Nisar

I went for my initial class 1 at Gatwick this April and was told by the optometrist/optican that my eye sight was borderline even though I met the visual standards. She showed a topography map of my eyes and said my left eye has a rugby ball shape and the eye is steepening. The doctor advised me at the the end of the complete examination that I had to book another appointment and see an consultant opthamologist at Gatwick.

I went back last week and met the consultant who said that I had the big 'K' and that as I met the visual standards (with specs) and my condition was mild I was allowed a Class 1. He did however say that my condition may deteriorate over time and for the next few years I would have to renew the medical at Gatwick and see one of the consultant opthamologists at the same time.

I also asked him about X-linking but he said it was not his area of expertise and that the CAA did not allow it as it was experimental. His opinion was that as my condition is mild, I didn't need to consider this option yet but to continue to monitor it.

It's good news to hear after reading Danny C's post regarding the CAA and X-linking, I'll be looking out for your post on this.

gijoe

So where is this going then?

Colour-blindness research could clear more pilots to fly: UK CAA

It will be interesting to see if the CAA can persuade the ICAO authorities - the ones with powers in the lands that they control the airspace of (!) - to think along the same lines as them.

2close

Yes, each aviation signal light colour has a design spectrum range that it must remain within.

But of course the super-intelligent people who design the lighting systems couldn't quite figure out that it may be a practical and safe idea to choose lights that aren't in close proximity to each other and to use colours which have dissimilar spectral properties.

So we have colours with very similar spectral properties and the Lantern Tests are designed to ensure that you are tested at those extremities.

So it was explained to me by an ex-spurt!

niallp

Hey has any1 heard anything about the new research done in london on colour vision testing? I read an article in flight international about a new way of testing and 35% more people with colour vision problems could meet minimum standars. The chief medical officer of the CAA said she was goin to the ICAO to promote theses findings. It never said how they were going to test people or when these new measures could be in place. Just wondering if any1 else heard about this and knows anything about it?

2close

The research study was done in two parts.

The fist part was conducted by Qinetiq at Farnborough who determined that the ONLY real colour critical tasks wer:

(a) Parking Stand lights - I have discussed this with a number of high hour long-haul flight crew who were highly sceptical of this finding, and;

(b) Precision Approach Path Indicator lighting systems


The second part of the study was undertaken by London City University Applied Visual Research Centre who conducted a series of laboratory tests with Colour Vision Deficient persons.

The net result was that a piece of software (CAD) has been developed which it is claimed can identify whether or not an individual's CVD is within limits for commercial aviation.

The CAD has been described by many as completely irrelevant and an 'academic's wet dream', which, when you consider the professional qualifications that some have gained and indeed may still stand to gain from it, could be seen to be a fair comment.

This project has probably cost the CAA a significant amount of PUBLIC funds, money which should have been spent on real aviation safety, and if the CAD does not gain acceptance throughout EASA or even the world then egg may be on faces. It has been rumoured that there is resistance to its introduction in some JAA member states,especially those that have a more enlightened view and do not consider CVD to be a significant hazard to flight safety.

What is of very significant importance is the statement that 35% extra examinees may become colour safe. Putting it simply, that means that they are colour safe now but just because there is a very flawed testing system they won't allow them to fly. So the system blanket prohibits everyone with even the mildest of CVD regardless of whether they pose a hazard to flight safety. You cannot move safety parameters on the basis of changing a test. That is absurd and you cannot have a more blatant example of positive discrimination than this. Despite the claims of certain persons that the Courts would never entertain such a claim.....well, let's see, shall me.

Hope this helps.

Bealzebub

So what is it you want? Everybody to agree with you that colour vision deficiency doesn't present a safety risk? The CAA are taking a viewpoint that by bringing in a more relevant testing regime there would be a greater chance of a candidate with a CVD achieving the new requisite standard for the issuance of a medical certificate. This suggests that elements of the current system could be disregarded in exchange for a more focused and colour perception relevant test. It is their job to discriminate, and anything that does so in a positive manner should surely be applauded rather than derided.

