VISION THREAD (other than colour vision)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West Sussex UK
Age: 61
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took the CAA test last around 11 years ago. I have never had any issues with my SODA (apart from the CAA no accepting it and only giving me a restricted class 2 medical on the basis of my FAA class 1). However I have only ever worked as a flight instructor and don't any more but I would like to do it again and really want to push getting my UK 'day only' restrictions lifted. My colour vision fails the latern test but in reality flying at night I have neve had an issue with , VASA, PAPI etc and other aircraft. I had 1 1 hour flight test at night with an FAA medical examiner and he was satisfied. I'ts rediculus as I have a UK comercial licence but can only fly at day time!
When you say the CAA test has changed do you mean the holmes - wright latern test or whatever it's called, or something else. I like you are an old dude but I cannot get flying bug out of my head even now after all these years if I could have got a UK medical 20years ago I would be a virgin a340 skipper by now, bummer!
When you say the CAA test has changed do you mean the holmes - wright latern test or whatever it's called, or something else. I like you are an old dude but I cannot get flying bug out of my head even now after all these years if I could have got a UK medical 20years ago I would be a virgin a340 skipper by now, bummer!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm that is very interesting as the CAA seem to have changed there protocol for doing the beyne lantern. Went I did it with them around 3 years ago I was just shown each colour once and told to identify it, plus I wasn't told that the white is a dirty white and not a dulex one that I was expecting. This new protocol with showing each colour a couple of times is more like the german protocol that I passed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West Sussex UK
Age: 61
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have failed the h w latern test twice (once recorded, once not recorded) However I'm interested to know if the Beynes test (if you pass it) is the only one you have to do now or whether you have to pass BOTH? I found the h w hard and mixed up the green and white on at least one pass.
Thanks for the replies so far.
SY.
Thanks for the replies so far.
SY.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick test protocols!!
My Beyne test was the same as yours Benwizz, but my H-W was significantly different in places:
1. I only did the H-W test once, with the lights on, as you describe for your first run.
2. I was not offered a second H-W run of any format (lights on, in darkness, whatever).
3. For H-W the colour pairs were shown for 1-2 seconds max, certainly not 5 seconds.
Also for my Beyne, which was done in near darkness, I was only allowed a few moments for my eyes to acclimatise. Mind you I didn't ask for time to acclimatise, did you ask, or was it offered, or did it seem standard proceedure?
Does anyone think I've got a case for complaining, or a re-test? How would I prove what my experience was on the day? I've had the official letter classifying me as "CP4 colour unsafe" so I think it would be a battle...?
1. I only did the H-W test once, with the lights on, as you describe for your first run.
2. I was not offered a second H-W run of any format (lights on, in darkness, whatever).
3. For H-W the colour pairs were shown for 1-2 seconds max, certainly not 5 seconds.
Also for my Beyne, which was done in near darkness, I was only allowed a few moments for my eyes to acclimatise. Mind you I didn't ask for time to acclimatise, did you ask, or was it offered, or did it seem standard proceedure?
Does anyone think I've got a case for complaining, or a re-test? How would I prove what my experience was on the day? I've had the official letter classifying me as "CP4 colour unsafe" so I think it would be a battle...?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Age: 34
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything seemed standard procedure, she just said now we will do this, and after I did the H-W in the light, she said now you have 15 minutes in the dark for your eyes to adjust.
For the Beyne, I had the same as you, lights switched off and then just a few moments to adjust.
You could always give them a ring because I'm sure they'll have a record of the tests you did, she wrote mine down on a sheet ,presumably with different sections for the conditions. If not then I'm sure they will let you take the new PAPI test when it is introduced.
For the Beyne, I had the same as you, lights switched off and then just a few moments to adjust.
