Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colour vision and attitude towards it
Hi guys
well in our aviation world, colour vision requirements and pass standards really need attention.
I went to gatwick years ago, and was told that i was cp4 colour unsafe. well it turned out that i scored 13/15 ishihara plates, which i have been told by both an opticial and from the actual test itself that states that the test is considerd passed if the Subject can score 13 plates or more, ok. well JAA states 15/15?????, i also failed the lantern as the lights were so bl**y small and my eye are not like chuck yeagers, and the idiot that tests your eyesight is the most cheeky git becase he wrote an article o the way he tests you eyes and does not follow any of the proceedures like for the lantern, no demonstration lights nor dark adaption. ALLMOST LIKE HE WANTS YOU FAIL.
The armed forces will class you as cp2 colour normal for flying a fast jet, but the people who set the standards say that i cant fly anything commercial. I have a FAA CPL/IR under 300 TT, and a am getting really hacked off with how ever is setting the standards for eyesight, and hope that they sack them and employ someone with sense for when EASA makes its appearence.
For the amount of personal research i should be the one testing colour vision haha because i have become such an expert on this.
JAA was supposed to harmonise standards not make them worse.
Feel free to comment as the latter is all true and updated.
Cheers.
well in our aviation world, colour vision requirements and pass standards really need attention.
I went to gatwick years ago, and was told that i was cp4 colour unsafe. well it turned out that i scored 13/15 ishihara plates, which i have been told by both an opticial and from the actual test itself that states that the test is considerd passed if the Subject can score 13 plates or more, ok. well JAA states 15/15?????, i also failed the lantern as the lights were so bl**y small and my eye are not like chuck yeagers, and the idiot that tests your eyesight is the most cheeky git becase he wrote an article o the way he tests you eyes and does not follow any of the proceedures like for the lantern, no demonstration lights nor dark adaption. ALLMOST LIKE HE WANTS YOU FAIL.
The armed forces will class you as cp2 colour normal for flying a fast jet, but the people who set the standards say that i cant fly anything commercial. I have a FAA CPL/IR under 300 TT, and a am getting really hacked off with how ever is setting the standards for eyesight, and hope that they sack them and employ someone with sense for when EASA makes its appearence.
For the amount of personal research i should be the one testing colour vision haha because i have become such an expert on this.
JAA was supposed to harmonise standards not make them worse.
Feel free to comment as the latter is all true and updated.
Cheers.
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ridiculous thing is that whilst JAA specify 4 acceptable forms of CVD screening above Ishihara (administered to their butchered, ethic-slaughtering standards), there is not 1 single location, in any JAA state in which all 4 of these tests are present and correct in the same place. These stupid lanterns are about as easy to find as a limited-edition pink-vinyl 12" picture-disc of Agadoo signed by Alan Barton whilst he was on holiday in Skegness when the cloud cover was BKN026 and the wind was 370/10.
My case is a prime illustration of this bollocks. Failed Ishihara according to the CAA (Career Annihilation Authority) even though my 2 fails constituted a pass to everyone else with letters after their name. Failed both the lanterns at Gatwick (that mirror carry-on is the epitomy of stupidity). Being a stubborn little tuat I carted myself over to Zurich and, despite the last-chance-saloon, hyperventilation, clenching sphincter and knocking knees during the test passed the Spectrolux.
Getting a CP3 stamp doesn't make me a lot happier about it to be honest. It cost me a bloody fortune going here, there and everywhere in my quest. I was told categorically 15 years ago, aged 16, that I could never be a pilot, then as the years slowly passed the bull**** was gradually debunked and I got my PPL/IMC, then eventually night rating after passing the Speccy. Do I fly much at night? Do I hell, but that's not the point.
I've now long since passed the point in my life where I could feasibly pursue an airline career. I've got a mortgage to pay that simply isn't compatible with a RH seat job. The best I can hope for is some part-time instructing and being able to bend an IR to its limits whilst touring with the Mrs.
