2close

Telboy,

I have to disagree with several points of your post.

Firstly, the CAA is looking at replacing the CVD tests but this is a case of replacing one inappropriate test with another inappropriate test which it is doing because it is fully aware that its misapplication of the Ishihara Test is in breach of proper medical procedures and is leaving it wide open to civil action, therefore it needs a test whereby it controls the procedures. It cannot introduce this test unilaterally therefore it needs to persuade all other JAA member states that it would be in the interests of member states to apply this test. This is a lengthy process, hence the delays, and not because the CAA wouldn't bring it in tomorrow if it could.

A point you mention is the matter of aviation safety. This is an area where the hypocrisy of the CAA and JAA is greatly understated. They insist on standards for their own aircrew but make no such insistence on pilots flying foreign registered aircraft in their airspace. Therefore, if the CAA /JAA believes that its CVD standards are the correct standards and anything less is unsafe I will make a public accusation right here and now that the CAA is failing in its legal and moral duty to protect the citizens of the UK and should, no MUST, be brought to task over this issue.

The CAA, in its application of the present CVD standards, is not contributing to aviation safety but what it is doing is applying discriminatory practices which are in blatant breach of current UK legislation - they know it, we know it so why are we doing nothing about it?

I do agree with you regarding the practical testing. A communication I received from the Disability Rights Commission stated that, to conform with the requirements of the DDA, the CAA could only refuse to issue a Class 1 medical certificate to a CVD pilot if they could prove that the person was not competent to hold such a certificate. Such competence can only be proved or disproved by appropriate practical testing and not a 'lab' based test whihc only touches on the area of aviation operations.

As for legal proceedings being of no benefit I can not agree with this either. Legal action must start somewhere. By bringing the action against one national authority makes other national authorities take notice. Change is brought about by action and the time for action is before EASA harmonises EU regulation not after - the prospect of multiple legal actions against all member states should make those member states think hard about future regulation.

Do the mathematics - a legal action for discrimination and loss of earnings brought by a 20 year old with a potential 45 year career in commercial aviation. How much does that add up to? Now multiply that figure by 8% of the male population. Enough to make the authorities think hard about their regulation? Even the costs of defending multiple claims would be astronomical.

In answer to your question regarding CVD and accident statistics, I read a while ago that there has never been an accident in the history of Commercial Air Transport that was solely attributable to CVD. One accident occurred a couple of years back in Tallahassee whereby a Fed Ex freighter, handled by a SODA pilot, flew below the GP on a visual night approach. However, whilst the NTSB did highlight the issue of CVD the other contributory factors such as working time and exhaustion were, as I recall, given greater prominence.

In response to W w/W, my own investigations and conversations with solicitors on this matter have revealed that there is more than sufficient ammo, more like a broadside.

These are all, I accept, points for discussion and I am sure we will never get complete agreement on them but I must be honest, my patience is rapidly running out and I feel that the time for action is upon us.

2close

TUIFly

Hi guys from finland.I think i have joined today your club :-)

I got ishihara test 2 plates wrong, it was 38 plates edition,then thay ask me to perfom other test I don't know how it calls but it was line of colored buttons, i have made 1 mistake there.Then third test was introduced, with 2 lights(don't know name correctly ).I have made 7 mistakes!Unbelivible if you remember that i have made just two mistakes with Ishihara!

Doc says that they can issue only class 2 daytime or even worst, nothing in case if authority deside to...I'm shoked,Don't know what to do.

Anyway I need also FAA Class Medical 1,because i want to take JAA training in Florida.

So iit's seems that I have opposit problem, I can see Ishihara(mostly) but not light test.Crazy? :-)))

TelBoy

Hi all. I took the City Uni tests today and turns out I am trichromate with green dificency. The test took about one half hours and are very thorough. I did ask about the new CAA tests and the girl who conducted the tests says they should have the data compiled by the end of next month and then its up to the CAA. When asked what the tests will be, she only said that they would be several tests to accuratley determine the degree of colour blindness and they will have to agree on a pass criteria (I'm not so sure it will be any better for us).