You could always give them a ring because I'm sure they'll have a record of the tests you did, she wrote mine down on a sheet ,presumably with different sections for the conditions. If not then I'm sure they will let you take the new PAPI test when it is introduced.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tel - I did the City Uni tests a while ago, my diagnosis was "Moderate Protonamly". If I'm honest with myself I think its unlikely I could pass however it was done, based on the variations described above I think I'd still fail them all. The Beyne lantern was my last hope really, I found it easier than H-W but still failed. If you're borderline on colour vision they're all damn tricky.
I feel reasonably confident I could pass the FAA practical test, because I have no problems landing at night with PAPI's etc (not P1 obviously, Pu/t!)
Its a good idea to get someone else to write to Gatwick on test protocols - I might try that.
Good luck everyone still fighting this.
I feel reasonably confident I could pass the FAA practical test, because I have no problems landing at night with PAPI's etc (not P1 obviously, Pu/t!)
Its a good idea to get someone else to write to Gatwick on test protocols - I might try that.
Good luck everyone still fighting this.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
East-sider,
If you weren't offered a H-W re-test in darkened conditions, it's because you made a critical error the first time around, i.e. naming red as green or vice versa.
You only get offered the dark adapted test if you make a non-critical error, i.e. naming red as white or green as white or vice versa.
The timing of 1 - 2 seconds is correct. Anyone having 5 second exposures has been very fortunate.
HTH
2close
If you weren't offered a H-W re-test in darkened conditions, it's because you made a critical error the first time around, i.e. naming red as green or vice versa.
You only get offered the dark adapted test if you make a non-critical error, i.e. naming red as white or green as white or vice versa.
The timing of 1 - 2 seconds is correct. Anyone having 5 second exposures has been very fortunate.
HTH
2close
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Age: 34
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also found the Beynes easier to see than the H-W in the light, apart from the White/Orange problem, as the lights were a lot larger. However, even though the H-W dots are very small, doing the H-W in the dark did make all the difference for me, as it was the brightness that she turned down before the test.
Best of luck
Best of luck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telboy,
The new tests are a screening test that you can view at City University's website, which it is proposed would be followed by a PAPI simulator that uses Red and White lights only.
I flew the ILS into a UK international airport the other day and had no problem identifying the PAPI lights from 6nm out - I have no idea how many PAPIs I've used during landings over the last 15 years but I can honestly say that their appearance does not appear remotely similar to the PAPI simulator.
Also, a point I have raised before, is that introduction of the simulator is discriminatory against protonomalous CVD persons as they may be unable to detect the red/white whereas a deuteronomalous person may be able to detect the red/white difference but be completely unable to discriminate between greens and other colours. Therefore, the latter may have a far worse form of CVD but be granted a Cl.1 medical on the basis of succesfully passing the PAPI simulator whereas the former, with a relatively mild red/white CVD, may be denied the medical.
2close
The new tests are a screening test that you can view at City University's website, which it is proposed would be followed by a PAPI simulator that uses Red and White lights only.
I flew the ILS into a UK international airport the other day and had no problem identifying the PAPI lights from 6nm out - I have no idea how many PAPIs I've used during landings over the last 15 years but I can honestly say that their appearance does not appear remotely similar to the PAPI simulator.
Also, a point I have raised before, is that introduction of the simulator is discriminatory against protonomalous CVD persons as they may be unable to detect the red/white whereas a deuteronomalous person may be able to detect the red/white difference but be completely unable to discriminate between greens and other colours. Therefore, the latter may have a far worse form of CVD but be granted a Cl.1 medical on the basis of succesfully passing the PAPI simulator whereas the former, with a relatively mild red/white CVD, may be denied the medical.
2close
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just pondering 
Does anybody think there is much 'ammo' here for a court case against the CAA and it's archaic regulations. Most people are aware of Dr. Pape in Aussie I assume. It feels like we've hit a brick wall, and need to knock the
thing down.
Does anybody think there is much 'ammo' here for a court case against the CAA and it's archaic regulations. Most people are aware of Dr. Pape in Aussie I assume. It feels like we've hit a brick wall, and need to knock the
thing down.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ww/W To be fair the CAA are looking into new colour vision standards, although they are being slow!!