Colour perception is without doubt an important element in flight safety. Difficulties in the distinction between taxiway and runway lighting and the associated nuances at a busy airport, as well as colour gun failures in CRT tubes etc. Is important and relevant whatever you may think, or like to hear. It is also relevant that these standards are not something that is naturally degenerative, but perhaps compensated by correction and experience (such as for example, presbyopia.) This is something that would affect potential candidates at the front end of their would be careers.

If the CAA are moving towards a better or more updated system that will help more candidates achieve the standard, surely you would encourage such a use of "public funds," particularly since this particular "public" is the CAA's customers.

2close

Excellent, a counter argument. Welcome to the fray, Bealzebub.

But I can't agree with your argument at all.

Firstly I do not expect anyone to agree with me but what I do expect is for evidence to be provided to support an argument; that has not been achieved for the simple reason that there is no evidence available. The CVD argument is based on presumptions that CVD pilots are not safe and archaic rules (based themselves on even more archaic maritime laws). The immovable 'protectors of the standard' will not be swayed.

I presume you are familiar with the CAD test, in which case please explain how that test is in any way relevant to aviation safety. Even if it had some relevance, it is still possible to pass it by guessing. After all, you are only required to press one of four buttons and you could hit the right button every time without thinking about it. Statistically it is unlikely that anyone would pass in this manner but it is NOT impossible. Therefore, if any such possibility exists and the issue is SO safety critical then the test is flawed and CAN NOT be used. Any acceptance of any possibility of guesswork simply destroys the safety argument.

There has not been any risk assessment or safety analysis conducted in this area and not one single study of actual practical ability - in fact when confronted with such evidence the response was to refuse it for no other reason than it's not allowed under JARs. Several claims have been made regarding risk assessments but on each occasion when asked to present such they have been unable to do so.

The statistical data speaks for itself. The USA and Canada both permit CVD pilots to fly Public Transport operations by day and Australia by day and by night. The rules in Australia were changed as a result of Court action which examined the operational factors and concluded that the CVD standards were unnecessarily prescriptive and ordered the Australian CAA to change the rules - how many incidents have there been since then? Err, NONE!!

These countries also use CVD testing regimes which are not as stringent as JAA standards therefore as well as those pilots it identifies as CVD under its own standards it stands to reason, on a simple statistical balance of probability, that a number of non-CVD pilots (by the standards of their own country) operating foreign PT aircraft into JAA airspace do not meet JAA CVD standards. If anyone who fails to meet JAA standards presents such a risk to safety please explain to me why the JAA authorities permit these persons to operate aircraft in JAA airspace. It is ridiculous to state that these people are not safe enough to fly our 747s but they'll willingly let them fly 'dangerously' in JAA airspace in a foreign 747 because they've passed someone else's tests. That is ridiculous.

Despite all these CVD pilots flying PT operations, in over 4.5 BILLION flying hours in the last 20 years there has not been one single incident which has been solely attributable to CVD and only one where it MAY have been a contributory factor. The statistics are well within the JAA's own stated acceptable risk tolerances.

On your specific example, a written statement has been made that there have been numerous runway incursions by pilots failing to correctly identify runway lighting, however, what the author seems to have missed is that these have all been committed by colour 'normal' pilots.

And no, the CAA is not allowed to discriminate. I would have thought you would know that all public bodies have a duty not only NOT to discriminate but to take positive measures to actively ensure that no discrimination takes place and this must be clearly stated in policies, practices and procedures.

If I believed that there was a need for such prescriptive prohibition of CVD pilots flying PT aircraft at all times and that there was a relevant and robust method of CVD testing which was supported by a proper study involving real life testing with both Colour Normal and CVD pilots - there are enough of both - (and not lab rat examinations designed to facilitate the development of a particular irrelevant test) I would whole-heartedly support it but I genuinely feel that every aspect of this issue is flawed, from the overly prescriptive criteria, the complete lack of thought regarding operational limitations, the necessity for testing, the method of study and the type of test which has resulted.

I believe that the public funds could have been far more productively spent, even in this specific area.

But these are merely my opinions. You are of course entitled to yours.

Bealzebub

Much of the argument and reasoning is contained within the CAA's own proposal document which can be read here.

