Shunter

It is considered a facet which does not change with age. The fact that you have an unrestricted medical is testament to the fact that you have at some point passed an approved colour vision test. If they do decide to test you, simply be upfront about it and tell them you have a slight deficiency, but took this test, that test, it cost you a large amount of time and money, but you reached the required standard.

If you've had an unrestricted medical and been flying with it, it's very difficult for them to take it away unless they have a damn good safety reason for doing so. I would say the likelihood of it happening would be slim to say the least.

Ponte

Shunter,

I've been in London, city uni and failed holmes and aviation lights.
I've passed Nagel anomaloscope, farnsworth D15 and city uni test, 2nd edition.

I'd like to go for Nagel in a certified AME since I don't think I can pass the spectrolux because my defect is with green (light and dark greens).

My diagnosis is:

Mild/Moderate deuteranomalous trichromatism
description

Does anyone have the same problem and managed to pass spectrolux?
Does anyone knows any AME CAA certified to do nagel in copenhagen?
Any other helpful tips?

Thanks again guys

TelBoy

You can do both the Nagel and Spectrolux at Spiez in Switzerland.Hope this helps.

colourblindgeek

Windforce.
I can't remember the exact distance, but certainly felt closer than Gatwick's Beyne Lantern. I reckon on 3 metres.

The key difference for me was that the lights themselves look significantly bigger and thus appear much clearer and easier to see.
If you are protanomolous, I believe you have less chance. A mild deutanomolous appears to have more chance. The City report confirms this.
I am a very mild Protanomolous and scored 11 out of 12 on the first run and 12 out of 12 on the second run. That is a fail!

I presume you have already been to Gatwick to do Holmes Wright, Beyne?

In the City University report, it gives you more details of the distances and aperatures

http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/members/j...lour_study.pdf

Best regards

colourblindgeek

Windforce.
You have to explore every avenue. You are lucky, you have time on your side. I'm 35 and have been battling this ludicrous situation since the age of 28 when I discovered that ishihara plates are only one of the tests that the CAA use. I know I am a 'very mild' protanomolous.
Ask yourself this question.
Are you colourBLIND? Do you see in black and white? No, I didnt think so.
Have you ever flown in a light aircraft above an airfield and thought.... "look at all those different coloured lights". I do all the time. I then ask, why is it that I can't pass the lantern test, but I can see all the lights on a runway.
Simple. The CAA and JAA use lantern tests to decide whether that make you fit to be a pilot. Their rules - their game.
If you want my opinion, you should sit the Spectrolux. Otherwise you will spend your life wondering. I am in no doubt that I can pass the spectrolux. If I can get 11 out of 12 on the first run and 12 out of 12 on my second run, then if I do a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th run then law of averages says I have a pretty good chance of getting 2 runs correct.
I just need to justify yet again to Mrs M that I need to spend another £160 getting to the ar** end of Switzerland and back to play by the JAA rules.
And if you fail, then you join the group of individuals who are not prepared to sit back and watch the dreams of hundreds of young men shattered by antiquated rules. The CAA do want to introduce a new test but the guidelines and rules have not been decided/thought of/published. But then I am of the firm belief that practical tests are the only solution.

Spectrolux, JFDI as they say. You have to - otherwise you'll always wonder what if? I sleep at night knowing that I have done everything possible so far.
Oh - and if you thought the Beynes was 'nearly' passable then you could ask for a retest. Send me a Private Message if you want some more help.

Shunter

windforce, I was in the same boat. Same diagnosis at city uni, everything.

I found the Spectrolux a lot easier than the Beynes and HW. Yes, it was the last chance saloon but fortunately I passed it. As I keep telling people, by far the most critical part of the test is knowing that the colour hues (shades) change during the test. Almost everyone on here has been to Gatwick, NOT known this and subsequently failed the tests. I've taken a HW test recently and had no problem passing it, so I'm in no doubt that the psychological factor is far more of a barrier than the colours themselves.

It's logical isn't it? You take a test, and all they tell you is, "The lights might be red, green or white". So you see a colour, and you think, "that looks like a light green to me, but I just saw a green a moment ago and it didn't look like that. Therefore logic dictates it must be white". Wrong. Failed.

