian operators have been advised that anybody classified as colour vision abnormal under their employ has literally overnight become clearly unsafe and their future operational capacity as a safe pilot should be reassessed. How is this suddenly possible? How can a government body spread such apparently slanderous innuendo?

In my mind this communication appears tantamount to a legally unfair and possibly slanderous besmirchment of many safe pilots and would possibly be the ruination of many successfully proven long standing careers. This is an area beyond my capacity but it does seem that legal or at least administrative or political scrutiny toward CASA is warranted on this matter.

To that end I would like to bring to your attention the activities of the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) under the determined stewardship of Doctor Arthur Pape, (although I personally detest the term ‘defective’.) Dr Pape has at his disposal a significant amount of records in respect of the issues discussed in this letter.

As CASA is about to unilaterally destroy the careers, livelihoods and lives of many people, ostensibly on an unfounded whim, and without apparent recourse on behalf of the targeted professionals; I implore you to liaise with Dr Pape and the CVDPA in pursuit of this matter. The CVDPA may be reviewed at their website Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://www.cvdpa.com). Dr Pape may be contacted directly at [email protected]

In appreciation of your positive response,

Captain XXXX

ATPLH, CPLA, B. Aviation; Certified Aviation Safety Auditor.

The Australian relaxation of CVD restrictions has a 25 year safety history to support the case. This (IMO) is important to fellow aviators – internationally. Properly presented to ICAO, a light could have been shone into many lives, based against a sound case for relaxation of the restrictions placed on CVD pilots. The Australian authority proposes to regress 25 years rather than accept, embrace and celebrate the substantive facts. There's a lot more at stake than 300 Australian pilots who may be affected to the degree where careers are ended.

more here – The Empire strikes back (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html) -

[brissypilot]

Yes - well done ABC 7.30 Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJFFObtYiA) :ok:

More of this week's media coverage...

Vision row: CASA clears the air (The Australian) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/vision-row-casa-clears-the-air/story-e6frg95x-1226960392977#)

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is attempting to hose down a potential row over colour-vision deficient pilots, saying it is not about to ground anyone and is not necessarily moving to change its rules.

The regulator found itself under fire after it wrote to pilots and air operator certificate (AOC) holders about the issue.

In the letter to AOC holders, CASA said recent medical research had indicated the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than initially thought.

It raised the possibility that some pilots could be more severely affected, from a safety point of view, than was believed to be the case when their medical certificates were issued.

“CASA is reviewing the situation and will consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken on the basis of that review, at which time affected medical certificate holders will be notified accordingly,’’ the regulator wrote.

“In the meantime, CASA has written to all potentially affected pilots advising them to consider whether it is safe for them to continue to exercise their flight crew privileges subject only to the existing CVD related condition, and encouraging them to seek the advice of their personal physician or Designated Aviation Medical Examiner about any adjustments that should be made to their flying practices, pending the outcome of CASA’s review.’’

The letter raised the ire of pilots and resulted in the issue being raised during a recent Senate estimates committee.

Pilots with colour-vision deficiencies have been able to work as co-pilots for 25 years following breakthrough appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and critics of the CASA move say there is no evidence to suggest this has caused any safety problems.

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association attacked any move to introduce new rules as discrim­inatory and said it would fail to ­deliver improved safety.

VIPA was worried that Class 1 pilots with CVD would have to inform their employers about their condition and might be forced to undergo future testing.

It said this could jeopardise the careers of hundreds of commercial pilots across the country even though they had flown thousands of hours without incident.

CASA estimates the issue affects about 400 pilots, including 140 commercial pilots. It said this week it had not grounded any ­pilots with colour-vision issues and had not yet decided to make changes to the rules.
“CASA is considering a range of international research in relation to colour vision — this is prudent and responsible action by the safety regulator in response to the evolving medical understanding of colour vision issues in aviation, which includes the development of a new computer based test,’’ spokesman Peter Gibson said.

“If any change is proposed to the colour vision rules there will be full consultation with the aviation industry — this is a comprehensive and lengthy process.’’

Mr Gibson said CASA wrote to the pilots and operators to make them aware of the international research.

“CASA is not suggesting CVD pilots cannot fly or that airlines or other operators should ground them — we are simply asking that pilots and operators consider if there are any safety issues in relation to current operations.”

And a few days ago...

Colour blind pilots will not be grounded in Australia following study: CASA (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/colour-blind-pilots-licences-reviewed-by-casa/5531906)

Today, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the changes would be years in the making.

"There's certainly nothing for any Australian pilot who has colour vision issues to be concerned about," Mr Gibson said.

"We're not grounding any pilots, we're not putting any further restrictions on any pilots, we're simply saying there is some new information out there which we're considering."

How does Mr Gibson explain Bill Smith's letter (http://www.pprune.org/8526959-post197.html)? :=

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges.
Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

Or how about the extra restrictions they imposed on O'Brien's medical earlier this year before he had even got to the AAT? :=

Or how about the new restrictions on their own website? :=

Medical certification frequently asked questions (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91593)

How does CASA deal with pilots with colour vision deficiency?

CASA has reviewed the application of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 67 – which covers the medical certification of pilots - as it relates to pilots with colour vision deficiency (CVD).

Initial issue of class 1 medicals
A pilot must undergo all three stages of tests until a pass is achieved before a class 1 medical certificate can be issued in accordance with regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Initial issue of class 2 medicals
If the Ishihara test is failed, a certificate will be offered restricted to day VFR only. If the applicant wants this restriction removed, they must pass one of the tests as per Part 67.

Class 1 medical renewals
No immediate change. CASA will write to affected class 1 medical holders and the major airlines advising them to consider the impact their CVD may have on their flying, and such other obligations as they may have to inform their employer of a condition which may affect their ability to safely perform their duties. CVD Class 1 pilots may need to undergo a CAD test in the future.

Mr Gibson, the above statement makes it clear that CASA has already reviewed the CVD policies and there was no consultation with the industry. While the "regulations" themselves may not have changed, the testing processes and the colour vision waivers that have existed since 1989 definitely have.

If the three levels of CVD testing are failed, new Class 1 applicants will be denied certification. Class 2 applicants will be restricted to Day VFR only. This has not been the case for over 25 years!

If Bill Smith's letter is anything to go by, it is only a matter of time before existing medical holders receive the same treatment.

CASA's statements to the media are nothing but pure spin and lies and someone needs to be held accountable.... Where's the "Adjunct Associate Professor" been this week? :=

It would seem that the only "pending review" that CASA is waiting on is the outcome of the O'Brien AAT case. If that is the case, then it should be funded as a test case accordingly, just like Denison in 1989.

[outofwhack]

Although I am denied the privilege in my home country ....

... Over the last few weeks I've completed several solo hours flying at night with up to 4 aircraft in the circuit with me and I'm a severe deuteranope.

At no time was I unsure of the direction of other traffic including heavy passenger jets passing over my airfield only 1000 feet above circuit height.

It's not about coloured lights - it's about change of relative bearing. You are the subject of unjust discrimination - don't let them convince you that you are dangerous - don't give up - Fight it - see what the CVDPA are doing in Australia and bringing to your country soon!

[brissypilot]

CVDPA Founder Dr Arthur Pape was interviewed on ABC News Breakfast yesterday.

Will colour blind pilots be grounded? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/will-colour-blind-pilots-be-grounded/5548492)

-4m3yc0TSXI

The Australian & International Pilots Association's letter has also been released publicly through the CVDPA and delivers a stinging criticism of the way CASA have handled this entire matter.

AIPA Letter to Minister Truss (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/AIPA-to-Truss.pdf)

Dear Minister Truss,

CASA Handling of Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) Debate

As you are aware, Australia has one of the most enlightened policy positions in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD). Our policy position followed on from the Pape (1987) and Denison (1989) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and has been vindicated by many years and thousands of hours of safe flight by pilots with CVD. However, CASA has now embarked on a set of tactics to unwind that position.

Normally, I would express the concerns of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) directly with the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, before raising the issue with you. However, it is clear to me from watching Senate Estimates that Mr McCormick is determined to press ahead with his strategy to unwind the Australian CVD policy position, regardless of both the empirical safety evidence and the unnecessary damage that will ensue to the livelihoods of a significant number of Australia’s professional aviators.

The letters sent on 05 June 2014 by CASA to affected pilots and their employers, citing unspecified "recent medical research", have been condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying that not only exacerbates the lack of trust that CASA engenders within the industry, but also underlines the lack of regulatory courage and integrity in the way that CASA is approaching this issue.

In effect, CASA has implied without evidence that the affected pilots and their employers are accepting an unnecessary risk if they continue to operate. Despite years of incident-free operations conducted on the basis of medical certification given by CASA, some operators might now feel compelled to restrict the livelihoods of their employees, simply because CASA may decide that those operators’ risk management or operational judgement is somehow deficient, thus placing their business at risk of some future regulatory action. AIPA is concerned that, should employees’ livelihoods be adversely affected as a consequence of this implied threat, CASA will not be a party to any Fair Work proceedings and will thus escape any judicial scrutiny, despite their lack of courage or justification to act directly against the medical certification already issued.

I appreciate that you would not normally intervene in matters directly affecting safety. However, AIPA does not believe that there is any evidence to suggest a safety issue in Australia’s current CVD policy – in fact, quite the opposite – and that the approach adopted by CASA is a procedural abuse that must be immediately rescinded, with the protagonists sanctioned appropriately.

In many ways, this cynical attempt by the senior executives of CASA to attack the long-standing CVD policy position of Australia, in concert with their intention to use the AAT to wind that policy back, has dulled some of the glimmer of hope that the industry attributed to your Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).

As you know, AIPA is necessarily a champion of procedural fairness and judicial review. We are concerned generally about the industry wide view that CASA will not embrace the Government’s Model Litigant policy and that CASA is now using the AAT and the Federal Court processes to financially overwhelm industry applicants seeking independent redress. While AIPA is not in a position to truly assess the validity of that industry view, we do note the lack of positive evidence in the public arena to offset that perspective. The evidence in Senate Estimates of the CASA financial planning for the O’Brien CVD review in the AAT does not help allay any concerns that industry participants may have about the AAT moving further and further beyond the financial reach of many people to seek review of administrative decisions.

Given the path that CASA seems determined to follow in regard to CVD pilots, AIPA strongly recommends that you accept the evidence of many years of safe operations by CVD pilots in Australia that this is not a safety issue and that you consequently intervene to direct a more sensible and less expensive approach to whatever procedural issue that is motivating CASA to further alienate much of the Australian aviation industry.

Yours sincerely,

Nathan Safe
President
Australian & International Pilots Association

:D:D:D

The other letters from VIPA and AFAP are also available here:
Pilot Union Support : Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA) (http://cvdpa.com/news/pilot-union-support)

[RONTOM-EGPD]

RONTOM, There is nothing to stop you flying IFR in The UK with CVD restrictions on your EASA medical. You do not need a night rating to obtain the IR(r) rating, or indeed the new EIR or competency based IR. You just won't be able to use them at night.

Hi dobbin1,

I didn't know this. So theoretically an airline could still employ you as a by-day-only employee.?

Thanks.

[dobbin1]

I think a day only pilot would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot to an airline, so the chances of having any sort of career in the UK are practically zero unless you can pass the CAD test.

You might get work like me as a flying instructor, but you don't need a CPL or any sort of instrument qualification to do that. And you certainly can't call it a career, since the pay is so low - I am living on my pension from my previous "proper" job and any income I get as an FI is more than offset by expenses.