As "potential" professional pilots we must all take responsibility for saftey and allow due processes to make sure that final desissions are what is correct and in the larger interest. We must overlook personal difficulties as if we do eventually reach our aims, we will be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis and I for one would sacrafice my own dreams, rather than put lives in danger.
However I am concerned that the new "PAPI" test people are talking about would not test for green. For me this would be an advantage and I think I would pass no problems, but green is an aviation colour!
In my own view the FAA procedures of practical testing are right and appropriate as they are based on what pilots need, rather than looking at dots or light boxes. If 8% of males are "colour blind" then take for example how many professional male US pilots there are - how many of these have had to pass the practical tests! Although company medicals and bias against the SODA waiver will root out a few, our skys must be full of FAA qualified pilots that could NOT pass JAA standards, however how many have had accedents caused by colour vision (none to my knowledge, although I will stand correction of course).
As for taking the CAA to court, I do not think it will help. If "we" win then we are likely to be restricted in so many ways that it would not be of any use (like Australia!!).
Maybe a poll sent to the JAA for European and US harmonisation so that we can all have a practical test - maybe a night flight test - maybe even with glass cockpit so that ALL the ICAO can have very similar standards and maintain saftey without compromising peoples rights against discrimination in the workplace.
As "potential" professional pilots we must all take responsibility for saftey and allow due processes to make sure that final desissions are what is correct and in the larger interest. We must overlook personal difficulties as if we do eventually reach our aims, we will be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis and I for one would sacrafice my own dreams, rather than put lives in danger.
However I am concerned that the new "PAPI" test people are talking about would not test for green. For me this would be an advantage and I think I would pass no problems, but green is an aviation colour!
In my own view the FAA procedures of practical testing are right and appropriate as they are based on what pilots need, rather than looking at dots or light boxes. If 8% of males are "colour blind" then take for example how many professional male US pilots there are - how many of these have had to pass the practical tests! Although company medicals and bias against the SODA waiver will root out a few, our skys must be full of FAA qualified pilots that could NOT pass JAA standards, however how many have had accedents caused by colour vision (none to my knowledge, although I will stand correction of course).
As for taking the CAA to court, I do not think it will help. If "we" win then we are likely to be restricted in so many ways that it would not be of any use (like Australia!!).
Maybe a poll sent to the JAA for European and US harmonisation so that we can all have a practical test - maybe a night flight test - maybe even with glass cockpit so that ALL the ICAO can have very similar standards and maintain saftey without compromising peoples rights against discrimination in the workplace.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get your points guys and do agree that action is needed, but not to only be slapped by further restrictions. Take Australia - for CPL they do not have ANY colour vision standards, but if you cannot pass a colour vision test, you can only fly in OZ - not a lot of use really.
This extract from 2Close is VERY interesting - "Disability Rights Commission stated that, to conform with the requirements of the DDA, the CAA could only refuse to issue a Class 1 medical certificate to a CVD pilot if they could prove that the person was not competent to hold such a certificate" Do you think if you hold an unrestricted class 1 FAA medical after all an ICAO state that that would be grounds for action.
As for the CAA/JAA failing to protect us from the CVD's - well we all know that the FAA HAS tested ALL of its pilots by a more informed and practical test than Europe and indeed they these people do NOT represent a problem.
In short YES we DO need change. If legal action is the only way, then that is what is needed, but just remember guys the CAA/JAA has a lot more money to fight the legal process than hard up pilots and while the CAA are in fact reviewing changes the legal process is likely to take a LONG time. But with regards to personal circumstances then I feel that each individual should fight under the DDA. I am indeed gathering ammo right now - will keep you all informed.
As for new tests PRACTICAL is the only way - no screening, let EVERYONE do a practical test. It will cost more and be more difficult to administer, but hey we all have to do a skills test don't we!!
