Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
If I remember correctly your son has CVD but managed to pass one of the lantern tests.
For your information the CAA have issued a report based on the City Uni study which categorically states that the current testing regime is not fit for purpose, furthermore it states quite categorically that there is no proven factual basis to the current restrictions for CVD pilots and that the situation is very unfair.
The new test will not change that, what is needed is clear leadership and evidence based risk analysis leading to more enlightened regulations.
That is what CAA medical say !
If I remember correctly your son has CVD but managed to pass one of the lantern tests.
For your information the CAA have issued a report based on the City Uni study which categorically states that the current testing regime is not fit for purpose, furthermore it states quite categorically that there is no proven factual basis to the current restrictions for CVD pilots and that the situation is very unfair.
The new test will not change that, what is needed is clear leadership and evidence based risk analysis leading to more enlightened regulations.
That is what CAA medical say !
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belowradar,
Is that your interpretation of the report, or does it really state that categorically? If it is the latter, could you cite me the page number references.
My concern is that there remains an ability to make distinction between the colour hues of many lighting issues on a busy airport and in both serviceable and defective flight deck instrumentation displays. It is not really acceptable to lower a standard based on the statistical evidence of a lack of accidents by CVD pilots, since there are obviously degrees of severity, and invalid assumptions. You could argue it doesn't matter if a pilot is hearing impaired as long as the other pilot isn't. Statistical evidence might also suggest a lack of proven accidents, however that cannot really be a basis for lowering the standard.
My understanding of reading the report is, that it is seen as bringing the testing regime up to date such that it should assist around 30% of those CVD pilots who might otherwise fail, (as you point out, by no means everyone presently does,) back into contention. In other words, there is no proposal to do away with a CVD standard of acceptability, (as indeed there shouldn't be,) but simply to bring both the standard and the testing regime more up to date.
Is that your interpretation of the report, or does it really state that categorically? If it is the latter, could you cite me the page number references.
My concern is that there remains an ability to make distinction between the colour hues of many lighting issues on a busy airport and in both serviceable and defective flight deck instrumentation displays. It is not really acceptable to lower a standard based on the statistical evidence of a lack of accidents by CVD pilots, since there are obviously degrees of severity, and invalid assumptions. You could argue it doesn't matter if a pilot is hearing impaired as long as the other pilot isn't. Statistical evidence might also suggest a lack of proven accidents, however that cannot really be a basis for lowering the standard.
My understanding of reading the report is, that it is seen as bringing the testing regime up to date such that it should assist around 30% of those CVD pilots who might otherwise fail, (as you point out, by no means everyone presently does,) back into contention. In other words, there is no proposal to do away with a CVD standard of acceptability, (as indeed there shouldn't be,) but simply to bring both the standard and the testing regime more up to date.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some statements from page 1
Over the last 30 years technology has improved greatly but colour vision tests remain unchanged
Historically it was assumed that clour deficient pilots would not make suitable professional pilots. The difficulty of defining how different or deficient an individuals colour vision can be without being unsafe has often been avoided by requiring applicants to have normal colour vision.
The benefits of requiring normal colour vision in the aviation environment are difficult to assess.
It is not certain that present requirements and testing procedures are appropriate for the tasks pilots carry out in their profession.
Page 428
The reason for excluding all protanomalous subjects as professional pilots needs further investigation.
Page 429
The current situation is unsatisfactory .....a better understanding of colour vision requirements in the aviation environment is also needed so as to set sensible pass/fail criteria that are relevant and safe
Over the last 30 years technology has improved greatly but colour vision tests remain unchanged
Historically it was assumed that clour deficient pilots would not make suitable professional pilots. The difficulty of defining how different or deficient an individuals colour vision can be without being unsafe has often been avoided by requiring applicants to have normal colour vision.
The benefits of requiring normal colour vision in the aviation environment are difficult to assess.
It is not certain that present requirements and testing procedures are appropriate for the tasks pilots carry out in their profession.
Page 428
The reason for excluding all protanomalous subjects as professional pilots needs further investigation.
Page 429
The current situation is unsatisfactory .....a better understanding of colour vision requirements in the aviation environment is also needed so as to set sensible pass/fail criteria that are relevant and safe
Last edited by Bad medicine; 23rd Jun 2009 at 09:53. Reason: Stick to the subject - play the ball not the man
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't have access at this moment in time to the relevant document but the CAA Medical Department has at length insisted that medical standards are based on risk assessment and statistical analysis and that there is a specific incident probability rate in relation to medical incapacitation, below which a person would fail to meet medical certification standards.
There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that a CVD pilot would be unsafe. It is all based on conjecture and assumption and that is totally unprofessional.
And a study of less than 200 people!!! What sort of an objective study is that to base a set of supposedly professional conclusions on, conclusions which can have a very detrimental effect to a person's future?
I'm sorry if it causes offence but I find it laughable.
There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that a CVD pilot would be unsafe. It is all based on conjecture and assumption and that is totally unprofessional.