Still worthwhile doing the IMC (or IRR as it is now called) as it will make you a better pilot, but just fly for fun. Or move to Australia

[RONTOM-EGPD]

I think I'm going to do my IRR. I'll give the CAD another bash when I'm down at Gatwick getting my medical renewal. Who knows, I might "guess" it right... :O

But thanks for the info on the IRR. That's certainly shed some light over it all.

[brissypilot]

Australia's Senator Fawcett delivered an outstanding speech in support of CVD pilots last night :D

n80roKjPToc

Senator FAWCETT (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)(South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a layman—understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

The issue I would like to touch on tonight though is about a small group of people in the aviation environment. One of the characteristics of a plural liberal democracy such as we have here in Australia is that we respect and look after the rights of minorities. Amongst the pilot population in Australia—the estimates vary, but it is well over 30,000—there is a small group, numbering in their hundreds, potentially around 400, who have a colour vision deficiency. For many years—in fact going right back, I think the first publication that dealt with this was in 1926. People made the assumption, as they looked at aircraft deriving from the days of sailing ships and steamships where they had red and green lights for navigation lights, that if a pilot could not discriminate colours, then he was not safe to fly by night. And since 1926, that document has formed bodies of thought that have flowed through into regulation.

The current ICAO—the international organisation that looks after aviation—document recognises that, to use climate change terms, the science is not settled. They are not actually sure what difference a colour vision deficiency makes to an individual's ability to safely pilot an aircraft by day or by night. Despite that, regulators around the world have tended to err on the side of safety and say, 'We won't let people fly by night unless they pass one of a number of tests'. What that has meant is that for around nine per cent of the male population around the world, those who would aspire to be pilots or even air traffic controllers, are often denied that opportunity.

That changed here in Australia about 25 years ago. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal there was a case that has become known as the Denison case where a colour-vision-deficient pilot took the regulator to the tribunal saying: 'This is unfair. I can demonstrate that I'm competent to fly.' The Commonwealth, because of the degree of interest, funded the applicant as well as the defence, through the then CAA, and so you had a test case where both parties brought in lots of experts. At the end of it, the judgement was made that in fact pilots who had a colour vision deficiency should be able to demonstrate their competence and be licensed to fly. The only condition that was put on that was that they could not captain high-capacity airline aircraft.

As a result of that, Australia is unique in the world in that we now have some 25 years of experience of people with a colour vision deficiency who have been flying, and they have been flying everything from light aircraft by day through to regional type airliners; single pilot, for example overnight freight or the Royal Flying Doctor Service, through to co-pilot roles, particularly in regional type aircraft. We also have—because a number of the principal medical officers within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have sought to facilitate people with a colour vision deficiency to fly and have implemented things like practical flight tests for people to demonstrate their competence—some people now captaining large capacity aircraft and they have been doing so quite safely for a number of years and in some cases have well over 10,000 hours of flying. That says that, despite the theory, much of which has its origins in that 1926 document, practice shows that people with a colour vision deficiency can operate aircraft safely.

There are four key areas that people raise concerns about. One is to do with the tower. If you lose your radio and there is a control tower, you have to look for the red, green or flashing lights to tell you whether you can land, take off et cetera. People are concerned that if you cannot distinguish the lights then you would not be able to land safely. Again that was probably valid in 1926, but the reality is that on the top of the approach plates that I and other pilots use when we fly is the phone number for the tower. It says, 'If you lose radio contact, phone the tower.' The headset I use, like many others, has a bluetooth connection for a phone so you can quite safely, if you need to, have a redundant system that is specified in the publications to call the tower. So I think that argument is somewhat outdated.

There is also the argument that, with the advent of EFIS screens or glass cockpits, the increased use of colour means that you must be able to distinguish the colours in order to be able to operate safely. One pilot recently underwent a test in a simulator with a CASA flying operations inspector. He specifically asked to be tested on all the night sequences information from the cockpit and he was assessed as being quite safe to operate. In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit.

There is also concern about traffic and whether you will see the position lights on aircraft. The reality is that many aircraft now have bright white strobe lights for collision avoidance. The interesting part is that the aircraft that most these people have been able to fly over the 25 years are aircraft that do not have automated systems to support the pilot. The one type of aircraft they are not generally allowed to fly in Australia—your larger airlines—has things like white strobes; predominately flies in controlled airspace where air traffic control provides a degree of separation; and has traffic collision avoidance systems, TCASs, that give automated warnings of proximity to other aircraft. So there appears again, both in practice and just conceptually, to be a problem with the restriction that has been placed on people there.

The last area is the PAPI, the precision approach path indicator, which is a glide slope indicator that is positioned next to a runway for pilots to use at night. Because it relies on a combination of red and white lights there is a concern that certain kinds of colour-vision-deficient pilots would not be able to interpret those lights. Again, the confound for that theory is that over 25 years hundreds of pilots have flown thousands of approaches at night using PAPIs quite safely, which says that either the PAPI itself has additional cueing, such as the intensity of the lights, or, more probably, there are enough redundant cues in the surrounding environment that the pilot can land safely. That is backed up by the fact that CASA will provide an exemption if the PAPI is unserviceable: you can still fly your aircraft and land it. That says that the PAPI is a nice thing to have but it is clearly not essential for landing an aircraft.

For this minority group of pilots there has been a change in CASA's view. They have decided to review the safety of these people flying aircraft. They have written to the individual pilots and to employers saying that research, which they have not published, has shown that these pilots may be unsafe. But they have not clarified what that is. The history over the last 25 years shows that that is not the case. Previous principal medical officers in CASA have shown a willingness to support pilots. I am concerned that the attitudes of a few within the regulator may be putting at risk this group, albeit a minority group. In our democracy we look after the rights of minorities. There is an injustice being done to this group. I will be working with the government to fund either another test case or research to make sure that this group receives the justice that the last 25 years have shown that they are due.

If you haven't signed it already, there is a petition running which is almost up to 1500 signatures on this matter.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o702/cvdpa/petition_zps3d1f124a.jpg (http://s1339.photobucket.com/user/cvdpa/media/petition_zps3d1f124a.jpg.html)

SIGN HERE (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-to-intervene-in-the-battle-between-colour-vision-defective-pilots-and-casa-which-threatens-to-destroy-hundreds-of-careers)

(There is an option to hide your signature if you don't wish this to be displayed)

In June 2014, the Aviation Medicine Branch (AvMed) of CASA made radical changes to its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). Policies that had been in place for over twenty years and which had flowed from two landmark rulings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were suddenly and without notice abandoned, the new policies involving draconian restrictions the likes of which had not been seen in Australia for over half a century. In line with these new policies a number of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots, upon renewing their medical certificates, found they faced restrictions that made participation in professional aviation a practical impossibility. In addition, the new policies effectively closed off all pathways to a professional piloting career for new applicants with CVD.

The changes in the policies governing the implementation the ACPS were justified by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) in the following statement he made in a letter to all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs): “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.” The letter to DAMEs was repeated in similar letters to CVD pilots and to all Australian AOC holders (the pilots’ employers), both containing the same claim as to “recent medical research”. This claim is not supported by any published evidence of unsafe performance by pilots with a CVD condition. Indeed, all the available evidence from both Australia and the USA is that the performance of CVD pilots is as safe as that of other pilots who do not have such a CVD condition. At the very least, there is no evidence of unsafe performance by any CVD pilots as a consequence of their CVD condition.

The reversal of policies that were based on the findings of the two AAT decisions is a serious matter, and even more so when seen in the light of a twenty five year period of incident and accident-free performance at all levels, private and professional, by CVD pilots since those landmark decisions were handed down. These hearings are widely recognised, even today, as the most comprehensive and impartial examination of all aspects of the ACPS, that has ever been conducted in any place and at any time.

Not only do the changes in these policies amount to a denial of the AAT findings of 25 years ago, they are even more bizarre and baffling when it is realised that a new appeal by a CVD pilot had already been lodged before the AAT and was due for a hearing in July 2014. Preparation and documentation by both parties of the evidence for that hearing were well advanced when CASA dropped this bombshell.

The trio of CASA’s letters to DAMEs, CVD pilots and AOC holders have been widely condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying. As well, the taking away and then the re-instatement of “privileges”, within a span of mere days, of a number of CVD professional pilots has led to widespread industry outrage. Were it not so serious, it is quite farcical, and further exacerbates the broad lack of trust in CASA within the industry.

We petition Minister Truss to:

1. Direct CASA to immediately retract the letters sent to DAMEs, AOC holders and CVD pilots and appropriately sanction those responsible for these letters.

2. Direct CASA to immediately reverse the recent changes in policy that threaten the careers of hundreds of pilots and severely restrict new CVD pilots from being able to enter the aviation industry.

3. In the event that CASA is allowed to continue pursuing this matter through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that public funding be made available so that once again, a fair, thorough and unbiased re-test of the established tenet can be presented.

4. To fund a study into the practical relevance of the aviation colour perception standard and its scientific basis so that Australia can continue to lead the rest of the world on this issue, as we have done for the past 25 years.

[Deano1973]

Hi folks, trainee PPL with an interest in going commercial here. I suffer from mild colour-blindness ( red-green ) like so many posting here, but I've recently discovered these colour-vision correcting sunglasses. I haven't been able to find out whether they're acceptable to achieve Class 1 Medical standards, and will be chatting to my instructor at Blackbushe on Thursday about it, but I can only assume that as I wear glasses for flying anyway there should be very little that EASA / CAA can do to prevent people like us with colour-deficient vision from achieving commercial licenses / careers now.


I'm posting the link to their website below. I rarely post here on PPRUNE so if this is against the rules then they can be found by Googling "EnChroma". I just felt that this scientific breakthrough was worth posting about ( I think the specs have been available for about a year in the USA ).


Any opinions on this, or has a thread already been created regarding them? There seems very little information on the Internet at this time, and yet they represent a complete solution to our colour vision issues?

[mnehpets]

I've recently discovered these colour-vision correcting sunglasses. I haven't been able to find out whether they're acceptable to achieve Class 1 Medical standards

This seems to suggest that they can't be used:

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=9243

[Scottish.CPL]

They are not allowed

[Liam_Mulholalnd]

Any updates or has everything gone quiet?

[outofwhack]

One week to go before the start of FO John Obriens court case in Australia.
All of us in the CVDPA, the Australian pilot unions and many colour normal pilots on this forum are supporting him.

If he wins it (and he is tipped to) the aviation colour perception standard in Australia will be fully redundant once and for all.

If you haven't already - join the CVDPA, help them support John and watch the dismantling of this unjustified discrimination that has frustrated so many thousands of would-be pilots worldwide.
It has to start somewhere but it's coming to your country soon!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Any news on the court case down under? I hope it's all going well!!

[Bad medicine]

There's extensive coverage of the court proceedings at this thread
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html

Cheers,

BM

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Well I gave the CAD test another bash today. Scored 10.1. That's down from 15.5 from last year! Clearly I guessed more correctly this time. If this doesn't cry out bull$#*t test, I don't know what does!! Haha! You have to laugh sometimes...

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi wind force,

The laugh of it is, even if on my next attempt I did score say 5.5. That would give a final score of 10.4 as they get averaged out...

It was done at Gatwick.

Are the creators the folks from City University London?

Cheers!

[Scottish.CPL]

I don't get this averaging out issue if u fail wait 6 to 12 months and retest after all its 100 % accurate fir the cad !!!!!!!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

My gut feeling, is that it's a money spinner for the CAA!! Afterall, they're getting £125.00 each time. They can afford to call the shots. If only there was away of exposing that! Cause as you say, it's supposed to be 100% accurate. The slate should be wiped clean each time!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi All,

Does anyone know if the CAA conduct this test? It's mentioned in one of their papers from 2009.