So, to conclude my Sunday-night rant (sponsored by the outstanding Le Riche Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2003):
1. The current testing regime is inaccurate, unreliable and discriminatory.
2. Are people going to sue the living daylights out of the regulatory authorities for their proposterously ill-conceived decades of stupidity? Almost certainly. Simply when, not if.
3. Will we get an apology for the diabolical treatment we have received because of our disabilities? Yeah right, but a nice thought. The word SAFETY will be rolled out on a huge carnival float in big, bright, flashing lights and everyone will cuddle up to the CAA knowing they did the right thing.
There, I feel better now.
My case is a prime illustration of this bollocks. Failed Ishihara according to the CAA (Career Annihilation Authority) even though my 2 fails constituted a pass to everyone else with letters after their name. Failed both the lanterns at Gatwick (that mirror carry-on is the epitomy of stupidity). Being a stubborn little tuat I carted myself over to Zurich and, despite the last-chance-saloon, hyperventilation, clenching sphincter and knocking knees during the test passed the Spectrolux.
Getting a CP3 stamp doesn't make me a lot happier about it to be honest. It cost me a bloody fortune going here, there and everywhere in my quest. I was told categorically 15 years ago, aged 16, that I could never be a pilot, then as the years slowly passed the bull**** was gradually debunked and I got my PPL/IMC, then eventually night rating after passing the Speccy. Do I fly much at night? Do I hell, but that's not the point.
I've now long since passed the point in my life where I could feasibly pursue an airline career. I've got a mortgage to pay that simply isn't compatible with a RH seat job. The best I can hope for is some part-time instructing and being able to bend an IR to its limits whilst touring with the Mrs.
So, to conclude my Sunday-night rant (sponsored by the outstanding Le Riche Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2003):
1. The current testing regime is inaccurate, unreliable and discriminatory.
2. Are people going to sue the living daylights out of the regulatory authorities for their proposterously ill-conceived decades of stupidity? Almost certainly. Simply when, not if.
3. Will we get an apology for the diabolical treatment we have received because of our disabilities? Yeah right, but a nice thought. The word SAFETY will be rolled out on a huge carnival float in big, bright, flashing lights and everyone will cuddle up to the CAA knowing they did the right thing.
There, I feel better now.
Last edited by Shunter; 30th Mar 2008 at 20:49.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England... what's left of it...
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and the idiot that tests your eyesight is the most cheeky git becase he wrote an article o the way he tests you eyes and does not follow any of the proceedures like for the lantern, no demonstration lights nor dark adaption. ALLMOST LIKE HE WANTS YOU FAIL.
That sounds like the guy that tested me...
(Valpolicella)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go guys; new stuff in the CAA Medical Pages.
REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008
Points of note -
In definitions there does not appear a definition of 'Aerial Work' under which caveat some of us are instructing on restricted Class 1 medicals that prevent us from flying Public Transport aircraft (now known as Commercial Air Transport aircraft).
Instead we have in Article 3 a definition of:
‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator;
'Any operation of an aircraft' would, on the face of it, appear to cover flight instruction!
Then we have Annex III
4. Medical fitness
4.a. M e d i c a l c r i t e r i a
4.a.1. All pilots must periodically demonstrate medical fitness to satisfactorily execute their functions, taking into account the type of activity. Compliance must be shown by appropriate assessment based on aero-medical best
practice, taking into account the type of activity and the possible mental and physical degradation due to age.
Medical fitness, comprising physical and mental fitness, means not suffering from any disease or disability, which makes the pilot unable:
(i) to execute the tasks necessary to operate an aircraft; or
(ii) to perform assigned duties at any time; or
(iii) to perceive correctly his/her environment.
4.a.2. Where medical fitness cannot be fully demonstrated, mitigation measures that provide equivalent flight safety may be implemented.
That last one is VERY interesting. Now we need to see the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material documents. I've checked the EASA website and there isn't anything in there yet!