And a study of less than 200 people!!! What sort of an objective study is that to base a set of supposedly professional conclusions on, conclusions which can have a very detrimental effect to a person's future?
I'm sorry if it causes offence but I find it laughable.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAD Article
Hey all
The link Niall was talking about is as per the below
Colour blind? New test means you can still be a pilot - World News, Frontpage - Herald.ie
Regards
Modhop
The link Niall was talking about is as per the below
Colour blind? New test means you can still be a pilot - World News, Frontpage - Herald.ie
Regards
Modhop
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was a professional pilot (with a relatively mild CVD) in the USA, Canada or Australia I would now be cacking it.
If the powers that be get their way and try to force this test on all countries, that will be a major problem for these (and possibly other) countries.
This test has been designed using the over-zealous, UK imposed, JAA standards as a benchmark.
The CAA has played up to the allegation that more applicants may now pass the CVD tests and be able to hold professional pilots licences and that may be correct........in the UK!!!!
However, the difference between the JAA Standard and the standards in these countries (all of which already permit CVD pilots to fly professionally, WITHOUT their aircraft falling out of the skies) is significant and if you were to place the JAA Standard at one end of the scale and the 'Others' Standard at the other end the CAD Test would fall somewhere in between.
So, a claimed 30 - 35 % of JAA applicants may pass but at the cost of how many applicants from these other countries?
Even far more importantly, what about working pilots who may be required to take the CVD tests again? What will happen to someone who fails? Loss of career and livelihood?
If the introduction of a new test is that important, why didn't they carry out an ICAO directed study using existing professional pilots from all four countries, funded equally by all countries? I would like to know how much this has cost, who paid for it and gained from it.
I think International AOPA coordination for REAL practical verification of the validity of the CAD Test is needed.
On another point, there are strict rules regarding the introduction of new medical procedures. What medical validation has this test undergone? What clinical studies of potential ill effects has been undertaken on a test deliberately designed to expose the examinee to rapidly flashing bright lights shone directly into the eye (that's the one that they warn you about before every TV article and movie!!)? They have already been verbally advised that people have suffered nausea and headaches after taking the CAD Test and they couldn't have been any less interested - "Oh, it can't be our test!!" Not even the slightest investigation, just complete dismissal, in exactly the same way as CVD pilots were dismissed when they requested involvement in the process.
Be interesting to see who blames who when you get the first adverse reaction occurring, as the culture of liability shift creeps in. Best they have a big cheque book ready and should the worst possible scenario occur, someone had better get ready for a stripey sun-tan. Improbable - YES; Impossible - NO!!
But I would wager big money that the risks are greater than those of a CVD pilot stuffing a 737 into the ground.
Masters of shifting goal posts and double standards!!
If the powers that be get their way and try to force this test on all countries, that will be a major problem for these (and possibly other) countries.
This test has been designed using the over-zealous, UK imposed, JAA standards as a benchmark.
The CAA has played up to the allegation that more applicants may now pass the CVD tests and be able to hold professional pilots licences and that may be correct........in the UK!!!!
However, the difference between the JAA Standard and the standards in these countries (all of which already permit CVD pilots to fly professionally, WITHOUT their aircraft falling out of the skies) is significant and if you were to place the JAA Standard at one end of the scale and the 'Others' Standard at the other end the CAD Test would fall somewhere in between.
So, a claimed 30 - 35 % of JAA applicants may pass but at the cost of how many applicants from these other countries?
Even far more importantly, what about working pilots who may be required to take the CVD tests again? What will happen to someone who fails? Loss of career and livelihood?
If the introduction of a new test is that important, why didn't they carry out an ICAO directed study using existing professional pilots from all four countries, funded equally by all countries? I would like to know how much this has cost, who paid for it and gained from it.
I think International AOPA coordination for REAL practical verification of the validity of the CAD Test is needed.
On another point, there are strict rules regarding the introduction of new medical procedures. What medical validation has this test undergone? What clinical studies of potential ill effects has been undertaken on a test deliberately designed to expose the examinee to rapidly flashing bright lights shone directly into the eye (that's the one that they warn you about before every TV article and movie!!)? They have already been verbally advised that people have suffered nausea and headaches after taking the CAD Test and they couldn't have been any less interested - "Oh, it can't be our test!!" Not even the slightest investigation, just complete dismissal, in exactly the same way as CVD pilots were dismissed when they requested involvement in the process.
Be interesting to see who blames who when you get the first adverse reaction occurring, as the culture of liability shift creeps in. Best they have a big cheque book ready and should the worst possible scenario occur, someone had better get ready for a stripey sun-tan. Improbable - YES; Impossible - NO!!
But I would wager big money that the risks are greater than those of a CVD pilot stuffing a 737 into the ground.
Masters of shifting goal posts and double standards!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I believe, as well as publishing their highly directed 'study' (a means towards a desired end), they should also publish details of:
I would also be extremely interested to learn whether the introduction of the test conforms with National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines.
