Question on Colour Vision & Class 1 Medical Over 60

[john_tullamarine]

The OP wished to delete the thread. However, it appears to be generating some interest and should be a topic of interest to many. I have re-established the thread so that the OP can exit gracefully. (With thanks to Senior Pilot for doing the work so now I know how to do it next time ....)

The original OP text follows -

Hi, I'm not sure if anyone's had to negotiate this previously at age 60, but here's the situation for me & I would be grateful for any comments/info please.
I've a colour vision deficiency i.e. "colour blind". I always fail the Isihara book & Farnsworth Lantern Test & until around 1988, I could not fly at night, however that changed to CPL level after several individuals (with AOPA support) & especially Dr Arthur Pape challenged the CAA through the AAT. In 1995, I passed a practical colour vision test in Melbourne & have had an ATPL ever since.
I'm now 60 (where did those years go...) & at my next medical, I understand I will be required to undertake the full opthlamoligal assessment process once again. I understand the practical colour vision test has been dispensed with & that I will have to go through the Isihara & Lantern Test processes again. Given that I have a 99.9% chance of failing these, I was wondering if a "grand fathering" type clause might apply to those who passed under a previous system, especially given that "colour blindness" apparently doesn't get better/worse with age...
Has anyone been in a similar situation?

[Lead Balloon]

Are you a member of the CVDPA? If not, you of all people should be, and should have been for decades. CVD pilots owe Arthur Pape and people like John O’Brien, big time. Ask the CVDPA your question.

I suspect the answer to your question is that you will be culled by the CAD Test. Avmed considers that it has been unacceptably risky to allow defectives like you to exercise the privileges of an ATPL at night. You defectives achieve the same proficiency standards as non-defectives during recurrent operational testing by cheating - that is, practising so that you are proficient. It’s only through sheer luck (and the fact that you are proficient and the fact that identifying the colour of lights is no longer relevant to the safety of aircraft operations) that you have not caused a major disaster. There is a risk of you having to rely on light signals from a tower one day and mistaking the colour of those lights and landing or taking off smack into a huge chunk of aluminium painted white. An infinitesimally small risk, but one that can be mitigated by culling you. Thus the safety of air navigation demands that you be culled.

[Fantome]

[OP] . . . . . . ignore this rant. It is not even worth a moment's consideration. For starters you should see if you can't have a chat with Arthur Pape. (Cheat? Cheat? out of the mouth of Arch Hypocrite.)

[Lead Balloon]

My attempt at a mixture of advice, criticism and irony has apparently failed.

Arthur Pape is the heart of the CVDPA. My suggestion that [OP] ask the question of the CVDPA is, as a matter of practicality, precisely what you suggested [OP] do.

The fact that [OP] appears not to know that the CVDPA exists suggests to me that he is not a member of the CVDPA. Given what [OP] has said about his history, I reckon it’s pretty slack that he’s not an active member of the CVDPA. That’s my opinion and I’m not apologising for it.

Avmed will do to [OP] what Avmed chooses to do to [OP]. If you’ve read what Avmed said in the relatively recent O’Brien matter in the AAT, which arose from Avmed’s attempt to trash all of the good work of Arthur Pape that benefitted [OP] and many others all those years ago, you’d know that my ‘rant’ is simply a statement of Avmed’s opinion on pilots with CVD, at least at the point of the O’Brien decision. I hope that Avmed’s position has changed, but I have absolutely zero confidence in Avmed’s ability to be swayed by objective evidence or objective risk.

[The Sleeping Pax]

I have been diagnosed as colour-blind since the age of seven or so. I have taken the Isihara test so many times and always failed, especially on Red/Green colours. Until I was 59 and took the test in a different form.
Previously I have looked at cards in artificial light, but the last time I took the test six years back I was invited to look into a scope which sheltered my eyes from artificial light. To my amazement, I saw every number on the display for the first time. Talking to a colleague later I learned that he too saw all the numbers for the first time.
Is it possible that one sees colours more clearly when there is no background light? How is the test conducted during your examinations?

[john_tullamarine]

Is it possible that one sees colours more clearly when there is no background light?

(Caveat - no medical competence here - just a question from an interested bystander) Might it have something to do with the light temperature/spectrum used for the test ?

[Lead Balloon]

There is a grandfathering clause for CPL.Really?

Please provide a link to that “clause”.