You CAN retake HW and Beynes tests, just not at Gatwick. That's not a JAR rule, just some stupid little CAA policy. There is nothing in JAR-FCL3 which refers to whether retests are or aren't allowed, and since in JAR-land everything not expressly prohibited is permitted, retakes are perfectly acceptable under the current rules. Mind you, isn't this EASA bollocks coming in round about now?

I'd have a crack at the Spectrolux if I were you, but don't get yourself wound up over it. Get over there the day before and get a good night's kip, turn up fresh & relaxed.

colourblindgeek

And do read some of Shunters earlier threads about hotels. It still cracks me up picturing him in his bermudas with all the naked Swiss around him!

Shunter is right about the hues. I still think that the variation in hue on spectrolux is more definative than on any others - again maybe because the lights are bigger.

So basically they will show you a bright green, a darker green, a bright white, a dark white, a bright red and a dark red. They do this in pretty much any combination and you just have to call green, red or white.

Read the city paper linked earlier on. Read it all the way through and you will be as prepared as you possible can. Take Shunters advice - stay over if you can, or at least make sure that the whole day is relaxing and that you are not tired, hung over etc....

Good luck

ST-EX

Windforce,
I completely agree with Shunter's advice-stay overnight, get a get rest and just get it over with. The longer you leave it, the more it becomes a big deal and you will just stress yourself out and perform badly. The optician in Spiez is a very nice guy, he will put you at ease and has seen many pilots try these tests, so try not to worry.
If you're thinking of doing it, call them or fax them now-you will have about a months waiting time so be ready for that. They will also do a Nagel test to determine what the problem was-bite the bullet and get it over with. You will know one way or another-best of luck

Need money

Has anyone out there passed the colour vision test (of whatever method by hook or by crook !), and subsequently failed at renewal....... be that an actual fail or failing the test but having the medical passed as it is not a retest pass / fail item (if that makes sense)....

I know the theory of once passed - should stay passed (as it is not something we grow in / out of per Gatwick) - but just interested to know any practical examples ?

Hope that makes sense.

Shunter

I'm not aware of anyone who, once having passed an approved colour vision test at an approved colour vision testing facility with an approved optometrist has subsequently had their colour-safe status revoked.

As you say, it's a facet considered not to change with age. They use this justification to prevent you from taking retests of the lanterns at Gatwick. They can't have it both ways. If you've passed, you've passed!

benjamino8888

hello
i want to go and do the spectrolux in switzerland
has any one got the address for it??

Shunter

A quick use of the PPRuNe search facility is all you need...

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health...ml#post4008406

AMEandPPL - quite a number of us on here have personal experience of the "CAD" test, and opinions vary. Personally I feel it's an improvement on the current lantern disco-light farce, but what it retains in similarity to the lanterns is its irrelevancy. It can pinpoint the nature and extent of one's CVD very well, but there seems to have been little in terms of research as to how this relates to one's practical colour requirements in order to discharge their duties as a professional pilot. Practical, demonstrated ability is the only fair way to deal with this. The FAA realised this years ago.

The CAD test is being pushed by the CAA at ICAO level, but I don't see the FAA wearing that one. They've got thousands of pilots flying around on SODAs (demonstrated ability certifications). For them to adopt a new test which those SODA holders would fail would be simply ridiculous, putting them in a, "one minute you're safe, the next minute you're not", situation.

Incidentally, I have an unrestricted Class 1 medical. It did however take me over 10 years of banging my head on a brick wall, a lot of research and a lot of money to get it. Needless to say I still remain absolutely livid that I was denied careers in both the RAF and professional civil aviation by irrelevant and unscientific tests which the CAA's medical head has in person described to me as, "not fit for purpose".

AMEandPPL

You are very welcome, the least I can do ! I'm happy to pass on the latest official thinking, even if it doesn't get any more people actually flying just yet !
Must admit that this is one area I tend to see from a different perspective from most of you. Through nothing more than good fortune, I am not CVD. The nearest I get to it is seeing the (approx) 1 : 15 young male SPL candidates who cannot read straight through the series in my Ishihara book ! My heart usually sinks when I have to explain to them what probably lies ahead !
Anyway, thanks for your comment; it's nice to feel appreciated, even if only by some. Good luck to you all.