Genuine question for medical personnel - does shining bright, flashing lights into an examinee's eyes qualify as an invasive procedure?
Also, how do we know that the software has been subjected to proper software trials. I am sure there must be some Software Engineers around these pages that can enlighten us as to the specific requirements. How would anyone know whether the software is operating correctly or not? Who is supporting it? What happens when it goes tits up?
Lastly, ANY change to ANY procedure under JARs requires the publishing of a Notice of Proposed Amendment together with a Regulatory Impact Assessement.
The process has to be put out to consultation to both industry and the public with anyone being allowed to feed their opinions into the melting pot.
Hello!!! Where are these?
- Risk Assessment on usage of the CAD Test
- Clinical study data
- Financial costings
- Software validity testing
- Persons benefitting financially and/or professionally as a result of its introduction.
I would also be extremely interested to learn whether the introduction of the test conforms with National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines.
Genuine question for medical personnel - does shining bright, flashing lights into an examinee's eyes qualify as an invasive procedure?
Also, how do we know that the software has been subjected to proper software trials. I am sure there must be some Software Engineers around these pages that can enlighten us as to the specific requirements. How would anyone know whether the software is operating correctly or not? Who is supporting it? What happens when it goes tits up?
Lastly, ANY change to ANY procedure under JARs requires the publishing of a Notice of Proposed Amendment together with a Regulatory Impact Assessement.
The process has to be put out to consultation to both industry and the public with anyone being allowed to feed their opinions into the melting pot.
Hello!!! Where are these?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's on the agenda gijoe,
It just needs to be done at the right time and through the right channels.
Just got a couple of hoops to jump through in the very near future then the gloves come off.
It just needs to be done at the right time and through the right channels.
Just got a couple of hoops to jump through in the very near future then the gloves come off.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll answer in detail by PM but to be honest I have no desire to fly heavy metal for airlines nor have I ever had.
What really pi**es me off is a set of inappropriate and irrelevant, antiquated rules which have no real bearing on aviation safety (and even less evidence of their relevance), and which are denying the chance of a rewarding and fulfilling career to many young men who would probably make excellent airline pilots. Apart from the blatant discrimination, this is morally wrong.
If CVD pilots genuinely pose a risk to flight safety, then PROVE IT. Don't base standards on 100 year old assumptions just because it suits a purpose and keeps a very small number of people in a job.
I know for an absolute fact that there are commercial pilots operating today with CVD who have managed to buck the system (and good luck to them!). Even if the CAA do manage to get their new baby accepted will they insist on testing everyone again to ensure that everyone meets the new standard? No, of course not because they know (and a certain person in authority has said so) that there are pilots out there who do not meet their standard and if they were to try and ruin their careers they would be sued to bankruptcy.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing - it's about time the progressively inefficient CAA was replaced by an operationally effective organisation that gives good value for money....any value for money would be a step in the right direction.
Rant over.....time to take my non-prescription, illegal, mind-relaxing medication..........wibble!!!!
(Note rapid mood shifts!!)
What really pi**es me off is a set of inappropriate and irrelevant, antiquated rules which have no real bearing on aviation safety (and even less evidence of their relevance), and which are denying the chance of a rewarding and fulfilling career to many young men who would probably make excellent airline pilots. Apart from the blatant discrimination, this is morally wrong.
If CVD pilots genuinely pose a risk to flight safety, then PROVE IT. Don't base standards on 100 year old assumptions just because it suits a purpose and keeps a very small number of people in a job.
I know for an absolute fact that there are commercial pilots operating today with CVD who have managed to buck the system (and good luck to them!). Even if the CAA do manage to get their new baby accepted will they insist on testing everyone again to ensure that everyone meets the new standard? No, of course not because they know (and a certain person in authority has said so) that there are pilots out there who do not meet their standard and if they were to try and ruin their careers they would be sued to bankruptcy.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing - it's about time the progressively inefficient CAA was replaced by an operationally effective organisation that gives good value for money....any value for money would be a step in the right direction.
Rant over.....time to take my non-prescription, illegal, mind-relaxing medication..........wibble!!!!
(Note rapid mood shifts!!)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks,
I mentioned in an earlier post that persons in some countries should be worried if the CAA's CAD Test is adopted.
Well, I will now extend that to include pilots in JAA member states.
In their new report (see link below), Paragraph 1.3.4, the CAA states:
"Since changes in chromatic sensitivity are often indicative of early stage systemic (e.g. diabetes) or ocular diseases (e.g. glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration), it is recommended that both red-green and yellow-blue sensitivity should be assessed with every medical examination and any significant changes noted. The data can then be used to detect when the progression of any inherent condition yields colour thresholds that fall outside the range established for normal vision."
Therefore, does it seem to anyone else that the CAA is trying to introduce testing at every medical and to eliminate flight crew who do not meet their new standards, whilst hiding that behind a 'need' to monitor for other conditions. That's how it reads to me.