"The recent UK Disability Discrimination Act (2004) has to a certain
extent exposed weaknesses in the current standards and procedures. Companies need to justify refusal to employ an applicant on the basis of his/her defective colour vision and this requires scientific evidence to demonstrate convincingly that the applicant will not be able to carry out necessary occupational tasks that involve colour vision with the accuracy and efficiency expected of normal trichromats. In view of these arguments, we have developed a PAPI simulator and a PAPI Signal Lights test that can be used under controlled laboratory conditions. The simulators reproduce both the photometric and the angular subtense of the real lights under demanding
viewing conditions when the lights are viewed against a dark background."

Thanks again.

[Scottish.CPL]

I remember reading this, it was stated that the Papi test was based in a row of horizontal lights. If red green and white and a high number of people passed, the test is at city uni. They said the test was the original concept for the cad, and its been argued that the Papi should be used instead as its relevant to aviation colour tasks

[RONTOM-EGPD]

So theoretically I could ask to sit the test at the City Uni and if I passed it, I could hand the results to the CAA with the said quote form their own papaer?

Thanks.

[Scottish.CPL]

You could try and let us know !!

[Anomaly0]

whilst EASA made tiny steps forward in this matter, by allowing some CVD pilots to fly at night with the LAPL, Europe in general is still lagging behind in commercial flying.

Obtaining a class one with CVD in Europe is virtually impossible - ie no commercial flying except perhaps as a Flight Instructor. Only the UK issues restricted class one medical with CVD (no night, no commercial air transport) which is rather useless anyway.

The only country where common sense and empirical evidence has been prevailing, rather that ego and dogmas, is Australia: the freedom CVD pilots enjoy there is brilliant, more than 20 years of no accident history at all levels, from basic G/A all the way to LH seat on a heavy airliner. Also funny how there is NOT a single accident directly related to CVD in the world (if you think about the 727 accident in Thallhasse, think again!). Yet the CASA PMO is trying to wind the clock backward and basically withdrawn all the privileges CVD pilots have been enjoying, but fear not he will fail miserably very soon.

So, basically no much hope for changes in Europe anytime, not when EASA medical dept is chaired by UK or former UK CAA people as they are trying to have the CAD test implemented as new 'gold standard'. The only hope, or refuge even, is Australia...
The USA also may work for you guys.. If you can't pass any office based tests, they let you perform a Light Gun/Chart Reading/Medical Flight test and give you a letter of evidence if you pass.. No more color testing needed.. Just need to get your FAA ratings I guess..

[outofwhack]

Great news!

John Obrien and the CVDPA have won the case against CASA !

John, a severely colour deficient DASH 8 copilot (protanope) who has been unable to pass any of the colour vision testing in Australia has won his right to exercise his ATPL qualifications and fly left seat as Captain.

Although the 1989 Denison test case ruling decided that deuteranopes posed no risk to aviation safety - CASA still forced us to undergo colour vision testing. A lot of us, even severe deuteranopes, passed the tower light gun test as it uses true aviation colours and not wavelengths on colour confusions lines for CVDs (like Ishihara, farnsworth, CAD and all the others). For 25 years we've flown without accident or incident passing all check flights and sim rides.

Those that failed that were not allowed to progress beyond copilot of airliners.
John was one of these poor critters but has now proven to a court that even protanopes pose no risk to safety.


For full details goto the Empre Strikes Back thread below:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-30.html

Woohoo!

[shortfinals91]

Can anyone please confirm whether the CAD results at London City can be used at Gatwick?

i.e If you fail the Ishihara at Gatwick during a First Class med, you can then use your LC CAD results without sitting the CAD at Gatwick? Or are you required to take the CAD at Gatwick and the LC results are used to determine an average result?

Many thanks in advance!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi short finals,

It doesn't really matter where or how many time you sit the CAD. If you fail the plates at Gatwick, then they will ask you if you want to sit the CAD. It's a lot more expensive to sit it there than at the Uni. Plus I found the screen they use at the Uni produced a clearer image that the one at Gatwick and for the price you pay at the Uni (It's a donation really) you get to sit all the colour vision tests that are currently available.

The only downside about the CAD results is that the CAA do average them. Roll on medical flight tests!!!

Good luck though!!

[shortfinals91]

RONTOM, thanks for that info, it is much appreciated. I've booked into London in May, so will know once and for all! If all goes well there, then I'm going to look into Gatwick.

Best of luck with your journey!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Short Finals,

Best of luck, let us know how you get on either way.

Does anyone out there know or heard of any cases within the UK that have tried taking the CAA to a tribunal to challenge their colour testing ways. The only reason I'm asking is that I work for an oil company in Aberdeen and many of you may or may not have heard that with the decline in oil price and production a lot of people in the industry are facing or have been made redundant. Now, I've seen a fair amount of people challenging unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal and they have won their cases against their companies. Would winning a case against the CAA like what our friends in Oz have done be "doable" with the laws, policies and regulations we have in the UK. I didn't realise there was so many loop holes and people friendly procedures here in the UK to tackle unfairness. Just a thought folks, that could be rolled out in to something a lot bigger. I've been thinking long and hard about all of this over the past three weeks and I'm wandering wether or not to try and tackle the procedure and see if we can or not get to the same level Austrailia are at with CVD pilots.

Any thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated!
Thanks!

[basics52]

Hi

1 Can a pilot in the USA go to an ophthalmologist to have a color visión test performed in order not to have that part of the med tests done by the AME for an FAA medical?

2 Can anyone point out the aceptable tests and allowed errors for example reading the plates currently in the USA?

Example Ishihara test, how many plates can you miss?

Thanks

[Fantome]

Three fails allowed in Australia.

Make sure you read the cards in good natural daylight

Last time for me it was a heavily overcast day and by fluorescent light
- four fails. Came back the next day. Read them all in broad sunlight.
Three fails. But only one was one of the previous day's fails.

Then the eye bloke said that the test can be fairly arbitrary.
He also said it is virtually unknown for colour perception to change with the passage of years.
Incidentally, he said that CVD people were used in the Second World War
in photo intelligence as they could study the recce photos
and that their CVD enabled them to discern camouflaged buildings
that non CVD people could not.

Maybe the PPRuNe expert in this field field, Dr Arthur Pape can comment.

[basics52]

Thank you much Fantome, thats interesting.

Besides my FAA info request if anyone can post a link to the JAA requirements I would appreciate it.

[campagna]

FAA



An applicant does not meet the color vision standard if testing reveals:
A. All Classes



AOC (1965 edition) pseudoisochromatic plates: seven or more errors on plates 1-15.
AOC-HRR (second edition): Any error in test plates 7-11. Because the first 4 plates in the test book are for demonstration only, test plate 7 is actually the eleventh plate in the book. (See instruction booklet.)
Dvorine pseudoisochromatic plates (second edition, 15 plates): seven or more errors on plates 1-15.
Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates: Concise 14-plate edition: six or more errors on plates 1-11; the 24-plate edition: seven or more errors on plates 1-15; the 38-plate edition: nine or more errors on plates 1-21.
Richmond (1983 edition) pseudoisochromatic plates: seven or more errors on plates 1-15.
OPTEC 900 Vision tester and Farnsworth Lantern test: an average of more than one error per series of nine color pairs in series 2 and 3. (See instruction booklet.)
Titmus Vision Tester, Titmus i400, OPTEC 2000 Vision Tester, Keystone Orthoscope, or Keystone View Telebinocular: any errors in the six plates.
Richmond-HRR, 4th edition: two or more errors on plates 5-24. Plates 1-4 are for demonstration only; plates 5-10 are screening plates; and plates 11-24 are diagnostic plates





https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item52/amd/

[Asdrius]

Hello

I hope someone from this thread can help me.
I am writing from EASA member state Lithuania.

I have a CVD problem, failed Ishiara test and in 2006 I got class 2 medical with VCL restriction (flying only in daytime/VFR). It's a compromise, but I got used to flying only for fun, not commercially, and made a career elsewhere.

Now my national AME does not want to renew my class 2 medical with VCL and asks me to do Anamolascope testing. If I fail that test, I was told my class 2 medical could not be renewed even with VCL restriction. How can that be? I already was succesfully flying for 9years, with over 500 flying hours. She says that new EASA regulations are much more strict regarding colour vision when it was in 2006. Is that true?
Can I challenge this decision?

I found following EU regulation in EASA webpage
https://easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/commission-regulation-eu-no-11782011
MED.B.075 Colour vision

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

If I understand correctly according this paragraph I should be given class 2medical with limited to daytime only if I fail all the color vision tests.
I can't see any logic doing any additional CVD testing, if even If I fail them all, I should get the same limitation I have now.
Closest Anamolscope test facility is over 5hours driving time away from me, these tests ain't cheap.

Can I get class 2 VCL medical license in UK, or any other EASA member state if I fail Ishiara plates and without any additional expensive CVD testing?


Regards

[The bird]

Nonsense Adrius your AME is wrong. Part MED.B is the document that is leading. So nothing has changed. Still valid for daylight only. Notify your AME about part med or go to another doc.

[Asdrius]

I showed part med to chief AME in local CAA.
She thinks it's neccessary to do additonal anomaloscope testing even for VCL limitation. And she also quoted another local CAA document that AME can send to any additional examinations they think are neccessary.

[TedstrikerB777]

Hi everyone,

i could use some help: I got my medical more than a decade ago after passing the Holmes-Wright Lantern Test at the UK CAA and now after several years of professional flying im looking into making the move to the middle east. The problem is that i expect to be colour tested again with the CAD Test, which afaik is now in use also in Europe, and im worried that a fail on this test will have implications for my EASA Medical. I never took his test so i have no idea how i will perform, i do however have quite some experience with colour testing and dealing with authorities regarding this issue and im really not in a mood to start another fight for my medical because i failed this CAD Test. Especially after now many years of safe professional flying.

Does anybody have any experience with this, passed lantern Test but failed CAD? At the EK Clinic, are they doing the test themselves or do they send you over to London for it? Any pointers where i can read up on this or who i might ask?

Any help greatly appreciated!!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi TedstrikerB777,

The medical center at Crawley only do Ishihara Plates and the CAD test. For the other types of colour vision testing, you have to do the at the City University London in Finsbury, London. A new web-based colour vision test | City University London (http://www.city.ac.uk/health/research/centre-for-applied-vision-research/a-new-web-based-colour-vision-test)

They start your assessment with the Ishihara Plates, then do the American version, then onto the Lantern and the rest of the older style tests then ending with the CAD. It's a lot cheaper as they only ask for a £60.00 fee whereas the CAA charge £125.00. You get a full set of certificates detailing your scores for each test that the CAA accept. If you pass any of the test mentioned on the CAA website, then you'll get an unrestricted medical. If you take these certificates with you to the Middle East and let the AMEs out there see, I can't see why they'd put you through further testing?

Best of luck! :ok:

[pponte]

Hi everyone,

i could use some help: I got my medical more than a decade ago after passing the Holmes-Wright Lantern Test at the UK CAA and now after several years of professional flying im looking into making the move to the middle east.

Any help greatly appreciated!!

Hi there.
send me your email in a private message

[TedstrikerB777]

Hey pponte,

I didn't find the private message function (maybe its blocked for new Board Members dunno) but anyway, here is my email address: [email protected]

Thanks for the help and support!! :ok:

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Here's something to ponder on. Last Sunday afternoon I was out in a C152. Whilst returning to airport my radios completely died on me. Tried the master re-set and resetting the circuit breaker. No joy. :eek: Luckily I keep the watchman number stored in my phone just in case. I got through and explained what had happened, they knew at the tower my radios were obviously faulty. He told me to keep circling and eventually follow as SAS CRJ on to final and after he'd landed to look out for the light signals.