NOTE!! The Draft Implementing Rules will be published for consultation during 2008. Keep your eyes open for these and make sure you make your comments.
REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008
Points of note -
In definitions there does not appear a definition of 'Aerial Work' under which caveat some of us are instructing on restricted Class 1 medicals that prevent us from flying Public Transport aircraft (now known as Commercial Air Transport aircraft).
Instead we have in Article 3 a definition of:
‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator;
'Any operation of an aircraft' would, on the face of it, appear to cover flight instruction!
Then we have Annex III
4. Medical fitness
4.a. M e d i c a l c r i t e r i a
4.a.1. All pilots must periodically demonstrate medical fitness to satisfactorily execute their functions, taking into account the type of activity. Compliance must be shown by appropriate assessment based on aero-medical best
practice, taking into account the type of activity and the possible mental and physical degradation due to age.
Medical fitness, comprising physical and mental fitness, means not suffering from any disease or disability, which makes the pilot unable:
(i) to execute the tasks necessary to operate an aircraft; or
(ii) to perform assigned duties at any time; or
(iii) to perceive correctly his/her environment.
4.a.2. Where medical fitness cannot be fully demonstrated, mitigation measures that provide equivalent flight safety may be implemented.
That last one is VERY interesting. Now we need to see the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material documents. I've checked the EASA website and there isn't anything in there yet!
NOTE!! The Draft Implementing Rules will be published for consultation during 2008. Keep your eyes open for these and make sure you make your comments.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daniel,
These are contentious issues.
The first part of your question is easy. You are tested using the 24 plate version of the Ishihara Pseudo-Isochromatic plates, using Plate No. 1 as a demonstration (not considering dyslexia or illiteracy, the colour contrast is so great you can correctly identify it even suffering with mono-chromaticism). Thereafter, Plates Nos. 2 - 15 are used for screening.
The Ishihara instructions clearly state that up to 2 errors still constitutes a pass. Any more than 2 errors and the examinee has failed.
JARs and the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine clearly state that all tests should be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
JAA member states apply a NIL errors policy, in clear contradiction of the manufacturer's instructions and their own regulations.
Following a 'failure' on Ishihara you will be tested on the Beynes and Holmes-Wright Type A Lantern Tests.
What is interesting is that the UK CAA's own published document:
PAPER 2006/04
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew - Part 1
The Use of Colour Signals and the Assessment of Colour Vision Requirements in Aviation
Page 54 of this document refers to Ishihara Testing on 471 'normal subjects', out of whom 182 made either 1 or 2 errors but are still classified as 'colour normal'. That is a staggering 38.6% of subjects making up to 2 errors (and 45% of subjects making up to 6 errors) whom the CAA itself classisifies as normal. I wonder what criteria was applied to these subjects to classify them as 'normal'?
The second part of your question is also contentious.
JAR FCL 3.225 states that colour vision testing is only required at the Initial medical and once passed should only be retested at Revalidation or Renewal on clinicial grounds. So, no further testing is required.
Additionally, assuming you've jumped through the hoops to meet the requirements for unrestricted Class 2 medical certification do you need to be retested at your Class 1 medical? The answer could possibly be 'Yes' as this is an Initial medical for Class 1 certification. However, it could be equally argued that CVD is very rarely progressive and therefore, having passed the requirements once at Class 2 certification and not thereafter displaying clinical signs of degradation there is no requirement for further testing at Initial Class 1 certification.
These are EU regulations and therefore open to a degree of interpretation - it is up to the individual to challenge the situation should it arise and to trust it to an independent judicial process to make the decision whether the medical department has acted correctly.
HTH
2close
These are contentious issues.
The first part of your question is easy. You are tested using the 24 plate version of the Ishihara Pseudo-Isochromatic plates, using Plate No. 1 as a demonstration (not considering dyslexia or illiteracy, the colour contrast is so great you can correctly identify it even suffering with mono-chromaticism). Thereafter, Plates Nos. 2 - 15 are used for screening.
