2close

Hi troops,

Just to clarify colourblindgeek's comment on CEDAR having gone quiet.

He is correct of course but the reasoning behind that is that following very positive and favourable advice from Counsel, we need to cross one bridge at a time, the first being to exhaust all avenues of negotiation / appeal with the regulatory authorities.

We atempted to enter into negotiations with the UK CAA / EASA but were cynically dismissed out of hand. Their attitude will do them no favours whatsoever whilst our attempts at reasonable, rational discussion places us in a far more favourable light.

The next stage is to ensure that the statutory appeals process is followed. If this fails then we have the necessary trigger event to proceed the matter to the next stage on a significant number of grounds.

The appeals process is taking far longer than anticipated but once completed we will reconvene with a view to proceeding to the next stage.

We are aware that a large and growing number of people are affected by this process but please bear with us and we will get back to you asap.

Cheers,

2close

ROGER202

I had went for my medical @ Gatwick a couple of months ago. I was found to be CP4. I have had no problems with the colour vision cards in the past. I had to do colour assessment, the briefing I thought was rushed, i did'nt really know what was going on, something about colour not yellow or something. I am looking at appealing. If my appeal does not go well, i will have to wait for CAD...... anyone know when this date is?
If all else fails, where can I go from here with regards to gaining Class 1? .......... differnt country, europe, ireland??!

Cheers

Roger.

2close

If you genuinely believe the medical was rushed and that the procedures were not properly explained to you then you may have a statutory right of appeal under Regulation 6 (5) of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991.

(5) Any person who has failed any test or examination which he is required to pass before he is granted or may exercise the privileges of a personnel licence may within 14 days after being notified of his failure request that the Authority determine whether the test or examination was properly conducted.

Don't worry too much about the 14 days rule as I would bet good money that you weren't informed of your right of appeal, however, if you were informed then I'm afraid you would be unable to exercise this right.

You need to put your appeal in writing to the CAA Secretary & Legal Adviser, CAA, CAA House, 49 - 59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE.

It is also quite possible that the CAA Aeromedical Section may grant you another medical examination if you write to the Chief Medical Officer, explaining your complaint, however, I would still write to Legal asap to ensure the statutory right was covered, just in case the AMS refuses (they probably won't).

Good luck.

2close

nannodnai

Can anyone explain what that means, please ?

I'm familiar with the words "colour deficient", "safe", and "unsafe" but I have not heard of this terminology before. Can colour deficiency now be given some kind of numerical grading ?

2close

CP = Colour Perceptiveness

CP2 - Grade 2 - Passes Ishihara = Normal

CP3 - Grade 3 - Fails Ishihara but passes alternative testing = Colour Safe

CP4 - Grade 4 - Fails Ishihara and alternative testing = Colour Unsafe

These grades were to the best of my knowledge originally applied by the military services but have now been adopted across the board. They are the only grades - for some reason no CP1.

HTH

2close

2close

That's interesting.

As an AME do you apply JAR-FCL 3 to the requirement that states "You shall conduct the colour vision tests in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions" which, in the case of the Ishihara 24 Plate Test, up to 2 errors is a PASS; or, do you follow the other contradictory instruction within JAR-FCL 3 which states that Ishihara shall be conducted with a Nil errors pass criteria?

These two requirements obviously contradict each other and I wonder what the opinion of the AME community on this debate is.

Look forward to your reply.

2close

2close

Back to the subject in hand, any viewpoint on my previous question regarding Ishihara testing by AMEs and the criteria laid down in JAR FCL 3?

2close

Ponte

Great find!!!

Did you do it before spectrolux?

ScouseFlyer

Can assure you that can hold a JAR PPL and indeed IMCR with colour deficiency on a class 2 medical-limitation is that flight by day only-I unfortunately have a red/green colour deficiency and have held a licence for 5 years.

SF

TelBoy

In fact in the UK you can get a class 1 medical with no public transport and no night flight deviation on it.

Depends on flying he wants to do if NPPL or PPL is the right way for him to go, but colour vision deficiency will not stop him flying day on PPL and will not stop him getting an IMC rating.

You will find that instructors and clubs will not necessarily have the right information when it comes to medical issues.

Shunter

In actuality, most avenues are open to a colour restricted pilot. You can do a PPL, night rating (with instructor acting as safety pilot whilst you fly the P1 bits), IMC, CPL, IR, FI... the list goes on.

Instructors (and anyone else for that matter) are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the colour vision affair unless they've personally had experience of picking apart the ill-conceived, evidence-less, contradictory, swiss-cheese regulations. I spent a number of years doing so, and after spending thousands of pounds on the quest finally acquired a clean medical. The whole thing is bollocks, because the CAA have absolutely no idea what is and isn't safe in the context of safe operational requirements when it comes to colour vision. As a result we find ourselves guilty until proven innocent, with the CAA holding up the 'safety' card as their catch-all defence.... until someone sues the living daylights out of them... The sooner the better.