Now here's where it gets interesting! I didn't inform the controller that I have a VCL on my medical due to "colour deficiency". I decided to take the gamble and see for myself. So first I noticed the steady red, then as soon as the CRJ taxied off the runway it went to steady green. I could see these lights clearly. It really wasn't testing at all. :ok:

Is it worth speaking to someone at the CAA about this little event? Or am I better off just speaking to a brick wall? :ugh:
I'm even more frustrated now than I have been over the past two years. But something's telling me it's not worth it.

Any thoughts or comments would be good.

Cheers guys.

[thrustidle74]

Hi all,

Anybody knows what's the Chinese medical's take on color deficiency?
I did use pprune search & google search but very old threads came up with very little info.
I've found one doc stating Korean automatically disqualifies if you are color defective.
We all know that Chinese medicals are very difficult to pass, I'm just wondering if there are any color defective pilots flying out there?

Cheers

TI74

[pponte]

@RONTOM-EGPD : Is it worth speaking to someone at the CAA about this little event? Or am I better off just speaking to a brick wall?

the CAA have a vested interest in using and selling the CAD so I strongly believe the ladder would apply from your question.
The only way to solve this is to support CVDPA and join the fight on these guys..

[Tommo99]

shortfinals91, how did you get on?

I fail the Ishihara test badly, but feel I may fare much better at the lantern test. I'd like to have a shot before going anywhere near an application process so will look into London City.

[shortfinals91]

shortfinals91, how did you get on?

I fail the Ishihara test badly, but feel I may fare much better at the lantern test. I'd like to have a shot before going anywhere near an application process so will look into London City.

I had to reschedule in the end, I'm looking to go in October now. I'll most certainly post an update once I've attended London City.

[hegemon88]

Hello,

I have read parts of this thread and the earlier #3. I appreciate the difficulties posed by a potential legal challenge in the UK/EASA-land. To start with, could we please COUNT OURSELVES and then assess what we can afford as a group?

I am a member of CVDPA but think we need to know how strong in numbers we are on our own.

[2close]

Hi hegemon88,

This has been examined as a group.

The initial meeting with the barrister to look at the merits of the case cost £2,500 (and the solicitor did not charge for his time).

It was concluded that there were good grounds for judicial review and even merit in legal action under existing disability discrimination and sexual discrimination legislation, possibly even a route under genetic discrimination although this was clinging at straws.

The bottom line was that the barrister estimated high court costs at being at least £75,000, more likely closer to £100,000, a significant amount of which would have to be put up front, and this does not take into account a protracted case, contested by the CAA.

Of course, this was pre-EASA and no longer applies as the CAA simply claims that EASA is in the driving seat and that any action would need to be taken in the European Courts. Rack up the costs even more.

And going back to the original investigation into a legal action, we were left with no doubt whatsoever by a certain senior person at the CAA that "any action will be vigorously contested and we've got a lot more money and time than you......so bring it on" (I paraphrase!).

My advice....bin it....don't waste your time and money, use it for something more productive and more fun (I can give you the names of some decent bars in Thailand and Cambodia!). By the time you've spent 15 years and £10,000 of your own cash fighting and maybe winning the case followed by £100,000 + of your own cash getting your ME CPL IR/MCC/JOC/TR you'll be replaced by a ground based 'drone' pilot as the next (phablet) generation of passengers embrace pilotless passenger aircraft and the bean counters figure out how much they're saving by sacking all the flight crew!

Wow, I thought I'd stopped being cynical!!!! ;)

[boeingdriver737]

Hello to everybody.This is my first time posting in the forum but i have been following you guys for a long time.I do have a question and will be appreciated if any of you gentlemans would help me.Currently i am flying in a boeing and i have flight hours.Years ago when i got my licence,i had a small issue of ishihara so thats why my doctor wanted me to get in anamoloscope test.I passed and continued.But presently i am considering about a middle east carrer like EK,QR,EY.My question is that if i apply and pass all selection of any of those 3 airline,what happens in medical examination?For sure i will again have couple of miss on ishihara thus will i go to whole examination again or they will follow another path?For cases like this,do they apply to candidate again anomaloscope test as an alternate or something different which is even not listed in EASA-MED or JAR-FCL 3?Any help is perfectly appreciated and thanks in advance.

[log0008]

Hello all,

Just though I would post this because I found it interesting but over the last week or so I have view the online CAD test video and while I understand it is not like the real test I found something quite interesting, i seem to always loss the square for about 1 second or 1 pass but on different days it is at different times, either at what appears to be the lightest shade of green, before it turns bluey green OR at the lightest shade of red - why would this be and what does it say for the test if my results were to change like this?


Also I will likely be going for the cad test soon, here in Australia (I will first be doing the Farnsworth but feel I may fail because I often have trouble naming the colour of lights despite being able to tell them apart)

what are my likelihood of success given I loss the square for about one second in the example and I scored 16/24 on the Ishihara.

[Tommo99]

Going for a CAD test... I'm trying to learn a bit about it. The more I know, the more relaxed I will be on the day is my logic.

I have seen the short YouTube clip, but how does the real test compare? Is it just the same but longer, and how do you follow the square? Using a pointer or something I imagine?

Thank you for any info you can share!

[Liam_Mulholalnd]

It's nothing like the real test but I'm sure you're well aware of this since you had the test in November.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Well here goes an appeal. I'm going to write to the CAA once I have my IMC ticket added to my license. Haven't tried an appeal yet and I've got nothing to lose! I was down at the city Uni and did the PAPI test and passed. Even though it's not "an acceptable means of compliance" it's still evidence in my favour. In my letter I'm also going to stress the fact that when I've had lessons at night (IMC training) I've correctly identified colours and have landed safely using the PAPI system! Even my instructor is pissed off with the system in place right now. So what the hell, as my AME said, "nothing ventured, nothing gained!"

I'll keep everyone posted with what the outcome is. Fingers crossed... :ok:

[The Boys]

There is a company in Baltimore, Maryland (Colormax) that advertises it can allow a person to pass any color deficiency test that is mandated by the FAA and Transport Canada. They do not specifically refer to the FAA or TC but refer to the three (3) tests that these organizations use. It is apparently done through (after a through examination) with prescription contact lenses or eye glasses. If this is a successful procedure, I suggest that it would not be any different then correcting a pilots vision to an acceptable level through the use of contact lenses and/or eye glasses as is done now. Is anyone out there familiar with this procedure or perhaps has used it?

[Dont Hang Up]

Corrective optics for myopia (short sight) return the vision to a fully correct state.

However if you have red-green deficient colour vision then this relates to the physiology of the retina and cannot be truly corrected with optics.

One suspects that the optics being offered enhance the light/dark contrast perception of the colours on the test charts, allowing the hidden patterns to be more visible to the colour defective eye.

As it is not clear that that would help you distinguish (for example) an isolated red navigation light from a green one in any real situation, where there is no contrast comparison to help you, it is doubtful that this is a valid corrective technique.

[krislondon]

Hi

Please can you clarify something for me? Is it still CAA colour vision guidance that has to be met for a class 1 medical, or is it EASA?

If you fail the ishira plates test (which i will) you then go on to be tested by CAD. if you get a low enough threshold that is then the definitive test, and no further colour vision testing will be done for the class 1. Is that correct?

[WillBirchall87]

Hey Chris,

Yes, that is correct. Passing the CAD test will give you an unrestricted class 1. As far as I am aware, you would then no longer need to do any further colour vision testing. It's still only the UK CAA that has approved the CAD test.

Just so you know, the CAD test is pretty hard and it is significantly more difficult than the YouTube video shows. I thought I'd breeze through it and I was pretty dejected when I found out i'd failed (Deutan 8.28 at the CAA, resat at City Uni- 6.6 average!). I found my score improved when I got into a rhythm with it and tried to 'zone-out' a little.

Best of luck!

[rasco85]

Hi everybody. I have also problem with my color vision, however I am just at the beginning to get my medical certificate. I'd like to get Medical Class II without restriction if possible - I live in EU. I have already failed Ishihara and Fletcher-Evans CAM Lantern. I wanted to be tested unofficially, however the doc seemed not to agree.
- Is there any register where my failed attempt is recorded which is shared by all countries in EU?
- I would also like to check if the record is there because now I don't know what to say the next doctor. Was I already tested or not?
- Let's assume the failed attempt is recorded, does it mean from now on passing Ishihara plates would not help cause I already failed it and therefore only FALANT is the option?

Thanks!

[delax95]

Hello everyone.
I'm just here to share with you my experience at the City University.
I know that I am CVD since I was 10, because my mom showed me the Ishihara test and I failed. I decided to go to City after searching on the internet and it was worth it.
I took the tests today, so I don't currently have the full results, but I know the most important part, I passed the CAD test. The first run was 'borderline', so I retook the test two other times and the score was then under the threshold (I got a result of about 11 SN for protan deficiency). As many people have said before, it has nothing to do with the youtube version (I can see the square all the time on it), but I didn't find it too difficult, I was quite relaxed and I was confident despite the first run was a fail. She told me to make an effort on the CAD, because for protan people is the most 'simple' test to pass, if not the only one.
The HW lantern and the Nagel anomaloscope were quite hard to me, I failed the lantern (because she told me) but I don't know the exact results of the anomaloscope, but I think that it will be a fail.
If anyone has questions don't hesitate to ask me, I'm happy to help any future pilot with a color vision deficiency.

[Mintific]

Hi all,

I recently attended City University for testing. I had known I was CVD in the classic red/green area for some time, but thought it to be an extremely minor case. Turns out I was wrong and I failed a few of the tests, including (most importantly) the CAD test by quite some margin. I received a score of 12 with the Class 1 threshold obviously being 6. To say I am heartbroken is an understatement. With this is mind, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread, it has been very useful and interesting.

Does anyone have any advice on what my next step should be/ what are my options are in the realm of flying (if any at all! :( )?

As with most people who have posted their story on this thread, I am more than willing to answer any questions on the CVD testing should an answer be sought!

[outofwhack]

Minty,
Your next steps:
1. Understand that your CVD would not put you at any disadvantage in safely performing the duties of a civilian pilot. Other countries have had even severe CVD pilots captaining airliners for over 20 years without incident.
2. Understand you have now joined a long list of individuals who have suffered unjustified discrimination by your prejudiced aviation authority.
3. Study the CVDPA website. Get legal advice. Start a class action.

[delax95]

Hello everyone again.
Some in this thread said that the CAD test had been discontinued by EASA, or something like this.
I found out that the reality is that some new amendments concerning the part-MED should be approved in Q2 2016 and one of these amendments is the introduction of the CAD test as an AMC.
Well, it's just an information that maybe can be useful to someone who wants to get a class 1 out of the UK.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Minty,

At the City Uni, did you do the PAPI test?

If this test is passed, you could start an appeal procedure. I plan on doing that myself. I've done 10 hours flying at night as PIC with an instructor. I've also done a "medical flight test" with regards to identifying lights at night.

With a stack of evidence in my favour, I'm interested to see what feedback I'll get.

It'll probably be the start of a lengthy appeal, but at the end of the day, as mentioned in previous posts, they won't have and conflicting evidence to say I am a liability whilst flying in the dark.

[WillBirchall87]

Hey RONTOM,

I'd love to stay in touch about your progress. I've fallen foul of CAA and the CAD test and I'd love to work with like minded people to get some sort of overruling on the way they currently approach the testing. Maybe we can share email addresses etc?

I recently moved to Canada and out of curiosity checked the colour vision requirements. Here, you can do the Farnsworth D-15 Test (which I've passed) but also, they AME here told me 'you categorically don't have a colour vision deficiency' after i got 14/15 of the Ishihara plates correct. 14/15 would have me on CAD at the CAA...