The Ishihara instructions clearly state that up to 2 errors still constitutes a pass. Any more than 2 errors and the examinee has failed.
JARs and the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine clearly state that all tests should be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
JAA member states apply a NIL errors policy, in clear contradiction of the manufacturer's instructions and their own regulations.
Following a 'failure' on Ishihara you will be tested on the Beynes and Holmes-Wright Type A Lantern Tests.
What is interesting is that the UK CAA's own published document:
PAPER 2006/04
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew - Part 1
The Use of Colour Signals and the Assessment of Colour Vision Requirements in Aviation
Page 54 of this document refers to Ishihara Testing on 471 'normal subjects', out of whom 182 made either 1 or 2 errors but are still classified as 'colour normal'. That is a staggering 38.6% of subjects making up to 2 errors (and 45% of subjects making up to 6 errors) whom the CAA itself classisifies as normal. I wonder what criteria was applied to these subjects to classify them as 'normal'?
The second part of your question is also contentious.
JAR FCL 3.225 states that colour vision testing is only required at the Initial medical and once passed should only be retested at Revalidation or Renewal on clinicial grounds. So, no further testing is required.
Additionally, assuming you've jumped through the hoops to meet the requirements for unrestricted Class 2 medical certification do you need to be retested at your Class 1 medical? The answer could possibly be 'Yes' as this is an Initial medical for Class 1 certification. However, it could be equally argued that CVD is very rarely progressive and therefore, having passed the requirements once at Class 2 certification and not thereafter displaying clinical signs of degradation there is no requirement for further testing at Initial Class 1 certification.
These are EU regulations and therefore open to a degree of interpretation - it is up to the individual to challenge the situation should it arise and to trust it to an independent judicial process to make the decision whether the medical department has acted correctly.
HTH
2close
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also a possibility that if Daniel were a Class 2 Holder and subsequently failed the Ishihara for his class one they may choose to effectively revoke the class two or stamp it CP4 !
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daniel's profile says he hails from Venezuela so I'll make the assumption that he doesn't hold a JAA Class 2 but if he did why on earth would they revoke it?
I have held an unrestricted CAA Class 3 / JAA Class 2 / FAA Class 2 since 1992 and even though my aged, failing eyesight failed the lantern tests in 2005 (What coloured lights?? Oh, you mean that blurred mass over there!) no suggestion has ever been made that my Class 2 privileges would be revoked - in fact, exactly the opposite as they have confirmed in writing on more than one occasion that I hold unrestricted Class 2 and restricted Class 1 and since failing the Class 1 CVD tests have granted me a Night Qualification and Night Instructor privileges that I may use on my PPL.
So whilst I admit the system is crap and needs drastic re-evaluation and amendment I don't think that the CAA medical department always acts unreasonably......
..........just 95% of the time!!
I have held an unrestricted CAA Class 3 / JAA Class 2 / FAA Class 2 since 1992 and even though my aged, failing eyesight failed the lantern tests in 2005 (What coloured lights?? Oh, you mean that blurred mass over there!) no suggestion has ever been made that my Class 2 privileges would be revoked - in fact, exactly the opposite as they have confirmed in writing on more than one occasion that I hold unrestricted Class 2 and restricted Class 1 and since failing the Class 1 CVD tests have granted me a Night Qualification and Night Instructor privileges that I may use on my PPL.
So whilst I admit the system is crap and needs drastic re-evaluation and amendment I don't think that the CAA medical department always acts unreasonably......
..........just 95% of the time!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daniel,
I will try to explain this to you but there is a certain degree of the 'unknown' involved.
There are NO deviations permitted on Class 1 medicals for colour vision deficiency (CVD) in JAA member states. The VCL (Daytime only) deviations is permitted only for Class 2 medicals to permit PPLs to fly by day only.
However, the UK CAA has overturned that JAA ruling and issues its own CVD deviations for Class 1 medicals, these being VCL (Daytime only) and NPT (No Public Transport).