So much for increasing the numbers of persons that can fly professionally. Give with one hand and take away with the other!!
However, it is known that there are a number of persons flying professionally who do not meet the current standards. So, when they have their next medical after the CAD is introduced they are going to be tested and when they fail, what then? Bye bye medical, bye bye licence, bye bye career and livelihood? Or will the new 'safety' standard not apply to existing pilots? About time BALPA was involved here, methinks.
Furthermore, what are going to be the minimum computer equipment requirements for running the CAD Test. Who is going to ensure that AME's equipment meets these requirements? How will anyone know if the monitor being used has not degraded to the point where colour discretion is compromised. Who is going to calibrate the monitors and to what specification? What are going to be the minimum Planned Preventative Maintenance requirements and who is going to ensure they are followed - we already know that the CAA can't even maintain its own equipment so how on earth are they going to monitor anyone elses?
I asked these and other questions of the CAA and guess what, they failed to answer!! The response was laughable.
Who is going to pay for the equipment and its maintenance? We are. The CAA and AME's will have to pay for the equipment, the software and the training for using it so who will they pass those costs on to? Us (probably).
There was absolutely no safety requirement for this study or a new test so why spend the money and why impose greater charges on us as a result?
The more I read into the CAD Test research study and its imposition on the aviation community the less I like it.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the CAA (and other aviation authorities) fighting a string of legal cases following its introduction, which is going to cost them millions. Does the phrase 'rod for your own back' spring to mind?
And who is going to fund the legal actions? We are, with the imposition of even greater charges that we pay now!
I mentioned in an earlier post that persons in some countries should be worried if the CAA's CAD Test is adopted.
Well, I will now extend that to include pilots in JAA member states.
In their new report (see link below), Paragraph 1.3.4, the CAA states:
"Since changes in chromatic sensitivity are often indicative of early stage systemic (e.g. diabetes) or ocular diseases (e.g. glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration), it is recommended that both red-green and yellow-blue sensitivity should be assessed with every medical examination and any significant changes noted. The data can then be used to detect when the progression of any inherent condition yields colour thresholds that fall outside the range established for normal vision."
Therefore, does it seem to anyone else that the CAA is trying to introduce testing at every medical and to eliminate flight crew who do not meet their new standards, whilst hiding that behind a 'need' to monitor for other conditions. That's how it reads to me.
So much for increasing the numbers of persons that can fly professionally. Give with one hand and take away with the other!!
However, it is known that there are a number of persons flying professionally who do not meet the current standards. So, when they have their next medical after the CAD is introduced they are going to be tested and when they fail, what then? Bye bye medical, bye bye licence, bye bye career and livelihood? Or will the new 'safety' standard not apply to existing pilots? About time BALPA was involved here, methinks.
Furthermore, what are going to be the minimum computer equipment requirements for running the CAD Test. Who is going to ensure that AME's equipment meets these requirements? How will anyone know if the monitor being used has not degraded to the point where colour discretion is compromised. Who is going to calibrate the monitors and to what specification? What are going to be the minimum Planned Preventative Maintenance requirements and who is going to ensure they are followed - we already know that the CAA can't even maintain its own equipment so how on earth are they going to monitor anyone elses?
I asked these and other questions of the CAA and guess what, they failed to answer!! The response was laughable.
Who is going to pay for the equipment and its maintenance? We are. The CAA and AME's will have to pay for the equipment, the software and the training for using it so who will they pass those costs on to? Us (probably).
There was absolutely no safety requirement for this study or a new test so why spend the money and why impose greater charges on us as a result?
The more I read into the CAD Test research study and its imposition on the aviation community the less I like it.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the CAA (and other aviation authorities) fighting a string of legal cases following its introduction, which is going to cost them millions. Does the phrase 'rod for your own back' spring to mind?
And who is going to fund the legal actions? We are, with the imposition of even greater charges that we pay now!
Last edited by 2close; 28th Jun 2009 at 19:28.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ishihara 24 Plate version.
Plates 1 -15 (the first one is a test plate which everyone can read).
You may be wasting your time if the UK CAA gets its way and imposes this new CAD Test on the JAA aviation community as you may be retested at every medical.
It is possible that you may pass marginally one day but fail the next as it is possible to get different results each time you take the CAD Test - that is an absolute fact!!! So off you go, spend £ 50,000 on CPL / IR training then have the CAA take your medical off you in 5 years time.
Plates 1 -15 (the first one is a test plate which everyone can read).
You may be wasting your time if the UK CAA gets its way and imposes this new CAD Test on the JAA aviation community as you may be retested at every medical.
It is possible that you may pass marginally one day but fail the next as it is possible to get different results each time you take the CAD Test - that is an absolute fact!!! So off you go, spend £ 50,000 on CPL / IR training then have the CAA take your medical off you in 5 years time.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: canada
Age: 31
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colour vision test
hi im living in canada
PLZ help me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!T_T im dreaming of becoming an airline pilot each day but when it comes to colour vision im feeling like my heart is going to break because im colour blind .....