Now my questions that I hope you can answer are:

Will I have trouble getting the CAA to retest me now? I failed the HW test at Gatwick about 15 years ago and was not offered the Bayne (I feel that this is my best hope) this was before the JAA and with three levels of medical.

Also should the CAA allow me a retest and I fail, when the new tests come in - is it likely I will get another test?

Also - am I right that you can only book the colour vision test? about £30?

Can someone who has done the tests recentley state the type of tests available and order. I understand Ishihara - Bayne - HW am I right? also as much info about how they are done will be great.

Any info that you can throw my way before I pick up the phone to our friends at the CAA will be very gratefully received.

TelBoy

Hi all, just got results back from city uni. Can anyone tell me if my results in the Nagel Anomaloscope are within range for any full JAA state that uses this test.

Results were

Matching range: 27-31
Deuteranomaly

All advice appreciated.

TelBoy

Thanks Biggles for your reply - as I thought really.

Can anyone give me a full idea of what to expect from the Bayne Lantern at Gatwick. What I'm interested in is

How many lights in total do you have to answer?
Do they alter the hew?
How far away are you?
Do they - or will they if asked demonstrate the lights before the test?
In dark or light room?
Is it reflected in a mirror? if so why?
Any room for errors? - well got to ask
Any views between this and the HW?


Also I guess at a colour vision test they will first give you the Ishihara - fail that - do they then give the Farnsworth D15 (coloured domino things in a line) if so why do they do this, from what I understand even if you pass that it is not acceptable - correct me if I'm wrong.

As usual all advice is gratefully received as I am trying to prepare myself as much as I can to get passed this damm problem (guess you all know about that)

gijoe

Telboy,

At City Uni they will do the whole gambit of tests.

At Gatwick they will first test you with the Ishihara books - fail those and then you can have a go at the H-W Lantern. Fail that and you will be allowed to 'dark adapt' in order to open your eyes as much as possible. I don't know if they have a Beynes at LGw at the moment.

Fail that and i think that they will suggest you go for further investigation at City Uni or provide test results using the Nagel from somewhere else.

This is where it gets a little bit hazy because the wording in JAR FCL 3 says a device suitable etc...

G
There is lots on this thread about the whole process.

biggles7374

I am looking for some advice.

I have held a restricted class 2 medical since my initial class 2 examination in 1999. The medical is restricted on account of failing the Ishihara and not having uncorrected 20/20 vision. At the time I went to Gatwick and did the Holmes Wright lantern and failed by one misreading. This meant flights by day only and wearing and carrying a spare pair of glasses when acting as pilot under the priviledges of my PPL.

About six months after my medical my car went into the garage due to strong petrol fumes entering the car's cabin. With hindsight I recall the smell of petrol existed at the time I took my medical but was less significant. I usually spent 25-30 hours in the car each week at that time and I got used to it but when others occasionally came in the car they commented on the smell and when it got worse it was this that prompted the trip to the garage.

Could this, or any other factors have affected my eyesight and my ability to pass the colour vision tests in the medical?

The reason I ask is this.

I have recently undertaken a pre-employment medical and I recall my heart sinking when the colour vision books came out, but low and behold the doc said I passed it, the numbers were not as clear as the first plate but I could just make them out. Not only that he tested my vision and told me I had at least uncorrected 20/20 vision in both eyes and each eye seperately.

I was obviously encouraged by this revelation and in curiosity I made an appointment at my local optician. It was confirmed that my uncorrected vision was 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left eye and 20/15 together. She also tested my colour vision and again I passed although this time seemed slightly easier than before. I explained the situation to the optician and she said that this could be due to the type of lights under which the test is carried out.

My questions are these.

Will the CAA allow me to try for a class 1 medical in the knowledge that I have a restricted class 2?