At present, with a NPT/VCL restricted Class 1 medical you can hold a UK issued CPL which permits you to undertake daytime remunerated work, known as 'Aerial Work'. This includes Flight Instruction, Glider Towing, Banner Towing, Crop Spraying and Parachutist flying. You CANNOT fly commercial air transport aircraft carrying fare paying passengers or freight, not even a Cessna 150 from Wycombe to Blackbushe (not very far!) and you cannot undertake any Aerial Work at night.
This is only applicable in the UK and is not permitted in any other JAA member state.
Now for the crunch. In September 2009, EASA takes over FCL 3 Medical regulation and NO EASA member states will be able to opt out of any regulations set by EASA. They are EU law and that is that - end of argument. All medical issues have to be decided by an EASA Medical Sub-Committee and it is feared that the present concessions to UK CVD pilots will disappear with EASA. The UK has only one vote on that sub-committee, the same as all other countries which are all against CVD CPL holders.
The question has been asked of the CAA but regrettably the answer is very non-commital which, reading between the lines, is not very encouraging.
So, in a nutshell, at present you can do aerial work on a CAA issued CPL but in the UK only. After EASA takes over the chances are that the concession will go. It may stay but........
I will try to explain this to you but there is a certain degree of the 'unknown' involved.
There are NO deviations permitted on Class 1 medicals for colour vision deficiency (CVD) in JAA member states. The VCL (Daytime only) deviations is permitted only for Class 2 medicals to permit PPLs to fly by day only.
However, the UK CAA has overturned that JAA ruling and issues its own CVD deviations for Class 1 medicals, these being VCL (Daytime only) and NPT (No Public Transport).
At present, with a NPT/VCL restricted Class 1 medical you can hold a UK issued CPL which permits you to undertake daytime remunerated work, known as 'Aerial Work'. This includes Flight Instruction, Glider Towing, Banner Towing, Crop Spraying and Parachutist flying. You CANNOT fly commercial air transport aircraft carrying fare paying passengers or freight, not even a Cessna 150 from Wycombe to Blackbushe (not very far!) and you cannot undertake any Aerial Work at night.
This is only applicable in the UK and is not permitted in any other JAA member state.
Now for the crunch. In September 2009, EASA takes over FCL 3 Medical regulation and NO EASA member states will be able to opt out of any regulations set by EASA. They are EU law and that is that - end of argument. All medical issues have to be decided by an EASA Medical Sub-Committee and it is feared that the present concessions to UK CVD pilots will disappear with EASA. The UK has only one vote on that sub-committee, the same as all other countries which are all against CVD CPL holders.
The question has been asked of the CAA but regrettably the answer is very non-commital which, reading between the lines, is not very encouraging.
So, in a nutshell, at present you can do aerial work on a CAA issued CPL but in the UK only. After EASA takes over the chances are that the concession will go. It may stay but........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the majority of EASA states would be concerned it would be business as usual. The only country affected is the UK.
Hence, the question has been posed at the CAA CMO, who is chair of the EASA medical sub-committee. The reply, paraphrased, is that "it is felt that the UK will be able to retain its discretion but this can't be guaranteed". I remain very sceptical at the reply.
But the UK will in all probability not be able to stand alone on this one, should all other member states decide to get rid of the UK's rights to issue Class 1's with deviations. The fact is that EASA regulations are EU law, applicable to ALL member states. Unlike EU Directives which provide requirements for EU member states which in turn make their own national legislation in the form of regulations based on the Directives, but which often interpret the Directives in their own way, EASA is an EU Higher Executive Authority which makes the actual regulations applicable across all EU member states.
It appears (not confirmed) from the recent EU Regulation 216/2008 that there will be no such thing as aerial work under EASA. There will be Commercial Air Transport and Private Transport (my phrases not the official ones). I sincerely hope that this will not be the case and await the consultation phase with baited breath so I can polish the soapbox and get my twopence worth in!!!