This extract from 2Close is VERY interesting - "Disability Rights Commission stated that, to conform with the requirements of the DDA, the CAA could only refuse to issue a Class 1 medical certificate to a CVD pilot if they could prove that the person was not competent to hold such a certificate" Do you think if you hold an unrestricted class 1 FAA medical after all an ICAO state that that would be grounds for action.
As for the CAA/JAA failing to protect us from the CVD's - well we all know that the FAA HAS tested ALL of its pilots by a more informed and practical test than Europe and indeed they these people do NOT represent a problem.
In short YES we DO need change. If legal action is the only way, then that is what is needed, but just remember guys the CAA/JAA has a lot more money to fight the legal process than hard up pilots and while the CAA are in fact reviewing changes the legal process is likely to take a LONG time. But with regards to personal circumstances then I feel that each individual should fight under the DDA. I am indeed gathering ammo right now - will keep you all informed.
As for new tests PRACTICAL is the only way - no screening, let EVERYONE do a practical test. It will cost more and be more difficult to administer, but hey we all have to do a skills test don't we!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a copy of my Post from 12th January, better act fast guys cause if you agreed with my take on tyhe situation time is clearly running out for us all in respect of legal challenge.
I would suspect many of the readers of this forum are in a similar situation to me, waiting patiently for the new CAD / PAPI tests to be released by City Uni for the CAA to use. It can't come quick enough.
I thought it would be useful to just recap on the situation as I see it, these are the facts:
International aviation is governed by the ICAO and the Air Navigation Order which calls for Colour Vision sufficient for the safe performance of duties. Colour Vision requirements from country to country vary widely despite the fact that everyone has access to the same research and the same old researchers keep cropping up again and again.
The CAA have publically announced that they suspect (which really means know) they are excluding people on the basis of out of date tests and have commissioned City University to develop a new test which we eagerly await. It is the intention to get this test approved by the ICAO and have this new test introduced worldwide.
The DRC used to have the following question on their website, but now it has been removed:
Q:
I have been refused a professional pilot's licence because I have defective colour vision. I have passed certain tests that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) set but was unable to distinguish between red and green. Is the CAA discriminating against me by refusing to give me a licence?
A:
The CAA is a professional qualification body and has a duty not to treat people less favourably for reasons relating to their disability. However, it is likely that it will be justified in not awarding a licence to you if the ability to distinguish between red and green is a competence standard which is required to be a professional pilot.
Let me now offer my take on the situation, some will maybe see this as a conspiracy theory.
The CAA know they are discriminating as this has been alluded to by some of the medics, this is a bigger political issue than many people can appreciate because I suspect there may have been pressure from the DRC or some other government agency to do something about it in the face of changing discriminatory legislation both in this country and in Europe as a whole. This is not confirmed to colour vision, there seems lately to have been a flurry of watering down of the medical requirements relating to eyesight, medical conditions etc. Have the CAA sympathetically done this off their own back or has their been under pressure from a more 'senior' authority not to exclude people unless they can demonstrate evidence to back up their position 100%
You will notice the question that WAS posted on the DRC website, the question has been answered and the answer is 100% correct given the question asked. Let me ask the question another way:
Q:
I have been refused a professional pilot's licence by the UK CAA because I have defective colour vision. I am able to go to the United States of America and I am able to gain a Professional Pilots licence that enables me to fly in airspace, and land at airports in FAA N registered commercial aircraft at destinations all over the world including the UK. Exactly the same tests are used in both countries however each country has a significantly different 'pass' criteria. Both the FAA and the CAA have the same duty to set competence standards for pilots so that the requirements of the Air Navigation Order are met (ie colour perception for the safe performance of airman duties). Is the CAA, by setting medical requirements higher than in other parts of the world discriminating against me by refusing to give me a licence?
A:
?????????
The original answer was quite correct in stating that the 'CAA is a professional qualification body and has a duty not to treat people less favourably for reasons relating to their disability'. The fact is they are setting competency standards that are, in some cases way in excess those required in other parts of the world and therefore they are discriminating against people who want to fly in UK registered aircraft, albeit the people are from different parts of the world.