benjamino8888

id just like to add my story onto this

i have never noticed or had cause for concern about my colour vision until i relised i wanted to be a pilot. i made the first step by seeing an aviation doctor whom did some basic tests. this included giving me the ishiara plates. i subsiquently failed these but when i told him i did not notice he began pointing colours out around the room and asking what they were. his answer was your problem doesnt seem to be noticable and i should be fine with the lantens at gatwick.
i failed both lantens but only slightly i.e i can tell easily the differnce between red/green and red/ white. but on a few occasions when the hues changed i got some green/white wrong. now i couldnt help but think if the lights were just one metre closer i could see them as they seemed a little blurred at a distance.
i wont give up because even though i accept i have a problem i know it will not affect my ability to recognise the actual signal lights used by aircraft. i have spent hours in an ATC tower and can perfectly distingusih all the runway and taxi lights. i have been in the cockpit a few times and have no problem recognising the approach lights.
what the CAA are doing is discriminating against people that could clearly do the job. the only way i will give up is if i practically prove im unsafe i.e im in a cockpit actually looking at lights i need to do the job flying in an aircraft with an examiner with me asking me to identify the lights.

now i have read very helpful threads on the spectrolux but what i want to know it how far away is the spectrolux from yourself when you take the test and are the lights bigger that the holmes wright?
and also as a last resort does anyone have any more info on SODAs and where to take this test?

hope someone can help!

belowradar

XpertHR > Article > Colour vision requirement discriminated against men

Recent judgement in favour of a CVD police officer who has CVD and was removed from duty. He won his case for indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex bias (more men suffer from CVD than women).

This means that a precedent has been set in UK law which means that discrimination due to CVD is indirect sex discrimination !

I recommend any pilot who is discriminated against to check their home insurance or employment insurance cover to see if they are covered for legal costs and if they are

1 - Lodge an appeal with CAA to remove CVD restrictions on license
2 - If not successful at appeal take CAA to court using insurance policy to cover costs, claim indirect discrimination (and cite above precedent)

You will win !! it is purely a matter of cost hence check insurance cover. We need all pilots to now take action as we have a solid legal basis for winning and having these arcane restrictions removed.

Shunter

That is indeed a very interesting piece of information. There is already some legal action being pursued on the matter, so he respective forum member(s) might find this useful.

The CAA use the catch-all justification of "safety", however they have never provided any evidence to justify their ultra-conservative stance. There has only ever been one aviation accident in which CVD was cited as a possible issue, but pilot fatigue (a much more dangerous condition) and failure to follow SOPs were clearly far greater contributing factors. Some argue that the FAA system is too lax, but a tentative link to a statistic of 1 is hardly a solid grounding of evidence. Whether it is or isn't, its base in practical, relevant, appropriate testing is far more substantial in terms of the application of fairness and common sense. If there really was a valid safety concern, we wouldn't be in the position we are in today, with potentially hundreds of long-haul commercial pilots from other ICAO states (who could never pass our ludicrous CVD tests yet are declared safe by their own state) flying in and out of JAR-land on a daily basis.

The difficulty for the authorities is providing solid, scientific, peer-reviewed benchmarks in terms of practical colour vision standards required for flight crew to safely discharge their duties. I don't envy this task, but in order to ever construct an appropriate and relevant colour vision evaluation system it is something which must be done. In the absence of such research it is unfair, and almost certainly illegal, to deny CVD pilots the opportunity to prove in a practical, appropriate and relevant fashion that their disability does not prevent them from being a safe commercial pilot.

AMEandPPL

Not sure if that implies that you already know you have some sort of CVD !

If not, why not just ask your GP to take you through the Ishihara book ? Could save a lot of time and travelling expenses if your CV were normal !

AMEandPPL

Fine ! In which case, look here for contact details :

Colour Vision Clinic - City University London

robert f jones

In 1950 I failed the colour vision test with the Ishihara plates, but managed the light check. 45 years of flying, 14,000 hours plus 4000 hours simulator instructing, no incidents and now retired, I am entitled to ask on behalf of so called "colour deficient people", how in gods name do (the CAA) still cling on to a 60 year old system ? Do we still test pilots on wind driven instuments. Time to move on I believe, if that is at all possible.

2close

Hi RFJ and welcome to the mad-house,

I would be interested to learn what you flew, in what capacity and between what years.

As you took the lantern test well before Holmes-Wright came into play, do you recall what test you took?

This information could prove very useful to our campaign and please feel free to contact me by PM.

Best Regards,

2close