There is a group of us fighting this, which, for legal reasons I cannot go into on these pages, but the more support we can get the better.
2close
2close
Hence, the question has been posed at the CAA CMO, who is chair of the EASA medical sub-committee. The reply, paraphrased, is that "it is felt that the UK will be able to retain its discretion but this can't be guaranteed". I remain very sceptical at the reply.
But the UK will in all probability not be able to stand alone on this one, should all other member states decide to get rid of the UK's rights to issue Class 1's with deviations. The fact is that EASA regulations are EU law, applicable to ALL member states. Unlike EU Directives which provide requirements for EU member states which in turn make their own national legislation in the form of regulations based on the Directives, but which often interpret the Directives in their own way, EASA is an EU Higher Executive Authority which makes the actual regulations applicable across all EU member states.
It appears (not confirmed) from the recent EU Regulation 216/2008 that there will be no such thing as aerial work under EASA. There will be Commercial Air Transport and Private Transport (my phrases not the official ones). I sincerely hope that this will not be the case and await the consultation phase with baited breath so I can polish the soapbox and get my twopence worth in!!!
There is a group of us fighting this, which, for legal reasons I cannot go into on these pages, but the more support we can get the better.
2close
2close
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 60
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Daniel, Yes Australia does accept CVD Pilots, I am Mild Deutan not passing the Ishihara test but sent to the college of optometry for a lantern test and arrangement tests and passed, I was given a unrestricted Class 1 medical through to ATPL. Good Luck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget, for you guys young enough to still take advantage, the UK Royal Air Force now accepts CVDs onto its pilot training programme, and you can qualify as a 'winged' RAF pilot!!
Now that the military has moved the goalposts in such a dramatic fashion, maybe the civil air transport world will follow suit!
Don't hold your breath!!! The previous paragraphs were tinged with a hint of sarcasm.
What I really love is the wording of the disclaimer in the RAF's Minimum Visual Standards Document.
"The following are the minimum visual standards for acceptance for service in the Royal Air Force. These standards are subject to alteration without notice and no responsibility for consequences arising as a result of these changes can be accepted by the Ministry of Defence. The decision as to the individual’s fitness is the prerogative of the Medical Board which examines him/her.
CP2 = No errors are made using Ishihara plates in daylight or artificial light of equivalent quality. Tests carried out under normal tungsten of fluorescent lighting are not acceptable except where the ADLAKE lamp (or other easel lamp which provides daylight-equivalent illumination).
Pilot RAF - Minimum = CP2
"
Doesn't it make you laugh. You can just picture them all around the table down at Boss RAF's office in one of those Far Side style cartoons - "Look, he's going to be our boss soon and he wants to fly planes so maybe we'd best bend the rules....ok, ok, totally break them into millions of bits....and then we'll all get our pensions. Right then, whose fault is it? OK, we'll put a disclaimer in the standards and then it's the doc's fault.....sorry, doc! Nothing to do with the MOD, matey, you have a word with the Medics!! I love it (Mel Brooks style voice)"
Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely chuffed for HRH and genuinely wish him all the best. I really wish they would let him fly operationally and get his front line experience, like his brother and uncle.
But let's face facts, there is more than just a smidging of hypocrisy here on the part of the MOD, err........sorry, the AMEs!!
Now that the military has moved the goalposts in such a dramatic fashion, maybe the civil air transport world will follow suit!
Don't hold your breath!!! The previous paragraphs were tinged with a hint of sarcasm.
What I really love is the wording of the disclaimer in the RAF's Minimum Visual Standards Document.
"The following are the minimum visual standards for acceptance for service in the Royal Air Force. These standards are subject to alteration without notice and no responsibility for consequences arising as a result of these changes can be accepted by the Ministry of Defence. The decision as to the individual’s fitness is the prerogative of the Medical Board which examines him/her.