I'm not bitter, of course

Ponte - no, I found that after my Spectrolux test. I almost certainly would have acquired one had I discovered it before. It's been mentioned by someone else that they found it useful for preparation, but everyone's different.

iranian_pilot

hi im new i haven't seen this posted anywhere before please help!

the CAA have this on there site

Distance Vision
Your visual acuity (measured by your ability to see, in this case, lines of letters on a chart at 6 metres) must be at least 6/9 in each eye separately and 6/6 using both eyes together, with or without glasses or contact lenses (correction). If you need correction the refractive error (the amount of correction) must not exceed +5.00 dioptres of long sight or -6.00 dioptres of short sight. This is in the most ametropic meridian (taking into account any astigmatism). Astigmatism must not exceed 2.00 dioptres. The difference in correction between each eye (anisometropia) must not be more than 2.00 dioptres. Your optometrist will be able to explain these terms. both my eyes are 4.5 which is fine and have stabled meaning wont change

i dont suffer from any ilnesses i havent been hospital in nearly 4, 5 years 1 problem is my eyes, i wear glasses making my vision perfect i have no problem no colour deficiency nothing, only problem is my astigmatism MY LEFT EYE 2.5 THIS EXCEEDS CLASS 1 SAYING 2. MY RIGHT IS 1.5 HOW UNLUCKY IS THAT !! im really scared in FAA they dont say anything about astigmatism. i dont know what to do is my dream over please help me. A DREAM TO LOSE IS LIKE LIFE JUST SWEPT AWAY.

I haven't failed anything i haven't been for a medical test but knowing this is like saying what the point what do i do are they very strict help!

Blues&twos

Gerald_83 - I'm still here....I too am surprised that your eye specialist has recommended surgery. I would consider this a last resort. (Of course he might be right in your case!)

Following a transplant there will be a long period of steroid eye drop treatment (rejection prevention). Extended use of steroid eye drops can cause cataracts to develop early, ultimately requiring further surgery. Even years after my corneal grafts (25+ now) my consultant has explained that there is still a possibility of graft rejection being initiated by other problems within the eye.

If there is any way to avoid surgery, avoid it!!

Cirrusly

I have a green colour vision deficiency but have an Australian Class 1 medical certificate. I have clearance by CASA to fly in Australian airspace only, but it is still a class 1 regardless. I was wondering if that would be an issue if I were to try and get an equivalent medical certificate in Canada?

PPRuNeUser0161

CRG
Forget it, stay in OZ. Period.

Go do the practical lantern or the tower lights test and get your restriction lifted. We are lucky enough to have the best when it comes to colour vision rules, lets hope it stays that way.

TelBoy

The City Uni in London have the Nagel, and the CAA will accept their results as they seem to be in bed together!

OZ8919

I just came across this thread and thought I would join pprune and respond.
To make it short I have kerataconus in both eyes, worse in the left and have had it for over 10 years. With the FAA I get an opthamologist report every year for my first class and have 20/20 in both. It is a major pain in the a but it has let me fly for a living. Last year I was unable to wear a rgp in my left comfortably and had one segment of an itac put in that eye. Now I can wear a rgp with no discomfort. The FAA had no problem and I was also in contact with the ALPA aeromedical people in Denver.

I continued to pursue a flying carrer in college because it was all I wanted to do, and I never wanted to look back and say I wish I had.

Phenom100

I'm still here too.

Let me update you as to what i have since found out.

Well it's been just over a year now since i found out i had Kera's, I passed my Class 1 Renewal last year (Nov) using Hard Lenses (glasses no longer work for me) My vision is now very poor without the Len's.

I had been in contact with the CAA early part of this year to find out if l could have the x linking done and keep my Class one:

They replied in writing saying they think it would be a good idea to have it done (would loose medical for min 3 months) and i would get it back providing no problems occur, They informed me that NO Class 1 holder has had the procedure done, so l would be the first.

I have just completed my FATPL and expect in the next few weeks to look closer into the X linking. Will keep you all informed.

I do know that if you don't have the initial Class one (obtained at Gatwick) and you have Kera's they will NOT issue you with one. That said, i had it, but it was not picked up on my initial, so it's worth a shot.

One you have it and meet the required vision all is good.

2close

Interesting.

Should Australia, the USA and Canada, to name but a few which have far more relaxed CVD standards than the UK and JAA land, move the goalposts and start removing the livelihoods of working commercial pilots they'd best have a big slush fund of cash ready to pay out the numeorus class action claims that will be flooding into their Courts.

I think this is one of the CAA's major stumbling blocks with their CAD Test, getting other countries to come on board, which MANY of them do not want to do! The CAD Test MAY be easier to pass than the Holmes-Wright or Beynes Tests but it is still far more restrictive than the Farnsworth or Spectrolux Tests and on that point MANY presently UN-RESTRICTED FAA, TC or CASA licenced CPL/ATPLs could potentially lose their jobs if they were forced into taking this new test. And you can't go issuing grandfather rights to existing licence holders because that immediately destroys the safety argument and makes a mockery out of testing.

Now, you may call me cynical and conspiratorial but does it not sound odd to anyone else that a major driving force behind the worldwide adoption of the CAD Test is the very same person who started the research project that resulted in the CAD Test being developed? A little food for thought..............

What really annoys me about this whole issue is that the authorities can not supply one item of substantiated evidence that CVD pilots pose any greater a risk than any non-CVD pilot. ALL they have to rely on are a battery of lab rat tests which only determine whether or not a person has CVD not whether or not they are safe to operate commercial aircraft in a highly regulated, radar-controlled and often very automated IFR flight environment. Oh, yes, and one non-fatal incident in amongst many hundreds of millions of flying hours which fails to identify CVD as the primary cause; in fact, if you read the whole report carefully (and not just the bits which support the anti-CVD argument) you will find many issues which question CVD as being the cause.

This whole debacle is all about elitism, kudos and job protectionism by a very small group of individuals and s** all to do with aviation safety; that's only my opinion, for what it's worth.

Rant over! Soapbox away. Hat, coat, TAXI!!!

Gerald_83

Thanks OZ8919 for sharing your experience with me. May you continue to fly for many years to come!