There is no arguing that the CAA do a good, professional job at enforcing the rules that are in force, but they as a professional organisation also have a duty to ensure that rules set are the safe minimum so as not to discriminate against ANYBODY!!! The FAA as an example have more relaxed rules relating to colour vision and by definition considers the safe minimum to be much lower than our guys at the UK CAA.
SO here is my rather cynical view.
The new test is being introduced because many recognise that the old tests are no longer appropriate and also to passify colour defectives and give them hope, they say the standard will be reviewed and relaxed if appropriate but there is no guarantee of this. I honestly hope it does. Meantime we wait patiently doing nothing and keeping the status quo.
In the background however there are wishes to allow the test to receive ICAO approval and it's use introduced worldwide as THE international colour vision standard. This test is backed up by evidence which no doubt will be authoritive and will be difficult to challenge. No longer will pilots have the opportunity to go down the FAA route if they fail a JAA medical cause all the standards will be the same, and guess what they used the toughest standards in the world to validate the new test!!!
Neither will the CAA be at risk from future claims of discrimination on the basis that it will not be possible to say that the CAA is treating people less favorably than the aviation authorities over the world, we will just be met with the answer this person has been excluded on the basis of the international competency standard for colour vision which is the same all around the world and this is quite legitimate.
SO, Problem solved......which problem? I hear you ask. Get a fair test that does not unnecessarily exclude colour defectives or protect the CAA from claims of discrimination?
Which is correct, only YOU CAN DECIDE!!!
I would suspect many of the readers of this forum are in a similar situation to me, waiting patiently for the new CAD / PAPI tests to be released by City Uni for the CAA to use. It can't come quick enough.
I thought it would be useful to just recap on the situation as I see it, these are the facts:
International aviation is governed by the ICAO and the Air Navigation Order which calls for Colour Vision sufficient for the safe performance of duties. Colour Vision requirements from country to country vary widely despite the fact that everyone has access to the same research and the same old researchers keep cropping up again and again.
The CAA have publically announced that they suspect (which really means know) they are excluding people on the basis of out of date tests and have commissioned City University to develop a new test which we eagerly await. It is the intention to get this test approved by the ICAO and have this new test introduced worldwide.
The DRC used to have the following question on their website, but now it has been removed:
Q:
I have been refused a professional pilot's licence because I have defective colour vision. I have passed certain tests that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) set but was unable to distinguish between red and green. Is the CAA discriminating against me by refusing to give me a licence?
A:
The CAA is a professional qualification body and has a duty not to treat people less favourably for reasons relating to their disability. However, it is likely that it will be justified in not awarding a licence to you if the ability to distinguish between red and green is a competence standard which is required to be a professional pilot.
Let me now offer my take on the situation, some will maybe see this as a conspiracy theory.
The CAA know they are discriminating as this has been alluded to by some of the medics, this is a bigger political issue than many people can appreciate because I suspect there may have been pressure from the DRC or some other government agency to do something about it in the face of changing discriminatory legislation both in this country and in Europe as a whole. This is not confirmed to colour vision, there seems lately to have been a flurry of watering down of the medical requirements relating to eyesight, medical conditions etc. Have the CAA sympathetically done this off their own back or has their been under pressure from a more 'senior' authority not to exclude people unless they can demonstrate evidence to back up their position 100%
You will notice the question that WAS posted on the DRC website, the question has been answered and the answer is 100% correct given the question asked. Let me ask the question another way:
Q:
I have been refused a professional pilot's licence by the UK CAA because I have defective colour vision. I am able to go to the United States of America and I am able to gain a Professional Pilots licence that enables me to fly in airspace, and land at airports in FAA N registered commercial aircraft at destinations all over the world including the UK. Exactly the same tests are used in both countries however each country has a significantly different 'pass' criteria. Both the FAA and the CAA have the same duty to set competence standards for pilots so that the requirements of the Air Navigation Order are met (ie colour perception for the safe performance of airman duties). Is the CAA, by setting medical requirements higher than in other parts of the world discriminating against me by refusing to give me a licence?