CP2 = No errors are made using Ishihara plates in daylight or artificial light of equivalent quality. Tests carried out under normal tungsten of fluorescent lighting are not acceptable except where the ADLAKE lamp (or other easel lamp which provides daylight-equivalent illumination).
Pilot RAF - Minimum = CP2
"
Doesn't it make you laugh. You can just picture them all around the table down at Boss RAF's office in one of those Far Side style cartoons - "Look, he's going to be our boss soon and he wants to fly planes so maybe we'd best bend the rules....ok, ok, totally break them into millions of bits....and then we'll all get our pensions. Right then, whose fault is it? OK, we'll put a disclaimer in the standards and then it's the doc's fault.....sorry, doc! Nothing to do with the MOD, matey, you have a word with the Medics!! I love it (Mel Brooks style voice)"
Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely chuffed for HRH and genuinely wish him all the best. I really wish they would let him fly operationally and get his front line experience, like his brother and uncle.
But let's face facts, there is more than just a smidging of hypocrisy here on the part of the MOD, err........sorry, the AMEs!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Argentina
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVD
Hi!
I read in a post that you have an unrestricted class 1 certificate taking a lantern test; do you know the name of the test? how was it taken?
Thank you very much,
Daniel.
I read in a post that you have an unrestricted class 1 certificate taking a lantern test; do you know the name of the test? how was it taken?
Thank you very much,
Daniel.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danielm from Argentina,
Any relation to our other Daniel from Venezuela? Is this a wah or are there millions of Daniels in South America?
In any case, Daniel(s), firstly you need to let us know which system you're looking at, JAA, FAA, Canada, Australia or wherever.
The reason for this is that different systems use different tests with very little, if any, cross cooperation across borders. There are those which look at the issue of CVD in a practical manner and there are others which are determined, come hell or high water, to maintain an academic (non-practical) approach.
So, a wee bit more information and we can bring you up to speed.
Cheers,
2close
Any relation to our other Daniel from Venezuela? Is this a wah or are there millions of Daniels in South America?
In any case, Daniel(s), firstly you need to let us know which system you're looking at, JAA, FAA, Canada, Australia or wherever.
The reason for this is that different systems use different tests with very little, if any, cross cooperation across borders. There are those which look at the issue of CVD in a practical manner and there are others which are determined, come hell or high water, to maintain an academic (non-practical) approach.
So, a wee bit more information and we can bring you up to speed.
Cheers,
2close
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi troops,
I have seen quite a few NEW names on this thread recently.
(Oops, sorry, edited for moron typing!)
As it is possible that not everyone is aware of what's going on, there are moves afoot to issue legal proceedings in the UK and EU.
It is your decision whether you wish to join this growing group but I can guarantee you that doing nothing will simply allow the authorities to do what they like.
As Windforce points out, EASA's removal of the CVD priveleges for restricted Class 1 medicals has the potential to take the livelihoods away from a significant number of Flight Instructors who are working on UK issued restricted Class 1 medicals.
If you wish to be involved, please PM me and I will provide you with further details.
Cheers,
2close
I have seen quite a few NEW names on this thread recently.
(Oops, sorry, edited for moron typing!)
As it is possible that not everyone is aware of what's going on, there are moves afoot to issue legal proceedings in the UK and EU.
It is your decision whether you wish to join this growing group but I can guarantee you that doing nothing will simply allow the authorities to do what they like.
As Windforce points out, EASA's removal of the CVD priveleges for restricted Class 1 medicals has the potential to take the livelihoods away from a significant number of Flight Instructors who are working on UK issued restricted Class 1 medicals.
If you wish to be involved, please PM me and I will provide you with further details.
Cheers,
2close
Last edited by 2close; 20th Apr 2008 at 23:23.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windforce,
You can do the Nagel at City University and they'll give you an official reportt for £75.00, which I believe the CAA will accept. Mind you, the Nagel is probably the most difficult test to pass by far.
Well, it would be a bit rich if the CAA refused to accept a report from its own contracted research organisation!!