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hi Will,

I'd certainly like to keep in touch. I'd be more than happy to keep you updated with regards to my colour vision testing over here in the UK.

Yeah the only tests now that the CAA accept under MED.B.075 are:

Ishihara (First 15/24 have to pass)
CAD testing
Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivelant)
Lantern testing (Beyne, Holmes-Wright or Spectrolux)

Unfortunately doing the D-15 at the city Uni may only help in an appeal.

[Scouseflier85]

Hey all just a quick question has anybody undergone the cad colour blind test failing the standard plate test, I am going to take my class one medical at gatwick in the coming weeks but have a slight colour deficiency, hopefully if I'm successful am looking to enrol on an integrated course hopefully with cae Oxford any help or advice would be greatly appreciated thanks.

[Rodolfo]

Hello delax95.

I'm trying to book this exam that you done, but they are not returning my emails. I'm using the address [email protected]
Could you help me? How did you book your exam?
How much you paid?

Thank you very much.

[MadMac]

Hi all

New poster here. I've read all 21 pages and learnt a lot. I want to start PPL training after failing my Class 1 Medical on CVD grounds back in the mid 90s. Sorry - I actually got a restricted Class 1 which was pretty much the same result at the time. (I'd done 6 hours on PA38s at that point - then regretfully gave it up)

So the silly question is:

Can you hold both an unrestricted LAPL Medical (and subsequently licence) AND a restricted Class 2 (and subsequently PPL?) at the same time?

I.E. fly Night with LAPL privileges, but fly IMC daytime with PPL privileges? Or as the PPL is a "higher" level licence does that override the LAPL? On balance being able to fly IMC during the day is probably more useful than flying VFR night occasionally (especially in the Summer months).

Thoughts anybody? Thanks!

[MadMac]

I should also say that I agree with the posters saying that CVD discrimination is wrong and we ought to support the CVDPA (which I have done) to end these outmoded rules

[WillBirchall87]

Hey Scouseflier85,

I recently took the CAD test at Gatwick and City so I might be able to help you with any questions you may have.

Cheers.

[delax95]

Hello Rodolfo.
The email is correct, they didn't reply to me the first time I wrote the email, so maybe you can try another time.
The booking is via mail only i think.
The total price is 200 £, to be paid on the estore before attending the assessment.
I hope they will reply to you soon.

[deanspoors]

As an aspiring pilot, I am as many other CVDs worried about the implications my CVD will have on a potential career.

Before I go into spending potentially thousands of pounds on training I would like some feedback on what I would and would not be restricted in doing as a CVD pilot, for example, how would I be restricted if I managed to pass the CAD test for a Class 1 aviation medical, which would title me as colour safe? No night flying? No IR? etc.

Secondly, I was planning on booking an appointment with City to take the CAD test to see if I will be able to pass the medical. If I pass at City, can I take this pass to the CAA medical with me, or would I need to pass their test too?

Finally, is the CAD test now used to EASA medicals?

I greatly appreciate all replies,

[delax95]

Hello.
If you get an unrestricted class 1, passing the CAD test for example, you have no limitations, you will be just like any other class 1 holder.
I did take the CAD test at City University and I was told to bring my results to CAA and that it would have been ok (unfortunately I can't be sure about this because I decided to do an Italian medical, but again that is what I was told).
For the last question, at the moment the CAD test is not recognised by EASA but I found out that it should be approved by the end of 2016.

[delax95]

If you pass the CAD test, the UK CAA would controversially issue you an unrestricted EASA medical and of course you'd be able to obtain a CPL/IR etc. Why do i say controversially? because the regulations governing EASA licencing and medical matters are found in:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/commission-regulation-eu-no-11782011
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1178&from=EN
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AMC%20and%20GM%20on%20the%20medical%20certification%20of%20p ilots%20and%20medical%20fitness%20of%20cabin%20crew.pdf

more specifically:
colour vision testing - MED.B.075:

Ishihara (First 15/24 have to pass)
Anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivelant)
Lantern testing (Beyne, Holmes-Wright or Spectrolux)

As you can see the CAD is not an approved test for EASA medicals, no matter what the CAA says: having said it is happy to disregard it - in fact the CAA is the only authority in Europe to use it. This is a major issue actually because EASA regulations are binding laws.

If i were you, I would a) get the CAD test done, at least you know were you stand; b) assuming you passed it, get a class one medical; c) assuming it all goes well and you're still keen, get flying :)



that's correct


you probably got told this from the CAA - they've been doing it since 2012 - but actually no one can say for sure, especially now. As i said above, EASA regulations are binding laws which have to be discussed/approved by the European Parliament and enacted by the European Council (the EU in few words). Even though EASA may want to implement the CAD, the change in the regulations would have to be discussed and voted by the EU first - i don't believe this process and started yet. In all honesty, with this BREXIT mess i am not so sure it will happen either. Also, remember the CAD equipment/licence fee is very expensive (£4000 plus) and the CAA, being the major investor and promoter would get a 'cut' from the sale of the test (conflict of interest).



https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/CRD%202013-15.pdf
That's the file I found about the CAD test, I had never spoken with CAA.
What do you think about this file?
Thank you.

[delax95]

Thank you for the really long answer, it is really helpful!
Lucky me I managed to pass the anomaloscope, because here in Italy the CAD test, as you said, it's not approved yet.
I hope that it will be soon, so that CVD people that manage to pass it will be guaranteed an unrestricted class 1.

[RONTOM-EGPD]

I see NZ are possibly adopting a more practical approach to CVD testing.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/colour_vision_report.html

[Flyinguis]

Hi guys, first message here !

I just saw this :

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/opinions/opinion-092016#group-easa-downloads

the draft annex is available here :

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Draft%20Annex%20to%20draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20%28EU %29%20...-...%20amending%20Commiss....pdf

We can read in it :

If a night rating is added to a PPL or LAPL, the licence holder shall be colour safe.
and few pages after :

MED.B.075
Colour vision
(a)
Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to readily perceive the colours that are necessary for the safe exercise of the privileges of the
applicable licence(s).

(b)
Examination and assessment
(1)
Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.
(2)
Class 1 medical certificates:
(i)
Notwithstanding (b)(1), applicants for a class 1 medical certificate who do not pass the Ishihara test shall be referred to the licensing authority and shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
(ii)
Applicants for a class 1 medical certificate shall be normal trichromats or shall be colour safe.
(iii)
Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit.
(3)
Class 2 medical certificates:
(i)
Notwithstanding (b)(1), applicants for a class 2 medical certificate who do not
pass the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.
(ii)
Applicants who do
not have satisfactory perception of colours shall be limited to
exercising the privileges of the applicable licence(s) in daytime only
Here you can find the :

Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM) to Part-MED

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Draft%20AMC%20%26%20GM%20to%20draft%20Part-MED%20%28For%20information%20only%29.pdf



This limitation allows holders of a class 2 or LAPL medical certificate with varying degrees of colour deficiency, to exercise the privileges of their licence by daytime only.
AMC1 MED.B.075
Colour vision
(a)
At revalidation and renewal examinations, 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 if the anomalous quotient is acceptable; 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; or by
(3)
Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test. This test is considered passed if the threshold is less
than 6 standard normal (SN) units for deutan deficiency, or less than 12 SN units for protan deficiency. A threshold greater than 2 SN units for tritan deficiency indicates an acquired cause which should be investigated.

As you can see, CAD test has been included as said in the Comment Response Document.

It's time to wait for the decision.

Sorry for my english, not perfectly fluent yet :ok:.
What do you think about these information ?

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Can anyone tell me what the "pass" criteria is for the Lantern Testing is? To my understanding it was 1 error allowed for the three runs? Though, I think I've been led to believe totally wrong information. I sat the full set of colour testing at the City University back in June. My results for the Lantern Testing part both bright and dimmed down show two errors in both first runs, which I've recently been informed as the practise run. For runs two and three it's showing one error on both bright and dimmed versions? Does this count as a pass? If so, is is it as simple as giving the report to the CAA and they lift my VCL restriction? Or do I need to get in touch with the Uni for anything?

Thanks again!

[Expatrick]

Rontom, I took the lantern test at LHR some while ago & the Doc stopped the test due to (I think) a red / green fail. No possibility of a rerun though I recall from the brief that retests were possible under certain citcumstances.

Circumstances even!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Hello Expatrick

Please see my results of the Lantern below:

Test Result
Holmes Wright Lantern (type A)

In Mesopic viewing with high brightness:
1st run: 2 errors
2nd and 3rd runs: 1 error
(Red called ‘Green’ and Green called ‘White’ twice).

In Scotopic viewing with high brightness:
1st run: 2 errors
2nd and 3rd runs: 1 error
(White called ‘Green’ and Red called ‘Green’ and Green called ‘white’).

I'm perhaps clutching at straws now, but I suppose I've got nothing to lose. Who knows, maybe it is "one error allowed" on runs 2 & 3. Or maybe if you get red and green mixed, that's it. I'm sure I'll fine out the verdict soon enough.

Thanks again for you input on the matter! :ok:

[Expatrick]

Hi Rontom, regret I can't remember the details except that, yes, a red/green mix up was an instant failure!

[antonioGr]

So if I pass the CAD test and eventually get awarded the unrestricted Class 1 Medical by the CAA, what happens if lets say few years later I decide to move to Germany and fly there.

Is there gonna be a problem with the conversion of my CAA Class 1 to the EASA License since the CAD test is not recognised outside the UK yet?

[Alteburger]

Hi All,

The son of a family friend is desperate to get into commercial aviation, but as he has a history of colour blindness in the family, went for an assessment utilising the 6 relevant tests prior to attempting a CAA Class 1. He had varying results for each test i.e some much better than others.

His resulting CAD score though, confirms that he is ineligible for a Class 1 in the UK. I gather the FAA utilise the Lantern Test? Would anyone out there have knowledge of the method and required standards for colour vision for a class 1 FAA medical?

Many thanks for any guidance

[WillBirchall87]

Hey Alteburger,

I'm not sure on the FAA Requirements. However,if I read between the lines of your post that and assume that the guy is willing to travel abroad to follow his career, Canada may be an option, particularly if he has passed some of his tests.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions about this, I have some experience which i'm happy to share.

[dcvdriver]

faa allow you to do a very simple test with light gun signal. very easy to pass and he will be able to get his unrestricted first class medical if he pass it.
faa is the way to go

[dcvdriver]

i would like to get a confirmation that even with EASA, as it was with JAR, if i pass the spectrolux exam, i will be free from any testing further on in my career? or is it at discretion of the medical examiner to test for Color blindness at any renewal? even if i show i passed once the spectrolux?

i guess i will be issue some sort of waiver...just wanna make sure.

thanks

[aloa326]

Hi,

Il you pass spectrolux or any other approved EASA color vision test, during renewal you will not be asked to do it again.

Color visión test is required again if clinical indications show that you will lose color perception...really rare and really serious.

I did my medical renewal all around Europe and also had FAA medical, not being asked again to perform it...i had Beyne Lantern.

Hope helps.

[Rodolfo]

Have anybody (color blind) here used the EnChroma glasses, and tested them on Ishihara test?

[Whimlew]

What are the restrictions with colorblindness and acquiring a license to fly helicopters?

Thanks.

[pponte]

Hi, has anyone had experience with requesting a retest on the ishihara plates throughout Europe?

Also, would you be able to let me know where I can find the 24 version?
I understand there are more versions like the 14, 24 and 38 so I just want to narrow down my options.
Many thanks

[vatir]

Hello Everyone,

I have my class 1 initial medical test in 2 weeks time and I tried a few Ishahara test's online and I can get about 12-14/15. I am not colour blind, never been and can see all colours perfectly fine.