As this is an initial class 1 and that I have not applied for a class 1 before do I have to declare my PPL and restricted class 2 on the medical application? On the basis that these items are specifically tested in the medical would not declaring them under the medical history section of the form be seen to be deliberately witholding infomation?

Assuming i was able to take a class 1, would the CAA use the coloured plates or would they, on the basis that I have a restricted class 2 and have previously took the Holmes Wright Lantern just allow me to try the Beyne Lantern?

If the plates were used does the CAA use any special lighting or do they just present them under normal office lighting?

Any help on these questions would be appreciated

TelBoy

biggles, the CAA see colour blindness as something that does not change as it is usually inherited, but it can be due to health problems. Ask the CAA for a retest - they seem happy to help. You can do just the colour vision test for £28 and if you pass will unrestrict your class 2 and be good for a future class 1.

The ishihara test should be taken in daylight, but everone uses lamps that simulate daylight - there is actually a case where strong daylight at an angle can allow CVD people to see the plates, it has happened to me. My test at the CAA was under a special light.

As for a class 1, I feel that you will have to tell them about your restrictions, as they do already know about them. Tell the CAA about the your other examinations (did you get a written report from any of them?). You can now get a restricted class 1 with day VFR because of CVD so you should at least be able to try for it.

Sorry that this is about the only advice I can give and it is only based on my personal dealings with them.

biggles7374

Thanks Telboy.

So are you saying that even though I did try the Holmes Wright in 1999, if I book a colour vision test they will try the Ishihara again, and then if need the lanterns they will try the Holmes Wright again?

Are you also saying that should I pass the Colour vision tests they will not expect me to do the tests again when I apply for a class 1?

Thanks

Andy

2close

Biggles,

Firstly, the answer to certain factors affecting colour vision is an absolute and unresounding YES.

There is established evidence that certain medical conditions and medication can cause a temporary reduction in a person's ability to perceive colours. After all, colour perception is the result of a chemico-electrical activity in the body and this activity can be disrupted by external influences.

And of course any form of poisoning, as you were subjected to, could have an adverse affect on your general vision.

As for your Ishihara Tests, it may be that you made two or less mistakes which, according to the test designer / manufacturer, constitutes a PASS but which according to the CAA (and UK military) is a FAIL. The FAA allow up to two mistakes in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.

The test is designed to be conducted in Northern Daylight conditions and the lamp used for the tests is designed to simulate this lighting temperature. However, you try and find a lamp manufacturer that will state unequivocally that it is a 100% representation of Northern Daylight and I can assure you that you will not find one - it merely simulates it as closely as possible. Therefore, whilst this lamp is the closest thing that can be obtained to simulate the actual daylight conditions it is NOT truly representative.

I have been assessed at City University as having a very mild deutoronomaly and can pass the Ishihara test in daylight but make a few mistakes under simulated lighting conditions - normally one error on the 24 plate Ishihara test.

Therefore, the JAA (not just the CAA) is conducting a prescribed medical procedure out of accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Let me try and equate this with an analogy - if a surgeon was instructed to carry out a medical procedure by his employers that he knew was in contravention of the manufacturer's directed procedures and he nevertheless bowed to his employer's wishes and the result was to have a detrimental effect on the patient what do you think would be the outcome of this scenario?

If I were you I would write directly (Special Delivery - proof of receipt) to the CAA Head of Aviation Medicine, Dr Sally Evans, outline your case with a full explanation of the circumstances as you have in this forum and request a full eyesight retest. Try to be specific with dates, etc. Class 2 medical, job at the time, amount of driving, diagnosis of problem with car, date problem was formally diagnosed and repaired and the situation since then.

Explain that you have no problem with the original testing but that given the facts of the case you feel that you may have been subjected to mild but protracted chronic organic poisoning and that this may have adversely affected the results of the tests. I may even be tempted to seek expert medical opinion on this and submit this with your request.