1.Any tests not specifically listed above are unacceptable methods of testing for FAA medical certificate. Examples of unacceptable tests include,BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, the OPTEC 5000 Vision Tester (color vision portion), "Farnsworth Lantern Flashlight," "yarn tests," and AME-administered aviation Signal Light Gun test (AME office use is prohibited).
What does this mean? IS the light gun test still available?
im thinking of geting a SODA from FAA
2.can i get a SODA and use it for the canadian Medical examiners? and is it possible for me to use the FAA medical certificate for the Canadian licences
my only problem is the canadian colour vision test they don't really offer a lot of colour vision tests like in the U.S.... so if nothing works then i will have to move to the states. ------------------------------ ------------------------plz DO give any advise because i don't really like to move because i really want to work for westjet when i grow up..... plz help
even if i move to the U.S and get my licence there is it still possible for me to work for a canadian airline?
plz Answers all of the questions plzplzplz thank you allll for your time......T-T
PLZ help me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!T_T im dreaming of becoming an airline pilot each day but when it comes to colour vision im feeling like my heart is going to break because im colour blind .....
1.Any tests not specifically listed above are unacceptable methods of testing for FAA medical certificate. Examples of unacceptable tests include,BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, the OPTEC 5000 Vision Tester (color vision portion), "Farnsworth Lantern Flashlight," "yarn tests," and AME-administered aviation Signal Light Gun test (AME office use is prohibited).
What does this mean? IS the light gun test still available?
im thinking of geting a SODA from FAA
2.can i get a SODA and use it for the canadian Medical examiners? and is it possible for me to use the FAA medical certificate for the Canadian licences
my only problem is the canadian colour vision test they don't really offer a lot of colour vision tests like in the U.S.... so if nothing works then i will have to move to the states. ------------------------------ ------------------------plz DO give any advise because i don't really like to move because i really want to work for westjet when i grow up..... plz help
even if i move to the U.S and get my licence there is it still possible for me to work for a canadian airline?
plz Answers all of the questions plzplzplz thank you allll for your time......T-T
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Slovakia
Age: 40
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi niallp
if you are still interested in an answer to your last question, then here it comes:
I went to Gatwick for Class 1 - Initial examination and the eye doctor asked me whether I had been tested before for my colour vision. And I told him I had been the day before at City University London and I gave him the report from Uni (I have mild red/green deficiency). Then he showed me some of the Ishihara plates which I could identify correctly... maybe except one plate. Then he left to discuss my case with some other doctor and he returned to me later and said CAA would accept the results from Uni. So no more testing at Gatwick.
Maybe this doesn't help much, because their decision to test me on lanterns/anomaloscope was based on the results they got from Uni. But at least you see that they accept their results.
Yames
if you are still interested in an answer to your last question, then here it comes:
I went to Gatwick for Class 1 - Initial examination and the eye doctor asked me whether I had been tested before for my colour vision. And I told him I had been the day before at City University London and I gave him the report from Uni (I have mild red/green deficiency). Then he showed me some of the Ishihara plates which I could identify correctly... maybe except one plate. Then he left to discuss my case with some other doctor and he returned to me later and said CAA would accept the results from Uni. So no more testing at Gatwick.
Maybe this doesn't help much, because their decision to test me on lanterns/anomaloscope was based on the results they got from Uni. But at least you see that they accept their results.
Yames
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: dublin
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi yames, thats actually a great help thanks. Im goin to do the same thing and i was hoping they would accept the uni results as i'm not sure i'll pass a beyne and i've already failed a h/w. So hopefully i'll pass 1 of the test and they'll accept it if it happens to be one of the uni test.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More goal-post shifting by UK CAA.
Why are they accepting tests from organisations which are not registered JAA Aeromedical Centres when they state categorically that they apply JARs to the letter and will not accept such results?
How many more double standards do we have to tolerate?
Yames, exactly which tests did you take AND pass at City Uni which the CAA accepted? Please answer by PM if you wish. Looking at my own report and that of another person they don't appear to have a Beynes or a Holmes-Wright Lantern so I cant see what test they would have accepted. The CAD Test is not approved as of yet so they cannot accept those results.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for Yames but CAA Medical is so inconsistent in the way it operates (despite its regular claims to the contrary) it beggars belief and leads me to conclude that, if your face fits they'll give you what you want but if you dare to challenge them and become listed as a 'trouble maker' then forget it.
Why are they accepting tests from organisations which are not registered JAA Aeromedical Centres when they state categorically that they apply JARs to the letter and will not accept such results?
How many more double standards do we have to tolerate?