I know you need to get all the 15 plates correctly in order to pass.

My question is what happens if I can't get all 15 correctly on the day?

Any advice would be most welcome.
Thanks

[strikky]

Hi team colour deficiency,

Unfortunately I'm joining your ranks as I've just completed my Initial Class 2 medical and had a "VCL" restriction slapped on me due to flopping on the Ishiharas. I was told at the time that this also restricts me to VMC only!! So with that, my dreams of one day flying (intentionally) above the clouds has been shattered.

However I've read that actually, I can still pursue a restricted instrument (day only) rating... hoping this is the case.

Does anyone have this? Instrument rating but night restricted due to colour deficiency?

Regardless, I've booked an appointment optimistically for the CAD test at Heathrow. Wish me luck.

If you fail the Ishihara test they'll put you in the situation I'm in - you'll need to then be certified as "Colour SAFE" by further examination. I had my Ishihara test done by a standard high-street opticians and failed it then. Subsequently my AME for the Class 2 then also retested me and got exactly the same result. So now I'm having a CAD test. I won't take no for an answer! :ugh: - just like hitting my blue head on a green brick wall.

[strikky]

Hi all,

I totally flunked the Ishihara plates (8 fails / 15) and my AME slapped a VCL restriction on me. She referred me to Heathrow Medical for a further CAD assessment if I wanted to pursue the issue further, but advised that only a small portion of people actually pass that.

The CAD assessment itself (the diagonally moving colour block) was hard and I felt I was guessing more than a reasonable amount to be able to pass so I was fairly resigned at that point.

However I'm very pleased to report that I'm only mildly protan deficient and able to pursue a full unrestricted class EASA 1 & 2.

So my contribution is, if you find yourself failing the Ishihara plates it is by no means the end of your story. Get a proper assessment at Heathrow Medical done and you may surprise yourself.

[flyhigh788]

I have a German EASA Class 1 Medical without any restrictions after passing the Lantern-Test.

I´m now interested in applying with Qatar Airways. Does anyone of you know, if they just accept my German Medical or if I need to do one again there?

Furthermore, what´s the procedure there in such a case if I need to do a new Medical there?

Thanks!

[BillyJac]

Hi guys,
some countries have accept light color blind as airlines pilots ATPL. Brazil is one of this countries, in Brazil if you reconize the basic colors, you will receive your first class medical certificate.

Do you know what other countries do this ? I would like to know if in Honk Kong and Macau is this way.....

[pponte]

Hi All,

The son of a family friend is desperate to get into commercial aviation, but as he has a history of colour blindness in the family, went for an assessment utilising the 6 relevant tests prior to attempting a CAA Class 1. He had varying results for each test i.e some much better than others.

His resulting CAD score though, confirms that he is ineligible for a Class 1 in the UK. I gather the FAA utilise the Lantern Test? Would anyone out there have knowledge of the method and required standards for colour vision for a class 1 FAA medical?

Many thanks for any guidance

Canada or US indeed.
There are easier exams than the lantern.

[pponte]

I have a German EASA Class 1 Medical without any restrictions after passing the Lantern-Test.

I´m now interested in applying with Qatar Airways. Does anyone of you know, if they just accept my German Medical or if I need to do one again there?

Furthermore, what´s the procedure there in such a case if I need to do a new Medical there?

Thanks!

ishihara 38 plate version.

[pponte]

Hi guys,
some countries have accept light color blind as airlines pilots ATPL. Brazil is one of this countries, in Brazil if you reconize the basic colors, you will receive your first class medical certificate.

Do you know what other countries do this ? I would like to know if in Honk Kong and Macau is this way.....

No, think hong kong might be using cad as well.
That option is awesome and only available in Brazil afaik. And I've done that exam there ;)

[KaanT]

Hello people I'm new to this forum,

I'm searching for Holmes-Wright Lantern Type A test center for color blind testing. But there is no list on the internet... Do you know anywhere that has the Holmes-Wright Lantern Type A in the world ? My medical depends on that.. Visa is a problem about getting in to countries but i have to know where can i find this test. Beyne's or Spectrolux are other options... It would be really good to have open addresses or Contact info of test centers who are equipped with these tests.

Best regards:)

[pponte]

beynes - lisbon, portugal, ucs.pt
spectrolux switzerland - search cvdpilots website or this thread dor the address.
Also join cvdpa website guys to join the cause against this.

[pponte]

Hi all,

I'm starting a whatsapp group for cvds in Europe.


Happy to set to others for other regions.

I need to understand how many are still struggling with this, what can be done about this and who'd support, thanks.

[wuas680]

Has anyone failed the various colour blind tests and opted to go for the "restricted" CPL which limits you to daytime VFR flying?

If I go to all the trouble and costs of finding out they won't give me a full class 1 is it worth seeking this exemption and maybe undertake parachute, glider tow, banner advertising or work towards a daytime flight instructing gig?

[dobbin1]

Assuming you are based in the UK then it is perfectly possible to be a professional pilot. I am CVD and have a restricted Class 1 medical. My CPL has no restrictions - the restrictions are all on the medical. My medical limits me to day only, no public transport and I must have a radio when flying at an aerodrome with ATC.

There is no VFR only restriction and I have an IR(r). It is now possible to get a full EASA IR as well, because the night rating/qualification pre-requisite has been dropped - but of course you will not be allowed to use it at night.

I work as an FI. I don't find the night restriction particularly onerous, but it is pointless and irritating so I might have a go at the CAD test sometime just to see if I can pass it. I am way too old for a public transport job but I would like to do the occasional night flight and instruction.

[Animal Mother]

Very very interesting. Are you fixed or rotary wing?

I came here, mainly, as I'm CVD and I'd like to try and find someone who can do the CAA approved CVD tests only (hopefully for free) to see if it's worth me paying for a full medical and then start saving for my PPL(H) or even CPL(H).

[Flyer2013]

Hi all,

I'm starting a whatsapp group for cvds in Europe.


Happy to set to others for other regions.

I need to understand how many are still struggling with this, what can be done about this and who'd support, thanks.
hello pponte,

how can i join the group please?

[dobbin1]

Very very interesting. Are you fixed or rotary wing?

I came here, mainly, as I'm CVD and I'd like to try and find someone who can do the CAA approved CVD tests only (hopefully for free) to see if it's worth me paying for a full medical and then start saving for my PPL(H) or even CPL(H).

I am fixed wing.

[pponte]

hello pponte,

how can i join the group please?

send me your whatsapp # via pm. Thanks

[Cakbulut]

Guys,

does anybody know where i can take the Holmes Wright test in England?

Thank you!

[Animal Mother]

Assuming you are based in the UK then it is perfectly possible to be a professional pilot. I am CVD and have a restricted Class 1 medical. My CPL has no restrictions - the restrictions are all on the medical. My medical limits me to day only, no public transport and I must have a radio when flying at an aerodrome with ATC.

There is no VFR only restriction and I have an IR(r). It is now possible to get a full EASA IR as well, because the night rating/qualification pre-requisite has been dropped - but of course you will not be allowed to use it at night.

I work as an FI. I don't find the night restriction particularly onerous, but it is pointless and irritating so I might have a go at the CAD test sometime just to see if I can pass it. I am way too old for a public transport job but I would like to do the occasional night flight and instruction.

Looking a bit deeper into this. For rotary, to gain the CPL(H), there is a 5 hour night flight (of which 2 hours are solo). A failure on the Class 1 (due to CVD) restricts the pilot to daytime only, meaning the CPL(H) can't be gained in the first place. SO, although the medical allows commercial flying (with restrictions), it's actually impossible to get your CPL(H) ticket in the first place to make those restrictions applicable.

I'm gutted about this as daytime restriction was my final hope. :{

Can anyone confirm that I'm correct in what I've found?

[Cakbulut]

Hello people I'm new to this forum,

I'm searching for Holmes-Wright Lantern Type A test center for color blind testing. But there is no list on the internet... Do you know anywhere that has the Holmes-Wright Lantern Type A in the world ? My medical depends on that.. Visa is a problem about getting in to countries but i have to know where can i find this test. Beyne's or Spectrolux are other options... It would be really good to have open addresses or Contact info of test centers who are equipped with these tests.

Best regards:)

KLM Health Services in Amsterdam

[PilotMario]

Hi, if a colour deficient person passes the Farnsworth lantern test or CAD test, then can an airline (especially Indian airlines) deny them a job saying that they have color vision deficiency?

[Animal Mother]

Has anyone failed the various colour blind tests and opted to go for the "restricted" CPL which limits you to daytime VFR flying?

If I go to all the trouble and costs of finding out they won't give me a full class 1 is it worth seeking this exemption and maybe undertake parachute, glider tow, banner advertising or work towards a daytime flight instructing gig?

Having a restriction is academic really, as, the requirement to do night flights on CPL training will prevent you from attaining your CPL in the first place in order to have those restrictions applied.

[Animal Mother]

Have any of you been to City (prior to Class 1 or 2) for their suite of tests?

I've just had an email back from them with a quote and description of what they'll do. I think I'll go and book an assessment with them.

[ASB131]

hello guys, so today i took the cad test and failed it, turns out its red green colour blind here are my results

Red Green: 10.58

Yellow Blue: 1.00

i also failed the plates test just by one.

im wondering if there is anyway i can get my unrestricted medical or anyway round this such as taking it in another place or country

i took the test at heathrow and have heard that quite a few people can pass the test at city university of london, but other than that is there anyway around this? I can see colours everyday fine and tell the difference, even on simulators i can see the difference when coming into land

Ive just been reading on the city university of london website about another test: ACAD (Achromatopsia Colour Assessment and Diagnosis) and im wondering if this test would be accepted as part of a medical?

Thanks in advance :)

[TOGATOM]

Hey folks, first time posting here!

Fairly similar story to a lot of people on here, I went to City Uni to complete their colour assessments in hope that I could pass the CAD test to get a class 1 medical. As it turns out, it didn't go to plan, however I will give a bit more detail of what to expect in case anyone is going there soon...

The whole assessment includes the Ishihara plates, AO-HRR pseudoisochromatic plates, City University (2 ed.), Farnsworth D15, Nagel Anomaloscope, and the CAD test. It's worth noting that the CAD test (the only one that can help you get your class 1 after the Ishihara plates) is last in the assessment - more about that in a moment.

Once taken to a small office, they will begin with the Ishihara plates. I, as expected, failed these miserably, but this is why I'm here, right? The AO-HRR pseudoisochromatic plates were quite interesting and I seemed to do alright on them, there were a few plates where I couldn't see anything, but most of them I saw something. The City University test was also not too bad, in the end I scored 7/10. I had very little hopes for the Farnsworth D15 as I have never been able to do these, and have always been amazed at how effortlessly my girlfriend can do them. When the colours are in the correct order on the Farnsworth, it looks right and makes sense. It's just that my attempts can also look correct but actually be all over the place.

Next up came the test which seemed to take forever to complete, the Nagel Anomaloscope. I don't know if I didn't understand properly what was going on or not, or whether I was just getting them wrong quite often, but we seemed to spend about half an hour just on this test. At the end, the assessor told me that this test was suggesting protanomaly rather than protanopia, which is quite interesting. NB. if anyone wants some more information about how these individual tests work, just drop me a PM.