A:
?????????
The original answer was quite correct in stating that the 'CAA is a professional qualification body and has a duty not to treat people less favourably for reasons relating to their disability'. The fact is they are setting competency standards that are, in some cases way in excess those required in other parts of the world and therefore they are discriminating against people who want to fly in UK registered aircraft, albeit the people are from different parts of the world.
There is no arguing that the CAA do a good, professional job at enforcing the rules that are in force, but they as a professional organisation also have a duty to ensure that rules set are the safe minimum so as not to discriminate against ANYBODY!!! The FAA as an example have more relaxed rules relating to colour vision and by definition considers the safe minimum to be much lower than our guys at the UK CAA.
SO here is my rather cynical view.
The new test is being introduced because many recognise that the old tests are no longer appropriate and also to passify colour defectives and give them hope, they say the standard will be reviewed and relaxed if appropriate but there is no guarantee of this. I honestly hope it does. Meantime we wait patiently doing nothing and keeping the status quo.
In the background however there are wishes to allow the test to receive ICAO approval and it's use introduced worldwide as THE international colour vision standard. This test is backed up by evidence which no doubt will be authoritive and will be difficult to challenge. No longer will pilots have the opportunity to go down the FAA route if they fail a JAA medical cause all the standards will be the same, and guess what they used the toughest standards in the world to validate the new test!!!
Neither will the CAA be at risk from future claims of discrimination on the basis that it will not be possible to say that the CAA is treating people less favorably than the aviation authorities over the world, we will just be met with the answer this person has been excluded on the basis of the international competency standard for colour vision which is the same all around the world and this is quite legitimate.
SO, Problem solved......which problem? I hear you ask. Get a fair test that does not unnecessarily exclude colour defectives or protect the CAA from claims of discrimination?
Which is correct, only YOU CAN DECIDE!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that the FAA are going to implement a new colour test that will discriminate people even if it has been rubber stamped by City Uni in London.
I do believe that a legal challenge is the best way to blow away these archaic practices and tests. The best form of defense is attack and I just can't help thinking that an organisation sponsor such as AOPA or a Human Rights organisation could bring a class action against CAA. There is a greater chance of positive change if a very large group of pilots took a group legal action.
Is there a CVD pilot / barrister out there who would like to advise and organise ???
I do believe that a legal challenge is the best way to blow away these archaic practices and tests. The best form of defense is attack and I just can't help thinking that an organisation sponsor such as AOPA or a Human Rights organisation could bring a class action against CAA. There is a greater chance of positive change if a very large group of pilots took a group legal action.
Is there a CVD pilot / barrister out there who would like to advise and organise ???
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA v FAA thing is a good argument I think. The FAA will test practically if the screening test is failed. IF you pass their practical test, they give you a SODA (Statement of Demonstrated Ability), now we know there are thousands of male US pilots flying all around the world daily. By stats 8% of these should be CVD, so US CVD pilots are logging probably thousands of hours a week without colour vision related accedents. I think this shows the FAA HAVE complied with the Air Navigation Order.
Now consider this. If you fail tests at Gatwick and then ask them to take into consideration your FAA SODA and they say no - then they are surley either admiting that they are breaking the Air Navigation Order or that the FAA is - I'm sure that is not a good situation for them to be in.
For all those who have looked at legal action - has anyone taken advice on this? or has anyone actually asked the CAA to take an FAA SODA into consideration?
Hope that someone can give some interesting feedback about this.
Now consider this. If you fail tests at Gatwick and then ask them to take into consideration your FAA SODA and they say no - then they are surley either admiting that they are breaking the Air Navigation Order or that the FAA is - I'm sure that is not a good situation for them to be in.
For all those who have looked at legal action - has anyone taken advice on this? or has anyone actually asked the CAA to take an FAA SODA into consideration?
Hope that someone can give some interesting feedback about this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in my last post I believe the window of opportunity is closing and I would say it is time to put up or shut up in respect of a legal challenge.