But, nothing would surprise me any more!!
Best of luck,
2close
You can do the Nagel at City University and they'll give you an official reportt for £75.00, which I believe the CAA will accept. Mind you, the Nagel is probably the most difficult test to pass by far.
Well, it would be a bit rich if the CAA refused to accept a report from its own contracted research organisation!!
But, nothing would surprise me any more!!
Best of luck,
2close
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you serious?
Do you by any chance have this in writing? If so, could you please contact me via PM to arrange to send me a copy. If not, could you please get it in writing.
The requirements of JAR FCL 3.215 (b) are simple:
(b) An ophthalmological examination [by an ophthalmologist or a vision care specialist acceptable to the AMS (All abnormal and doubtful cases shall be referred to an ophthalmologist acceptable to the AMS)] is required at the initial examination [ ]and shall include:......etc.
If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt your word, the authority is saying that the vision care EXPERTS at City University Applied Visual Research Centre, who just happened to carry out the research for the CAA's CAD project, are not acceptable to the CAA for the purposes of conducting the very same tests that they have based that research on. Interesting!
That being the case, the authority seems to be placing doubt on the credibility of the research project itself (apart from several flaws that may already appear to exist in the research - oh well, another question to add to the list for the NPA. Public money obviously well spent!)
the CAA told me also that they can't accept a test from cityuni as they are not AME
The requirements of JAR FCL 3.215 (b) are simple:
(b) An ophthalmological examination [by an ophthalmologist or a vision care specialist acceptable to the AMS (All abnormal and doubtful cases shall be referred to an ophthalmologist acceptable to the AMS)] is required at the initial examination [ ]and shall include:......etc.
If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt your word, the authority is saying that the vision care EXPERTS at City University Applied Visual Research Centre, who just happened to carry out the research for the CAA's CAD project, are not acceptable to the CAA for the purposes of conducting the very same tests that they have based that research on. Interesting!
That being the case, the authority seems to be placing doubt on the credibility of the research project itself (apart from several flaws that may already appear to exist in the research - oh well, another question to add to the list for the NPA. Public money obviously well spent!
)
Last edited by 2close; 21st Apr 2008 at 23:37.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the CAA Medical Department do read these pages. Indisputable fact. And they know exactly who I am.
The guy at the CAA is an Optometrist and studied at Cardiff University to gain his degree.
Whilst I am totally against the JAA's ridiculous, antiquated and irrelevant rules I don't see how we can criticise individuals for doing their job by applying those rules. It's not the people we need to fight, it's the system. However angry we feel, making personal comments at individuals will only serve to turn them against us and refuse to work with us.
In response to Audimatt, you're not reading anything about the fight any longer because the legal wheels are turning and only those who have joined the legal action are being informed as to progress. That's not because we are trying to be elitist or are dismissal of anyone not joining us but simply because we cannot discuss the legal points on a public forum and also keeping everyone in the loop who is not involved may be a breach of privacy.
There is no doubt that if we are successful everyone will find out what has happened. Regrettably, until then we cannot say anything so you'll have to "watch this space". Sorry.
2close
The guy at the CAA is an Optometrist and studied at Cardiff University to gain his degree.
Whilst I am totally against the JAA's ridiculous, antiquated and irrelevant rules I don't see how we can criticise individuals for doing their job by applying those rules. It's not the people we need to fight, it's the system. However angry we feel, making personal comments at individuals will only serve to turn them against us and refuse to work with us.
In response to Audimatt, you're not reading anything about the fight any longer because the legal wheels are turning and only those who have joined the legal action are being informed as to progress. That's not because we are trying to be elitist or are dismissal of anyone not joining us but simply because we cannot discuss the legal points on a public forum and also keeping everyone in the loop who is not involved may be a breach of privacy.
There is no doubt that if we are successful everyone will find out what has happened. Regrettably, until then we cannot say anything so you'll have to "watch this space". Sorry.
2close