Finally came the CAD test. At this point I felt my eyes were tired and strained, especially from the Nagel, which I had one eye covered for the majority of and therefore it took a while to 're-boot' properly for the CAD test. First up is a tutorial-type test, where you should get 10/10. Then it's a short blue-yellow colour test, which I was told I scored a lot better than the mean. The final section was the longer red-green test. In hindsight, and after reading through various forum posts, I feel like I rushed this a lot more than I should have, and in fact I should have had several pauses or breaks. I kick myself now because there were moments in the test where I felt quite disoriented and dizzy and felt myself just guessing the directions where I might have been able to actually get if I was fully concentrated. Overall, it's a real drain on the eyes and like many people have suggested, I would be concerned if a pilot ever saw anything remotely similar in a real flight.

My threshold for the CAD test was 21, way above the 12 needed for the CAA. Again, reading online, various people seem to believe that this test is not 100% accurate, and have managed to drop their average after repeated goes. I just wonder how I might've performed on it if it was just the CAD test I was taking, not all the others.

My question is, where should I go from here? Am I too far deficient to ever consider a career in commercial aviation, or is there still some hope out there somewhere? I can't really see myself ever doing anything else, but it just doesn't look possible at the moment to meet the CAA's requirements.

Looking forward to hear y'all thoughts! Cheers!

[ASB131]

@TOGATOM im in the same boat as you although im red green. Im wondering if the caa accepts any tests other than the ishihara plates and the cad test, if not hopefully they will change this soon considering they're not 100% reliable. Ive heard you can fly what ever in Australia. But i dont know if its worth moving there

[TOGATOM]

As far as I'm aware, Ishihara and CAD are the main two that they test. I may be mistaken but I think they might still accept a pass on the Holmes-Wright lantern from registered practitioners, although I've heard the test is very hard to pass, even for people with only a slight colour deficiency. Can anyone confirm?

[ASB131]

damn that sucks if they dont, considering i seriously want to become a commercial pilot, it says on the CAA website they still accept the Holmes-Wright lantern test, but ive also heard people saying they dont, and im just confused on ways around it. anyway thanks for the info ill look into it

[TOGATOM]

Yeah, let me know what you find!

Is this thread mainly dead or are there still some active peeps on here? Really interested to hear if there are any updates in regards to CVDPA? Basically, I'm part of the incredibly long list of y'all who wants to be a commercial pilot but are forbidden by these primitive rules!

[RONTOM-EGPD]

Please see below:

Positive Developments on CVD
Dear Friends and Supporters,

As reported in the previous update, much work on the CVD front has been occurring behind the scenes. As you will read below, this is beginning to result in some positive and encouraging developments.
New Zealand CAA publishes amended Colour Vision General Direction

Last week the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority released its long awaited amendment to the proposed Impaired Colour Vision General Direction (GD).

A GD is a notice issued by the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation to specify the requirements of aviation medicine related matters for applicants of a medical certificate. A GD is issued after consultation with interested parties.

A copy of this proposed amended GD is available via the following link:

IMPAIRED COLOUR VISION GENERAL DIRECTION (GD/VIS/01/2017.1)

The GD outlines a testing process including colour vision screening (Ishihara) and secondary testing (several options including Holmes Wright Lantern, Farnsworth and CAD test). A pass in any of these tests entitles the applicant to an unrestricted class 1 or 2 medical certificate.

The significant difference with the amended GD is that if an applicant elects not to undertake secondary testing (or if they fail this testing), then they will be entitled to a medical certificate subject to only one restriction:

"Not valid for flight in the vicinity of a controlled aerodrome unless the aircraft is in radio contact with aerodrome control."

While this single restriction is arguably nonsense with modern day technologies, it has been included to satisfy the lawyers in case of the very rare possibility of a CVD pilot having to rely on signal gun lights as the only means of communication in the event of a total radio failure.

Importantly, there are no other proposed operational restrictions, which means that a CVD pilot would be entitled to progress their career to the fullest extent in New Zealand, including at CPL, ATPL, night and IFR levels. These proposed changes are summarised in the GD as follows:
"The GD also updates the restrictions that are applied to those who fail initial screening and then either fail, or elect to not undertake, secondary screening. Restrictions against the carriage of passengers (class 1), night flying (class 1 and 2) and instrument flying (class 1 and 2) are removed. The body of clinical and empirical evidence considered by the CAA during the development of this GD supports the removal of these restrictions.

Such was the significance of material considered in the development of this GD, the CAA established a Colour Vision Deficiency GD Assessment Panel comprising specialists in aviation medicine, vision science, general aviation, airline operations, regulatory oversight and law. The panel considered written and verbal submissions from various international contributors and experts, empirical evidence and clinical research relating to colour vision deficiency in pilots. Noting that current clinical test methods and restrictions result in significant limitations for some applicants who would be able to operate unrestricted in some other jurisdictions, the panel produced a report recommending the adoption of a practical demonstration of competency as well as alternative secondary screening tests, such that these individuals may demonstrate their competency. These recommendations were accepted by the Director with the exception of the practical flight.

Rather than requiring a one-time flight test to assess individuals for the effect of their colour vision deficiency on all aspects of flying, pilots will instead progress through the standard programme of training and flight testing, applicable to the privileges they seek. They will then be required to further repeatedly demonstrate competency during subsequent renewals of their privileges alongside all other pilots. Evidence indicates that such practical assessments are an appropriate means for pilots with colour vision deficiency to demonstrate their ongoing ability to perform the tasks required of their particular piloting role."

Hopefully things will start move forward elsewhere...

[TOGATOM]

I woke up to the facebook post of this. This is amazing news!

[Animal Mother]

It is! Let's hope it's a success and Europe/UK take notice.

[TOGATOM]

I'm certainly trying to get as many people as I can to send an email to the NZ CAA agreeing that this is a good decision! The sooner they implement the changes, the sooner it'll hopefully spread!

[brissypilot]

I'm certainly trying to get as many people as I can to send an email to the NZ CAA agreeing that this is a good decision! The sooner they implement the changes, the sooner it'll hopefully spread!

The full GD is available via the below link:

IMAPAIRED COLOUR VISION GENERAL DIRECTION (GD/VIS/01/2017.1) (https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/medical/Consultation-Impaired-Colour-Vision.pdf)

Also from the CVDPA update:

What happens next? Your help is needed!

This proposed GD is open for a period of public consultation for just over 5 weeks.

Provided there are no major obstacles or issues arising as a result of this process, the GD will then be implemented into policy. This will in turn make New Zealand the new world leader in certifying CVD pilots to fly and will arguably lead to flow on influences around the world.

It is vital that all CVD pilots and anyone else with an interest in this topic have their say as part of the CAA's consultation process so that we are not outnumbered by any opposing responses. It has been confirmed that all interested parties can be part of this process, whether residing in New Zealand, Australia or any other country internationally.

The final page of the GD contains a response sheet which can be used as a template for submitting feedback. For your assistance, a pre-populated response sheet is also provided via the link below (you only need to add your name, address, phone number, email and if applicable, CAA client number):

RESPONSE SHEET - CVD GD (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Response%20Sheet-CVD%20GD.pdf)

Please take 5 minutes to show your support and acceptance of this GD without change.

Responses must be emailed to [email protected] and are due by 26 October 2017.

Your assistance in participating in this consultation process is appreciated and will help to ensure that the many years of hard work to get to this point do not go to waste. Feel free to pass this response sheet onto others who may not have received this email.

Let’s get as many submissions in as possible :ok:

[Mike190]

Hello everyone! This is my first post here. I also have a problem with color blindness. Few years ago I tried to do class 1 medical certificate. I wanted to do ATPL licence, but I didn't read some Ishihara plates. I've already done a lot of tests in the internet (however I know it's not accurate), and most of the tests give me the result, that I have slight-strong deuteratopia (depends on the test) :rolleyes: On the other hand, I see the difference between nav lights, PAPI lights, and different caution lights in the cockpit.

Finally, I would like to try to do 1 class medical certificate one more time, especially after reading PART-MED with GM and AMC:


(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 if the anomalous quotient is
acceptable; 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.; or by

(3) Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test. This test is considered passed if the threshold is less
than 6 standard normal (SN) units for deutan deficiency, or less than 12 SN units for protan
deficiency. A threshold greater than 2 SN units for tritan deficiency indicates an acquired cause
which should be investigated.


Does anyone know, where, in Poland, I can do the above tests? I would like to do these tests to know more about my color blindness, and to finally be sure that I can/ cannot be a commercial pilot. Anomaloscope isn't a big problem to find, but if anyone know where to do the rest of the tests, in Poland or EU, please write.

[TOGATOM]

Hey, I think those are the same as the UK CAA, however, from what I've read, the CAA don't really accept anything other than the CAD and Ishihara which they do in-house. It's strange that they still mention the other tests and don't actually accept them... I wish they did because I passed the Nagel!

[TOGATOM]

Hey Folks, anyone heard any updates about the New Zealand CAA changes? :D

[TankerTrash]

Negative - it will probably take some time.

I submitted my response in favour of the changes. I contacted the CVDPA who said it could be in reality be 'months' before we hear of any final decision.

Whilst I'm here - has anybody got any experience of CVD people being issued with airside driving permits? I'm looking into a career change and an old colleague at Brize Norton passed the colour perception test with ChromaGen glasses.

The crazy thing is I could taxi an aircraft around an airfield, at night, without a night rating - but probably not drive a car?

[Webby737]

I'm colour blind but have never had any problems in the past obtaining an airside driving permit (including LHR & LGW). I failed the ishihara test as expected and was then given the Holmes Lantern Test which I had no problems passing.

I'm glad to see that progress is finally being made, even if it is slow, it's absurd that people with CVD cannot pass a Class 1 medical (in the UK) despite there being no proof that having CVD has ever contributed to an accident or incident.

[pponte]

The full GD is available via the below link:

IMAPAIRED COLOUR VISION GENERAL DIRECTION (GD/VIS/01/2017.1) (https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/medical/Consultation-Impaired-Colour-Vision.pdf)



Anyone got a copy of this document that could email to me please at [email protected] ? The link is currently down.

Many thanks

[TankerTrash]

@Webby737 Thanks - will investigate more.

In September the CAA confirmed that they could theoretically issue me with a Class 1 with VCL NCAT restrictions, which would mean I could fly commercially in day time. There are a couple of organisations near me that operate vintage aircraft that are day only anyway, which is why I wanted to know.

But, EASA CPL now requires the night rating.

I emailed EASA to ask whether I could 'hypothetically' be issued a CPL with day-only restrictions, as per the old JAR system, and if not, why not?

Their response:
EASA cannot provide legally binding interpretations of EU Regulations. These functions are reserved to national and EU courts and to the European Commission.
Under the EU Treaties, Member States are responsible for interpreting and implementing EU law in their national legal system.
For that reason, any queries concerning the implementation of aviation safety regulations within EASA’s remit should be forwarded to your Licensing Authority/ Competent Authority.

What is confusing is that my letter from the CAA said, in the context of the restricted Class 1, "This effectively means you may be able to pursue daytime flying instruction or aerial work within UK airspace."

So EASA's view is that you can't, but the CAA say you might be able to?

[mrty]

Hi guys. I'm a new member and a pilot wannabe with deuteranolmally cvd from Turkey.

Yesterday I took both CAD and the anomaloscopy tests in a medical center in my country. Unfortunattely I have failed CAD test with threshold of 11. But after that I took and passed the anomaloscopy with matching range of 2. I don't understand how this happend and I'm realy very confused right now about what to do.

I'm looking for to get my ATPL from Hungary or Poland, so I have to have an EASA medical license. In Turkey there is only one medical center with EASA approvel but this center only gives Class 2 as inital license (They can only re-new class 1). My question is; if I get the class 2 lincense for ppl and after that applie to conversation of class2 to class 1 from another country, are they going to test for CVD again ?