[Cloudee]

https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/aviation-medicine/medical-certification-process-frequently-asked


Australia is more flexible in its approach than other countries in allowing applicants to sit multiple sequential tests for CVD where a fail is recorded and a medical certificate can be issued if at any stage any of the three-level tests are passed. Most overseas regulators do not allow this level of flexibility.

The procedures are:Initial issue of class 1 medicalsApplicants for a Class 1 Medical Certificate must either satisfy the criteria specified in CASR 67.150, or be found by CASA not to pose a danger to safety on account of their CVD. To satisfy the requirements of CASR 67.150, the applicant must first attempt the Ishihara test. If they fail that test, they must then undertake the Farnsworth Lantern test. If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken. Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant's CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.Initial issue of class 2 medicalsIf 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 renewalsNo immediate change. CVD Class 1 pilots may need to undergo a CAD test in the future.Class 2 medical renewalsNo immediate change.Air Transport Pilot Licence applicationsA certificate will not be issued until a test has been passed as per the existing regulatory requirements.

[Lead Balloon]

That’s not a grandfathering clause. That’s just Avmed waffle.If the Farnsworth Lantern test is also failed a third level of test specified (for the individual case) by CASA must be undertaken.That would be the CAD test, which the applicant will inevitably fail.Failure of that third-level test may allow for the issue of a medical certificate if CASA finds that the applicant's CVD does not pose a danger to safety. A Medical Certificate issued on this basis will be subject to certain limitations or restrictions.And what do you reckon CASA’s view will be on the question whether the applicant’s CVD poses a danger to safety, having failed all three ‘levels’ of test, and what do you reckon the “limitations or restrictions” will be?

[Lead Balloon]

I would urge every pilot with CVD to join the CVDPA, rather than watch from the sidelines as a dedicated few fight the Avmed zealots.

“I’m all right, Jack” is fine until you’re not, as I predict the OP is going to discover. I earnestly and honestly hope the OP isn’t culled, but I wouldn’t be betting on it. The OP is the holder of a Class 1 medical and is about to reach an age that will ‘trigger’ some tests. Note this from the Avmed waffle, with my holding:Class 1 medical renewals

No immediate change. CVD Class 1 pilots may need to undergo a CAD test in the future.As is Avmed’s usual Orwellian way, Avmed asserts something that is not true.

CVD Class 1 pilots do not “need” to undergo a CAD test at any time. The truth is they have no choice but to, if Avmed dictates it.

[Lead Balloon]

NEW ZEALAND LIFTS RESTRICTIONS FOR COLOUR VISION DEFICIENT PILOTS:https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/05/new-zealand-lifts-restrictions-for-colour-vision-deficient-pilots/

Highlights from the article:New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) director Graeme Harris said the changes represented a shift in operational policy towards these pilots in that they could operate aircraft safely in spite of their colour vision deficiency (CVD).“There is evidence that the majority of colour vision deficient pilots pose no greater safety risk than their normally sighted colleagues, as long as they are tested, and pass an appropriate assessment,” Harris said.

The CAA said the practical assessment would involve an experienced instructor examiner who would look at the individual’s ability and skills to recognise navigational charts, maps, cockpit instruments and terrain when they are in the air.

“In all cases the objective is not to name colours but rather, to correctly interpret the meaning of information conveyed by charts, instruments or lights, or to assess terrain conditions or obstructions,” the CAA said.Suck on that, Watson, Navathe, Drane and the rest of you scaremongering bloated leaches on the pilot population.

What are the chances of CASA Avmed approaching the issue of CVD on the basis of evidence and risk? I wouldn’t be betting on it.

[Lead Balloon]

And well done Arthur Pape, John O’Brien and the handful of other individuals who have been fighting the good fight to bring this about.

Mr Graeme Harris is to be congratulated, too, for seeing through the scaremongering and preferring to rely on objective evidence and objective risk analyses.

[LeadSled]

And well done Arthur Pape, John O’Brien and the handful of other individuals who have been fighting the good fight to bring this about.

Mr Graeme Harris is to be congratulated, too, for seeing through the scaremongering and preferring to rely on objective evidence and objective risk analyses.
Folks,
Excellent news, and just what the Commonwealth AAT determined, thanks to Dr. Pape, all those years ago, 1987/1988, and followed in Australia, without incident, until the "usual suspects" listed on the Avmed Hall of Shame turned it all on its head.
Tootle pip!!