There is a valid argument in the need for CVD discrimination for the issuance of a class 1 medical certificate. In all aspects of medical certification there must be standards set that provide for an enhancement of safety. It is a fairly weak argument to simply suggest that the lack of an accident or incident is in itself sufficient cause to relax a certifying standard. Equally the argument that the majority of accidents or incidents involve those who do meet the standards is moot, since they are obviously either the only participants, or where permissable, in the vast majority.

The whole issue of colour perception is of relevance to aviation safety. To suggest it could be passed by guessing, is as you point out statistically minute, and therefore provides a high degree of discriminatory relevance. To suggest that any possibility of a single failure to successfully detect a weakness renders the whole process invalid, is very naive. There is no guarantee that a person assessed as fit on a medical examination will not suffer a cardiac arrest or a brain anurism the next day. Indeed such things have happened. However that does make the whole process of medical examinations redundant, simply on the basis that such screenings may not on occaissions be perfect.

Yes quite possibly, however the JAA also sets its own standards for pilot performance testing. It is quite conceivable that a few pilots operating into the jurisdiction might not satisfy the requirements of the JAA in those respects, even though they do in their own jurisdiction. Neverthleless the international rules of mutuality would suggest that this also happens on occaissions. It may be ridiculous, but that isn't an argument for any one state to lower its own minimum standards. Untill it becomes a focus for investigation, nobody is usually any the wiser.

Oh but it is! Nobody is suggesting unlawful forms of negative discrimination such as race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. This is a regulatory authority that has a primary task of discriminating. To be clear we are talking about the primary use of the verb, to make or see a distinction, to show good judgement or taste. That is exactly what they required to do in the regulatory and statutory execution of their authority. It is what we as pilots do every day in every relevant decision we make.

As you say we are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect the longevity and robustness of your particular advocacy. However I feel this is a positive proposal from the CAA that is likely to benefit a number of CVD future candidates for certification.

2close

Regrettably (as far as an officer of the CAA would be concerned) that is exactly what is being alleged and apart from clear UK case law in this area there is also an overwhelming agreement from Legal Counsel that the CAA is unlawfully discriminating in a number of areas, and we have spoken to a very significant number of solicitors and barristers on this matter.

Shunter

Again, you miss the point. The majority of JAA medical criteria are backed by evidence. There is plenty of evidence that being diabetic can lead to incapacitation, and is hence dangerous. There is plenty of evidence that heart problems can lead to incapacitation, and is hence dangerous. Pilots with poor general eyesight could easily misread the QNH on their altimeter and fly into a mountain, except such risks are brushed under the carpet due to the large number of pilots requiring corrective glasses, especially with age.

Let's take a soft target, CVD pilots; a small minority, easily victimised. Is there any evidence their disability presents a danger? No. Has such a disability ever been identified as the cause of an accident? Not really, the only accident ever vaguely attributed to CVD was found to be more likely caused by fatigue.

If anything, pilots with poor general eyesight are far more dangerous than CVD pilots but the political fallout from pursuing such a notion would be astronomical. If colour vision were something which degraded with age, the current situation would not exist.

I have no problem with evidence-based standards, but no such evidence exists in regard to colour vision. Fictional rules invented by ex-mil hooray henrys from yesteryear without any basis in fact are simply not acceptable in the modern world. If it poses a safety issue, prove it. If you can't provide the evidence, why are you enforcing it? I happen to have 1 ear bigger than the other; as far as the evidence is concerned that poses an equal threat to safety, because no such evidence exists. The days when those in charge could get away with "persecution by default" have long since disappeared; the onus is on the regulator to prove us unfit, not the other way round. The modern legal system will simply not tolerate such discrimination and those who continue to perpetuate such fiction will be bent over and sued senseless. It's not a case of if, but when.

The CAA medical head has told me in person that the current colour vision testing regime is "unfit for purpose". Both the head of medical the the head optometrist are very capable, intelligent individuals who are having to deal with misguided historical bull**** in the most pragmatic way they can. The CAD test is a risk mitigation; nothing more, nothing less. A mitigation against litigation, by attempting to inject some fact-based science into the argument. Whilst the test itself might paint a more accurate picture as far as nature and extent are concerned, the CAA still have absolutely no idea what pass/fail criteria are representative of those necessary for a pilot to safely discharge their duty.

2close

Regretably, legal matters do tend to be very protracted.