I'm concerned about it because now I can not trust neighter my color vision nor the tests because of the results.

[Anderson.]

Has anyone here taken this CAD test recently?

[TankerTrash]

New Zealand Update. 98% of respondents in favour of the new GD.

www caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/medical/GD-Impaired-Colour-Vision-Submissions.pdf

www caa.govt.nz/medical/colour-vision-report/

[Dutchman95]

Anderson

I did the CAD test at Heathrow Medical Services a month ago. I wasn't very hopeful at all as I am terrible at the Ishihara plates, but after a first attempt close to borderline I managed to get a pass (threshold 5.81 with 6 being the deutan limit) after three more rounds. Surprisingly, my yellow-blue vision was considerably better than 'normal' people (0.69).

[Aviadorbrasil]

Anyone did the test recently at Emirates during Interview process?

[aloa326]

Aviador which test did you perform in Brazil at the initial medical assessments?

[Aviadorbrasil]

In Brazil I did the Ishihara, but I failed.
In this case they show you a card with all colors separatly, if you know, it’s fine (like In our requirements for pilots)

[aloa326]

Hi,

I am not sure 100%, but Emirates follows more or less the EASA requirements for pilot medical.
In the case of color vision Ishiara and then CAD test...new test implemented.

Time ago, like I did, alternative test were recognized like Beyne Lantern, Holmes Wright and Anomaloscopy.

I am not sure if your alternative test is recognized....bring with you the original reports and if needed show it to the doctor.

[Aviadorbrasil]

But nowadays they still working with CAD, correct?
I don’t believe that they will accept my test from Brazil, i need to pass through they exams
CAD I think I can get! Any tips how it’s the test?

[aloa326]

Yes CAD.

No tip by my side....I passed Beyne lantern years ago.

[Aviadorbrasil]

Hello Guys,
Im applying at Emirates, and i have a problem that is making me crazy.
I have daltonism, but for my class 1 medical is permitted here in brazil.
About Emirates, during the tests, I read that they do the Ishihara and in case of failure, and alternat test (CAD test) is done.
Someone has this problem at EMIRATES? Or even did this test recently can talk more clear with me about that? Thank you so much

[flyinthesky]

At EK they will give you the Ishihara, which if you fail then leads to a CAD test. It is the only option. The Lantern test is outdated now. You cannot prepare for it, as it is a pass/fail test. Quite necessarily! You will have one chance to pass it and that is it. I fail the Ishihara each year at EK but I have a standing pass in the CAD test. Whatever test results you bring from your home country will be worthless. You WILL need to pass the CAD test here in Dubai.

[Pricey95]

Morning All,

Wondering if anyone could help. In a bit of a sticky situation with my medical situation through my own fault. Wanted to be a pilot since I can remember but failed an ishihara when I was in primary school and ever since I was advised to ask for a lantern test when the day of my medical cane. Went for a class 2 initial back in 2012, didn’t want anything to do with the ishihara and asked for a lantern test (even though I acknowledge the CAA do not recognise it) to which I passed flying colours. The AME advised me if I was not willing to do the ishihara I would need to do the CAD test at the CAA. Off I walked with a restriction on my medical just because I didn’t want to do the ishihara - worst mistake I’ve ever made.

Fast forward a 2 years (and typical me leaving everything to the last minute) I book a CAD test at the CAA in 2014 just before my training starts at university. I must stress here that the CAD test is quite possibly the worst experience I have ever had. So much pressure, anxiety and angst took its toll and within a minute I experienced eye pain and headaches which made me (all but) quit the test. I was issued a fail on my CAA medical records with a score of nearly double what the pass mark is (no point doing a retest because of this as scores get averaged).

Fast forward 3.5 years and I graduate from (a different) university with a back up plan in mind in case there is no way around this issue. In April 2017 I accompany a parent to the opticians and ask to do an Ishihara test at the end of the appointment as a bit of fun. Would you believe I pass the test without error. I immediately book in for a class 2 at East Midlands, we conduct the ishihara and I pass with no errors again. At this point I’m ecstatic thinking my dream career is back on.... the CAA refuse issue me an unrestricted class 2 certificate 3 days later because of those ‘false’ CAD results.

I have since spent my time researching this and although I understand the CAA’s stance on this as they have evidence of a failed colour vision test, I meet the acceptable means of compliance that EASA have set. I recently emailed the CAA but they have not got back to me.

Has anyone had an experience like this? If I was to do a c1 initial and pass the ishihara (again) would the CAA still refuse to issue me a certificate? Would I be best off travelling to another EASA member state and doing my class 1 initial over there and trying to convert it?

Thanks in advance

[VICTOR_MIKE]

Hi there, it is my first message here.
I'm wondering if the above draft had actually been accepted and published? Because actually it is a draft which mentioned the CAD but that does not means that CAD is accepted by EASA yet, right?
Or maybe I just don't find this update and you could provide the link to the latest PART-MED regulation?
I would like to pas my CLASS 1 in France but don't want to fail with the "old non-reliable" tests.
For info, I've removed the first letters of the links because as I am new here I am not allowed to put URL in my messages!
Thanks for your help.

[Pricey95]

Has anyone ever had an appointment with the guys at City University London?

I have been informed that you can conduct a full assessment with them and they will produce a report for you which is usually accepted by the CAA.

[miller745]

Anderson

I did the CAD test at Heathrow Medical Services a month ago. I wasn't very hopeful at all as I am terrible at the Ishihara plates, but after a first attempt close to borderline I managed to get a pass (threshold 5.81 with 6 being the deutan limit) after three more rounds. Surprisingly, my yellow-blue vision was considerably better than 'normal' people (0.69).

Can I ask what the CAD test is like? I'm booked in with Heathrow Medical Services in a week and I know I'll fail the ishihara test, I asked to do one at an eye test earlier in the month and I failed it there although the guy said some people do have it worse than me.

[miller745]

Passed the CAD test with red/green of 4.53 and yellow blue 0.89. Limit for me having a mild protan deficiency is <12 so well under that. Given a full unrestricted class 1 & 2. Failed the ishihara test miserably.
Next problem is the astigmatism in my left eye is over limits for class 1, but I've not been wearing glasses all the time until now so hopefully that will lessen. It's currently ok for class 2.
Also need to see specialists to make a report for history of asthma (15 years ago) and a current peanut allergy.
The fun continues.

[pilotofotheday]

Hello,

I've got a new (not renewal) AME visit in USA few years ago for a medical class 1.
I've got the well-known "restriction for day only" due to my fail at Ishihara test plates. In fact I have not been tested on the famous classic book but on a "digital machine" (don't know the name) which also display dots and numbers. Note that I also failed on a lantern test once (don't know how many mistakes tho).

Recently my optometrist told me after some tests during a regular visit that I don't seem to be really color deficient, or just slightly.
I asked for a visit here in Canada for a Category 1. I passed the Ishihara book with maybe 1-2 light hesitations but no big deal and got a Category 1 with no restriction on it.
I also passed a D-15 test and succeeded at it with no mistake.

Question:
Is it possible for me to send my Canadian Ishihara test record to US FAA and ask them to remove my medical restriction?
If not, is it possible to do a new US medical Class 1 visit in order to be retested at Ishihara book? Is it something accepted?

Thanks

[Seanlister1]

Hey everyone,

I have been wanting to fly for as long as I can remember but I went for the RAF as soon as I left school and I failed the ishahara test when I got to the medical. This has left me petrified of any form of medical assessment, especially the class 1 which my dream hangs on, every test I've done on my phone or computer says I have a slight red green colour blindness so my question is, is it permissible if it is only slight to moderate? I work as ground crew and I can easily distinguish the red and green navigation/position lights on aircraft. Any response is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks
Sean

[miller745]

Passed the CAD test with red/green of 4.53 and yellow blue 0.89. Limit for me having a mild protan deficiency is <12 so well under that. Given a full unrestricted class 1 & 2. Failed the ishihara test miserably.

You need to do the CAD test. It's about £140 on top of the initial medical fee.

[Seanlister1]

You need to do the CAD test. It's about £140 on top of the initial medical fee.
Yeah I learned about the CAD test from doing my research about the vision requirements it bumps my initial up to nearly £700 plus I have to get down to London for it...

[miller745]

Yeah I learned about the CAD test from doing my research about the vision requirements it bumps my initial up to nearly £700 plus I have to get down to London for it...

It does but you really have no alternative. I had to fly down from Newcastle for mine.
What if something crops up during your initial medical to which the AME then requires you to see a specialist? That means another trip to London plus more medical fees! (Yes I'm talking from experience..)

[Seanlister1]

It does but you really have no alternative. I had to fly down from Newcastle for mine.
What if something crops up during your initial medical to which the AME then requires you to see a specialist? That means another trip to London plus more medical fees! (Yes I'm talking from experience..)

I'm in the exact same boat, I'll be having to travel from Newcastle too!

[simone993]

Interest on this post, is your beyne lantern test been accepted? I’m in the same situation! Thanks!

[wuas680]

I attended Aviation Vision Services yesterday (BTW also travelled from Newcastle. Drove down, stayed overnight round the corner at Heathrow Lodge and drove back after test).

I scored 14.86 Red Green so over threshold of 12 and 0.50 Yellow Blue (apparently very good colour vision in that area). Anyway the red green meant a fail and I was handed a piece of paper with the text "Fit restricted EASA Class 1 (VCL, SSL-ILA, SSL-NCAT) and Class 2 (VCL).

So basically day time flying only and NCAT. Now NCAT is a bit of a sod. I don't want to be an airline pilot but there isn't an exhaustive list of what is commercial air transport and what isn't. Nor is there much detail on where I can fly. I think I can ferry G- reg planes within Europe. Annoyingly I had a few places where I knew they only do VFR flying - bush pilots in Africa for example - but that NCAT restriction would prevent that!

I am now wondering if I should find a FAA AME and see if they can do the other tests here in the UK and whichever one I get the better result in go for that.

Does anyone know of any countries where a colour fail just restricts to VFR but you can still carry cargo or passengers or both? I am yet to start full on training so I could look at training in the most forward thinking country for colour vision.

[simone993]

You should try the other tests valid from EASA part med, beyne lantern and Nagel Anomaloscope should be fine, try to take these tests in another European country, once you have passed one of them you’ll be unrestricted, unfortunately you can’t have a UK caa license but you have to take it from another EASA state, it’s a real shame the UK caa colour’s policy,
hope to be helpful!

[uberoo]

I attended Aviation Vision Services yesterday (BTW also travelled from Newcastle. Drove down, stayed overnight round the corner at Heathrow Lodge and drove back after test).

I scored 14.86 Red Green so over threshold of 12 and 0.50 Yellow Blue (apparently very good colour vision in that area). Anyway the red green meant a fail and I was handed a piece of paper with the text "Fit restricted EASA Class 1 (VCL, SSL-ILA, SSL-NCAT) and Class 2 (VCL).

So basically day time flying only and NCAT. Now NCAT is a bit of a sod. I don't want to be an airline pilot but there isn't an exhaustive list of what is commercial air transport and what isn't. Nor is there much detail on where I can fly. I think I can ferry G- reg planes within Europe. Annoyingly I had a few places where I knew they only do VFR flying - bush pilots in Africa for example - but that NCAT restriction would prevent that!

I am now wondering if I should find a FAA AME and see if they can do the other tests here in the UK and whichever one I get the better result in go for that.

Does anyone know of any countries where a colour fail just restricts to VFR but you can still carry cargo or passengers or both? I am yet to start full on training so I could look at training in the most forward thinking country for colour vision.

Take a look at New Zealand. They are the most progressive on this front. Australia used to be, but has gone backwards in recent years.