Yames, exactly which tests did you take AND pass at City Uni which the CAA accepted? Please answer by PM if you wish. Looking at my own report and that of another person they don't appear to have a Beynes or a Holmes-Wright Lantern so I cant see what test they would have accepted. The CAD Test is not approved as of yet so they cannot accept those results.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for Yames but CAA Medical is so inconsistent in the way it operates (despite its regular claims to the contrary) it beggars belief and leads me to conclude that, if your face fits they'll give you what you want but if you dare to challenge them and become listed as a 'trouble maker' then forget it.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew
I just got to the end of this mammoth thread after starting to read it last week - phew!
I just though I would report my experience at my colour vision test at the CAA this week.
I failed
I have held an FAA and JAR PPL for some years, restricted to daytime flight only, so I was not too surprised at the failure. I got 13 out of 15 ishihara plates wrong, failed the Beyens and the H/W first run miserably. I almost managed the dark adjusted H/W but still managed to mix up a white and a green somewhere. I am now officially CP4. I still intend to go for the restricted class 1 and do some instructing if I can. The lady in the medical area was very nice and genuinly seemed to be hoping I could pass.
While I was at the Belgrano I nipped across to the FCL department and asked them if I could still get a commercial, perhaps flying the night requirement with a safetly pilot, but they were quite evasive and would not answer my questions until I could present my resticted Class 1. I pointed out that it would be unfortunate if I paid out the £330 for the class 1 only to be told there was no chance of a CPL, but they just shrugged at this. They did however tell me that it would be possible for a CP4 restriced class 1 medical holder to get a CPL, but would not say how.
I just though I would report my experience at my colour vision test at the CAA this week.
I failed
I have held an FAA and JAR PPL for some years, restricted to daytime flight only, so I was not too surprised at the failure. I got 13 out of 15 ishihara plates wrong, failed the Beyens and the H/W first run miserably. I almost managed the dark adjusted H/W but still managed to mix up a white and a green somewhere. I am now officially CP4. I still intend to go for the restricted class 1 and do some instructing if I can. The lady in the medical area was very nice and genuinly seemed to be hoping I could pass.
While I was at the Belgrano I nipped across to the FCL department and asked them if I could still get a commercial, perhaps flying the night requirement with a safetly pilot, but they were quite evasive and would not answer my questions until I could present my resticted Class 1. I pointed out that it would be unfortunate if I paid out the £330 for the class 1 only to be told there was no chance of a CPL, but they just shrugged at this. They did however tell me that it would be possible for a CP4 restriced class 1 medical holder to get a CPL, but would not say how.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okey dokey,
You CAN get a Class 1 medical with the following deviations:
VCL - Flights by Day only
NPT - No Public Transport (No flying of passengers or freight) for reward
But you can still undertake daytime aerial work activities, such as aerial photography, crop spraying, parachuting or flight instruction.
Once you have the medical, you simply go off to your FTO, do the CPL and FI(A) Courses and hey ho, you get a CPL(A) plus FI(A) rating, limited to daytime instruction only.
This is what I and a number of other FI(A) in the same position have done.
Simples!!!
You CAN get a Class 1 medical with the following deviations:
VCL - Flights by Day only
NPT - No Public Transport (No flying of passengers or freight) for reward
But you can still undertake daytime aerial work activities, such as aerial photography, crop spraying, parachuting or flight instruction.
Once you have the medical, you simply go off to your FTO, do the CPL and FI(A) Courses and hey ho, you get a CPL(A) plus FI(A) rating, limited to daytime instruction only.
This is what I and a number of other FI(A) in the same position have done.
Simples!!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA class 1 (Astigmatism -3)
Hello everybody, this is my first post.
First of all I’d like to say thanks to all of you who’ve written your experiences in this forum. It was very useful. I’ve read through most of them, in particular the CAA Class 1 medical certificate (eyes test)
Let’s go straight to the point. I had the intention to be trained in the UK for my ATPL (Frozen) Integrated Course. However, after checking the CAA requirements I don’t think it will be possible for me unfortunately.
This could be my obstacle to sort out, please tell me I’m wrong
Right eye Left eye
Sphere +2.25 Plano
Cly -3.00 -0.75
Axis 87 90
Unaided R 6/60 L 6/5
Aided R 6/5 L6/5
Ishihara PASS
Visual Fields FULL
At the moment I’m searching for information about l@ser refractive surgery, for any reference or any comments about Professor Dan Reinstein at LONDO VISION CLINIC, LASIK £5260
Should I contact the CAA medical department? If I do, will they keep any negative records for being outside their requirements? I’ve heard or read somewhere they don’t recommend l@ser, any ideas why?
Thanks God I still have the FAA Class 1 option and here is my question to you guys:
- If I’ve got a FAA Class 1, would I be able to renew it in one year without starting the pilot training? Under these circumstances, would it be taken as a renewal or initial again?
Would it be possible to change my FAA initial for a CAA certification with its renewal limits applied without starting my pilot training?
As you can see I really want to be trained in a UK centre, (CABAIR;OAT;CTC & FTE) because I think that they provide the best option for future employers.