Before one can bring an allegation of discrimination, a discriminatory act has to (allegedly) take place. As a result of Regulation 6(5) of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 an individual has a right of appeal over ANY examination conducted by the CAA. Therefore, until that right of appeal has been exhausted one could not realistically bring an allegation of discrimination as an appellant may be succesful in his or her appeal. As you are probably aware such appeals are presently under way. Until these appeals are concluded it would be frivolous to even consider bringing any action in the higher Courts.

It would hardly be of any point in making such an allegation if it wasn't. As I mentioned earlier, there is established case law in this specific area, in the UK Courts and overseas, which supports the discrimination claim.

But as to your other point, yes, of course both parties will always find numbers of legal practitioners to support their respective arguments, hence the dynamic character of the law and its basis on precedence.

But as Shunter has so rightly put it, it is not up to the claimant to prove that he has been discriminated against - the law now requires the defendant to prove that they have not discriminated against the claimant. Simply putting it, they cannot do that as they have without doubt discriminated against a very large number of individuals. The only defence would be justification and in some circumstances that defence is not even available. If it is available, in order to prove justification the defendant will have to produce a cast iron safety case based on statistical data and risk analysis of which there is none!

It would be ludicrous to suggest that the reason that there haven't been CVD related incidents is because the standards prevent CVD persons from flying because the innacuracy of that argument is ably demonstrated by those countries that do permit CVD persons to fly commercially WITHOUT incident, even if only by day.

However, if it does come to the High Court I have little doubt that hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money will be spent defending an unsustainable argument, which has no evidence to support it.

Ponte

TelBoy.

I've passed the CAD and Nagel in city. You say CAA will accept my results?
I've done the rest of the exams in Portugal and have a trip planned to spectrolux very soon

Ponte

I think this is a relevant question.
Most of the companies do their own exams even if you have a class I medical.

Do you know companies who accept CVD with class I medical?

regards

niallp

Hey anyone got any idea is there a big difference between a homes wright lantern and a beyne?? I'm thinking of booking a beyne in london because i already failed the homes wright. Odds are i'll probably fail but i've heard some people can pass one and fail the other so i have to give it my best shot. I also read an article in a Dublin newspaper today that CAD testing should be introduced in the next 2-3 months!

Ponte

niallp,

they are very different.
I suggest you go to citi uni and understand your problem.
A brief description of lanter tests is writen here.

But I suggest you try them all so you won't have any doubts!!

I'm goig for spectrolux. I've passed Nagel but in city uni, which, I've been told in portugal it's not accepted because it was made in a university..

good luck

Ponte

Nialp: introduced where??

Can you share the article plz?

niallp

Thanks for the advice. The article was in The Evening Herald in Dublin. It didn't go into alot of detail. It said explained about the CAA going to the ICAO with the CAD test to get them to introduce it to your medical. The said it should be in place in the next 2-3 months but thats all. I e-mailed the ICAo and the CAA myself to try and get some more information but havn't heard anythng back yet. If i do, i'll post it here straight away.

Oh and would different lantern tests suite different people better depending on the type of cvd they have?

abzyyy

What is the Nagel? I study at City Uni London! lol

About two years ago I used to post on PPRuNe alot asking about colour vision type stuff. I'm now studying to be an engineer, but deep down I really want to some day be an Airline Pilot... I remember hearing some time ago that 'they' (dunno who that refers to) were doing research on assessing how much colour has anything to do with safe airmanship. Anyone know about that or what has come out of that research?

Shunter

Nagel is some ancient piece of equipment quite unlike the usual prehistoric lanterns. Looks a bit like a microscope and you look into 2 eyepieces. You twist the dials until the 2 colours look the same, then if the dial index is between certain reference marks, you've passed!

As far as the Farnsworth is concerned, I'm not Australian but I believe it's acceptable for the issue of a Class 1 medical. The airlines are largely irrelevant as your medical looks exactly the same as someone else's. You have achieved the required standard and further discussion about colour vision is about as relevant as discussion about that large mole on your arse.

niallp

hey guys,

Does anybody know if the results from citi uni are excepted by the caa? I am planning on going to get tested but would i still have to pass a lantern at gatwick after? thanks