What I would also do is print off the CAA Extended Eye Examination form from the CAA website, take this form to at least 2 x separate optometrists and ask them to carry out a full eyesight test, including the colour vision test. Ask them to complete the forms and submit the forms to Dr Evans with your request. It'll cost you a few squids but it should be worth it.

If you do pass the Ishihara with these optometrists don't let the CAA refuse a further Ishihara test.

Good luck, keep us posted on your progress.

2close

biggles7374

Thanks for your advice 2 close.

Here is an extract from the JAA Medical Handbook, although I am sure you know this already.

Quote:

Testing with pseudo-isochromatic plates should be performed according to the instructions given
by each test. It is important that the quality of the illumination is correct: either northern daylight or an artificial daylight source should be used. Ordinary incandescent lamps or fluorescent tubes make these tests easier to pass, especially to deuteranomals. The daylight source should give an illumination equivalent to the standard illuminants ‘C’ or ‘D’ of CIE (Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage). The plates should be shown at right angles to the visual axis of the applicant, at the correct distance and for the time specified in the test. The applicant should not wear tinted glasses. The number of failed plates serves to classify the subject as normal, defective or ‘doubtful’ according to the specifications of the test.

There are two pertinent sentences:

SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY EACH TEST.

THE NUMBER OF FAILED PLATES SERVES TO CLASSIFY THE SUBJECT AS NORMAL, DEFECTIVE OR DOUBTFUL ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TEST.

If you are able to pass the Ishihara in daylight then surely you are a pass. The FAA seem to be carrying out the test according to it's specifications by allowing up to 2 mistakes so I am assuming according to the specifications of the test you should also be considered a pass under light simulated conditions - assuming you don't make more than 2 mistakes. But this it would seem is irrelevant as you say you can pass the test in daylight - ie the originally intended conditions for which the test is designed.

It seems to me that it may be the CAA that is making up it's own rules since it is setting pass marks above those set at the time this test was validated. The JAA medical handbook states quite clearly and unambiguously that this test should be performed in accordance with the manufacturers recomendations.

This point is, as I see it clear cut and in your specific case could be worthy of a relatively simple legal challenge. I am sure the CAA know this already!!

Anyway, I will take yours and Telboy's advice and will report back at a later date how I get on

Biggles

biggles7374

The JAA rules were written in collaberation with each of the 'CAA's' of the member states and agreed upon.

But you've missed the point, the JAA medical handbook '(the document agreed upon) calls for the test to be done in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, which say up to 2 mistakes can be recorded as normal.

The UK CAA has taken it upon itself to suggest that Mr Ishihara was wrong and that people should only be considered normal if they get no mistakes.

2close

And the solicitors that I have talked to who specialise in dicrimination and medical cases have been quite clear that this is potentially unlawful and that it leaves (a) the orgaisation and (b) any person making a decision based on the test open to legal challenge - it is NOT a defence that your employer instructed you to do it this way; if you know it is in contravention of a prescribed medical prodecure then it is your legal (and moral) duty to inform your employer of this fact and that you are not prepared to conduct the test in the manner outlined by your employer.

Why do you think the CAA is so eager to bring in the new tests? The reason is as clear as daylight. They can set the pass/fail criteria for the new test which is far more restrictive than the Ishihara Test. They know they are 'breaking the law' with the Ishihara Test but are getting away with it because, like all good Brits we do what we are told and sit in the corner not questioning authority, therefore no one is challenging them.

TelBoy

There has been a lot said about the ishihara tests at Gatwick here, but does anyone know why the CAA will not demonstrate the Bayne test? Should it be demonstrated by manufactures instructions?

Maybe it follows a set sequence! - anyone know that sequence?

TelBoy

Well all, I did the colour vision tests at Gatwick today - and failed them all miserably

For some feedback for you all, I have done the colour vision tests at Gatwick before, but it was 15 years ago now. I thought I would have trouble getting a retest, but the CAA seemed more interested in my Credit Card number than the fact that I had done it before. I think this is only fair as the Baynes test was not done when I took my last test.