Thank to all of you and I do hope this helps, and not just me
First of all I’d like to say thanks to all of you who’ve written your experiences in this forum. It was very useful. I’ve read through most of them, in particular the CAA Class 1 medical certificate (eyes test)
Let’s go straight to the point. I had the intention to be trained in the UK for my ATPL (Frozen) Integrated Course. However, after checking the CAA requirements I don’t think it will be possible for me unfortunately.
This could be my obstacle to sort out, please tell me I’m wrong
Right eye Left eye
Sphere +2.25 Plano
Cly -3.00 -0.75
Axis 87 90
Unaided R 6/60 L 6/5
Aided R 6/5 L6/5
Ishihara PASS
Visual Fields FULL
At the moment I’m searching for information about l@ser refractive surgery, for any reference or any comments about Professor Dan Reinstein at LONDO VISION CLINIC, LASIK £5260
Should I contact the CAA medical department? If I do, will they keep any negative records for being outside their requirements? I’ve heard or read somewhere they don’t recommend l@ser, any ideas why?
Thanks God I still have the FAA Class 1 option and here is my question to you guys:
- If I’ve got a FAA Class 1, would I be able to renew it in one year without starting the pilot training? Under these circumstances, would it be taken as a renewal or initial again?
Would it be possible to change my FAA initial for a CAA certification with its renewal limits applied without starting my pilot training?
As you can see I really want to be trained in a UK centre, (CABAIR;OAT;CTC & FTE) because I think that they provide the best option for future employers.
Thank to all of you and I do hope this helps, and not just me
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My situation is quite unique and perplexing.
I have held an UNRESTRICTED CAA / JAA Class 2 Medical Certificate since 1992 and as such added a Night Qualification to my PPL and fly at night perfectly safely. This was attained on the basis of passing the Holmes-Wright Lantern Test in 1992 which the CAA was then quite happy to accept. Ihad also passed the H-W Test for the RAF (1977) and Army (1981) and military documents state clearly CP3 (Colour Safe).
However, when I decided to go into Flight Instructing back in 2005 I took the Class 1 medical and found that my Clark Kent issued hyper-sensitive eyes (which in my youth could count the hairs on a gnats wedding tackle at 100 yards) had been sneakily replaced over the years with a set of knackered old hand me downs. The net result of this is that on the Beynes Lantern, instead of seeing a single clear light I see what appears to be a broken four-pointed star of light and on the H-W, instead of seeing two crystal clear, sharp pin-point lights I now see two large, fuzzy, overlapping lights which are a mess. This is a condition known as 'light scatter' and when I pointed it out the only advice I was given was to do the best I could, i.e. guess!
This was not only the case with the H-W Test but also with the PAPI Simulator at City University which, instead of appearing as 4 x distinct lights, looked like one continuous fuzzy bar of light. In fairness to the reseacher, when I reported this to her she did test my eyesight which was well within limits but again the only advice she could offer was to take a guess - a very robust means of conducting medical research!!
The odd thing is that this does not manifest itself in real life conditions with actual aerodrome and approach lighting but the powers that be will not accept any evidence of demonstrated practical ability. They will accept their own test only and that is the end of it.
What you must remember is the God Complex so commonly found amongst certain classes of medical professionals makes them incapable of accepting anyone's opinion but their own.
So I have an unrestricted Class 2 medical with PPL(A), ME CR, Aerobatics Cert, FI(A) PLUS (UNPAID) Night Instructor and Instrument Instructor plus a CPL(A) with the same ratings but unable to exercise the night privileges because of a limitation on the Class 1 medical.
In fairness to the CAA AMS, whilst I admit to being one of their greatest critics, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the UK is the only country that permits deviations for CVD on Class 1 medicals. However, I have worked overseas and that country also allowed me to instruct in their country on their aircraft (I had to obtain permission from their CAA before I could fly) which suggests a far more liberal attitude towards CVD in that country (and I have been told that such is the case).
My objections are based on my considered opinion that there is no evidence whatsoever that would support any argument that CVD persons place a risk to flight safety and that such arguments are based on assumptions, themselves based on archaic principles which were not even fully understood back then at the turn of the 20th Century when they were dreamed up. Coming up with some 'wondrous' piece of software (CAD Test) which has been specifically designed to your own parameters does nothing to satisfy this argument and the fact still stands - the authorities may have determined a very accurate method of measuring CVD but they have NOT proven to even the slightest degree that CVD pilots are dangerous - it is all based on assumption and that is a very dangerous and immoral precedent to set. If you are going to set criteria for operational performance then you surely must use operational testing within the determination of that criteria - anything less is fudging the figures.
In any case, to answer your question, for the Night Qualification you are required to carry out 5 x Take Offs and Landings to a full stop as PIC of aircraft. There is nothing to my knowledge that states you must fly the aircraft solo. Therefore, having determined that you are able to safely fly the aircraft at night, your CPL instructor could designate you as PIC (and the sole operator of the controls) and he could act in the capacity of safety pilot, only taking control in the event of a risk to flight safety. I understand this is how others in the same position as yourself have crossed this obstacle.