Ideally the challenge would be made by an aspiring CVD pilot who would be eligible to apply for Legal Aid - but this takes time.
I agree a group of pilots would be the best way to proceed, you can tell from the posts that feelings on this subject are running at an all time high. I wonder how many are prepared to put their money where their feelings are???
I would estimate a challenge against the CAA would not be cheap as they would take it all the way. I would put a cost of £250,000 as a good figure to budget on an action costing, obviously if we win we would look to get our costs back and from the legal advice alluded to in this forum we have a more than good chance. The CAA's actions have shown us their hand, they are without doubt on the run!!!!
So are their 250 individuals out their who would be willing to risk £1,000 of their hard earned for the change of their dreams?
It is time to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and take positive action but it is going to take a reasonable number to do it. If anyone is wondering I am serious but we need the numbers.
Ideally the challenge would be made by an aspiring CVD pilot who would be eligible to apply for Legal Aid - but this takes time.
I agree a group of pilots would be the best way to proceed, you can tell from the posts that feelings on this subject are running at an all time high. I wonder how many are prepared to put their money where their feelings are???
I would estimate a challenge against the CAA would not be cheap as they would take it all the way. I would put a cost of £250,000 as a good figure to budget on an action costing, obviously if we win we would look to get our costs back and from the legal advice alluded to in this forum we have a more than good chance. The CAA's actions have shown us their hand, they are without doubt on the run!!!!
So are their 250 individuals out their who would be willing to risk £1,000 of their hard earned for the change of their dreams?
It is time to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and take positive action but it is going to take a reasonable number to do it. If anyone is wondering I am serious but we need the numbers.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Biggles,
I doubt if ICAO would introduce anything so specific.
As for the FAA having no choice, countries can deviate from ICAO SARPs - they merely need to advise ICAO of the deviation and lets face it, it's the USA we are talking about here; these days they hardly pay attention to world opinion or even international law on any other matter (e.g. Iraq, Kyoto).
I take it you're referring to Dr Tony Evans, in which case that is a line of approach worth considering.
2close
I doubt if ICAO would introduce anything so specific.
As for the FAA having no choice, countries can deviate from ICAO SARPs - they merely need to advise ICAO of the deviation and lets face it, it's the USA we are talking about here; these days they hardly pay attention to world opinion or even international law on any other matter (e.g. Iraq, Kyoto).
I take it you're referring to Dr Tony Evans, in which case that is a line of approach worth considering.
2close
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth!
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astigmatism and the JAA
Hi,
I hold Class 1 medicals in OZ, NZ, SIN etc, lately by virtue of renewal standards not being overly concerned with my changes in uncorrected vision over the last 20 years.
The problem is I have high astigmatism in my left eye (+.75 SH / -4.00 CYL / 105 AXIS). Right eye is OK; (.50 SH / .75 CYL / 95 AXIS)
I see the new JAA class 1 initial issue standards state a limit of 2.00 dioptres for astig.
So I felt that had knocked me out of getting a JAA Class 1 medical, but have heard about CAA UK isssuing something called a "deviation" clearance, allowing pilots to enable them to complete their training. After that they can get a renewal with no such limits. Is this true? Anyone who knows care to comment?
I hold Class 1 medicals in OZ, NZ, SIN etc, lately by virtue of renewal standards not being overly concerned with my changes in uncorrected vision over the last 20 years.
The problem is I have high astigmatism in my left eye (+.75 SH / -4.00 CYL / 105 AXIS). Right eye is OK; (.50 SH / .75 CYL / 95 AXIS)
I see the new JAA class 1 initial issue standards state a limit of 2.00 dioptres for astig.
So I felt that had knocked me out of getting a JAA Class 1 medical, but have heard about CAA UK isssuing something called a "deviation" clearance, allowing pilots to enable them to complete their training. After that they can get a renewal with no such limits. Is this true? Anyone who knows care to comment?