To my way of thinking this is how the suitability of a CVD person should be determined, not by some examination room procedure which has absolutely no relevance to operational performance but by actual testing in flight conditions. You want a Night Qual then prove you are safe to fly at night by flying from A to B, navigating efficiently and safely and at the end of it fly x number of approaches using runway perspective and approach lighting. The argument that the conditions may be different for each person and that standard test conditions are required for all is absolute
! This is not applied to any other testing, you get the conditions on the day and that is it. The fact is that certain persons are desperate to protect their jobs (and I can understand that; just have the balls to say so! Yeah, OK!) therefore they become fervent 'protectors of the standard'.
Hope this helps.
I have held an UNRESTRICTED CAA / JAA Class 2 Medical Certificate since 1992 and as such added a Night Qualification to my PPL and fly at night perfectly safely. This was attained on the basis of passing the Holmes-Wright Lantern Test in 1992 which the CAA was then quite happy to accept. Ihad also passed the H-W Test for the RAF (1977) and Army (1981) and military documents state clearly CP3 (Colour Safe).
However, when I decided to go into Flight Instructing back in 2005 I took the Class 1 medical and found that my Clark Kent issued hyper-sensitive eyes (which in my youth could count the hairs on a gnats wedding tackle at 100 yards) had been sneakily replaced over the years with a set of knackered old hand me downs. The net result of this is that on the Beynes Lantern, instead of seeing a single clear light I see what appears to be a broken four-pointed star of light and on the H-W, instead of seeing two crystal clear, sharp pin-point lights I now see two large, fuzzy, overlapping lights which are a mess. This is a condition known as 'light scatter' and when I pointed it out the only advice I was given was to do the best I could, i.e. guess!
This was not only the case with the H-W Test but also with the PAPI Simulator at City University which, instead of appearing as 4 x distinct lights, looked like one continuous fuzzy bar of light. In fairness to the reseacher, when I reported this to her she did test my eyesight which was well within limits but again the only advice she could offer was to take a guess - a very robust means of conducting medical research!!
The odd thing is that this does not manifest itself in real life conditions with actual aerodrome and approach lighting but the powers that be will not accept any evidence of demonstrated practical ability. They will accept their own test only and that is the end of it.
What you must remember is the God Complex so commonly found amongst certain classes of medical professionals makes them incapable of accepting anyone's opinion but their own.
So I have an unrestricted Class 2 medical with PPL(A), ME CR, Aerobatics Cert, FI(A) PLUS (UNPAID) Night Instructor and Instrument Instructor plus a CPL(A) with the same ratings but unable to exercise the night privileges because of a limitation on the Class 1 medical.
In fairness to the CAA AMS, whilst I admit to being one of their greatest critics, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the UK is the only country that permits deviations for CVD on Class 1 medicals. However, I have worked overseas and that country also allowed me to instruct in their country on their aircraft (I had to obtain permission from their CAA before I could fly) which suggests a far more liberal attitude towards CVD in that country (and I have been told that such is the case).
My objections are based on my considered opinion that there is no evidence whatsoever that would support any argument that CVD persons place a risk to flight safety and that such arguments are based on assumptions, themselves based on archaic principles which were not even fully understood back then at the turn of the 20th Century when they were dreamed up. Coming up with some 'wondrous' piece of software (CAD Test) which has been specifically designed to your own parameters does nothing to satisfy this argument and the fact still stands - the authorities may have determined a very accurate method of measuring CVD but they have NOT proven to even the slightest degree that CVD pilots are dangerous - it is all based on assumption and that is a very dangerous and immoral precedent to set. If you are going to set criteria for operational performance then you surely must use operational testing within the determination of that criteria - anything less is fudging the figures.
In any case, to answer your question, for the Night Qualification you are required to carry out 5 x Take Offs and Landings to a full stop as PIC of aircraft. There is nothing to my knowledge that states you must fly the aircraft solo. Therefore, having determined that you are able to safely fly the aircraft at night, your CPL instructor could designate you as PIC (and the sole operator of the controls) and he could act in the capacity of safety pilot, only taking control in the event of a risk to flight safety. I understand this is how others in the same position as yourself have crossed this obstacle.
To my way of thinking this is how the suitability of a CVD person should be determined, not by some examination room procedure which has absolutely no relevance to operational performance but by actual testing in flight conditions. You want a Night Qual then prove you are safe to fly at night by flying from A to B, navigating efficiently and safely and at the end of it fly x number of approaches using runway perspective and approach lighting. The argument that the conditions may be different for each person and that standard test conditions are required for all is absolute
! This is not applied to any other testing, you get the conditions on the day and that is it. The fact is that certain persons are desperate to protect their jobs (and I can understand that; just have the balls to say so! Yeah, OK!) therefore they become fervent 'protectors of the standard'.Hope this helps.