First they did an eye chart test to see if you have normal distance vision. Then the tests went ishihara (they would not do it under daylight) then the Baynes test. This is where you get 5 colours to tell - White, Red, Orange, Green and Blue. The light is quite big (a few mm) but only stays on for one second. You see only one light at a time and have to name it. They will not demonstrate the colours to you - I did ask for a demo and they refused. The test is done at about 5 Meteres and you will have to name about 20 (maybe more) lights. The test was done in darkness with about 2 miniutes to dark adapt.

Next was the Holmes Wright test - two lights one above the other. They are very small and at a low hew, they stay on for about 5 seconds. Colours are Red, White and Green only. You have to state the top then the bottom colour. The test was done in a light room, but as I made red/green mistakes they would not test me again in darkness.

Personally I had problems with them all - the Baynes was probably the closest and if it had been demonstrated first and could see the light for a few seconds, I might have passed (but sadley thats not to be). The ishihara and Holmes Wright I will never be able to pass.

I did ask about the new tests they are planning, only to be told their test will not be changing in the forseeable future!! They did not say anything about taking tests in another country - or any thing else, but sorry.

I feel that this has shaped the way forward for me as I have an FAA waiver for colour vision, so it does NOT affect me for an FAA medical. My only problem is to do an FAA commercial (or UK one) I would probably have to sell my house, or maybe remortgage and cannot justify that for an FAA licence I will not get work at home with.

TelBoy

Thanks for all your support guys, it really is appreciated.

As for the night flying, it is not really a problem as I have an FAA PPL which you are night rated, I also have passed the FAA signal test so do not suffer from colour vision restrictions in N reg aircraft.

I think I am not going to give up just yet - will try other JAA countries in summer holidays.

Just a point with the FAA. I did the light signal test 13 years ago and then it only covered you for upto a class 2 medical (for CPL). To do a class one you had to do a medical flight test at night to demonstrate to an FAA examiner you could tell the runway lights, other aircraft nav lights, rotating beakon etc. However now the Light signal test is an alternative colour vision test and you get a letter of evidance that you have passed and it is good for ANY class medical. It is also NOT a SODA waiver that employers discriminate against. This is what I have - kewel eh

So even the FAA have relaxed their colour vision requirements (I think they will also allow 7 mistakes on ishihara) so come on JAA.

Any how - thanks for everyones support and I will not give up.

airwjo

hi folks

first of all thank you all for the interesting posts were very helpfull.

now - i just came back from switzerland dübendorf did the spectrolux lantern test there and PASSED
for all reading this forum: i failed the beynes test in germany, they told me to go to uk or switzerland and they were right. the test is conducted by the swiss air force, they are very very friendly there. the assistant took lots of time to explain me the test and not to be so nervous, talked with me about it and showed me one example. the test itself i found easy: there are three colors: red, green and white. they will come in pairs and one color maybe a little bit shadded but should be no problem. you have to do 12 pairs in 2 rounds with no mistake and it´s conducted in daylight.
as i said they are very friendly and professional - the test costs 25 euro.

for people who fly to zurich: the way to dübendorf is easy: go from arrival to the busstation and take the bus 759 to dübendorf railway station where you have to walk a couple of minutes.

good luck to all

2close

airwjo,

That doesn't sound like a Spectrolux Test but rather more like a Holmes-Wright.

The Spectrolux involves looking through an eye-piece at the two halves of a coloured disc and you have to turn a knob until the two halves match each other. This is reknowned as being the gold standard of colour vision testing and is ridiculously difficult to pass within JAA criteria - I have been very reliably informed that a very high percentage of people classified by the JAA as colour normal fail to meet the JAA criteria for the Spectrolux.

However, it does sound as if the Swiss are conducting the H-W test very fairly (but you'll probably find now that the UK CAA will refuse to accept their results once they've read these pages)!!!

gijoe

2,
I think you're getting the Nagel and the Spectrolux mixed up.
You have described the Nagel in detail and you are right in that it is considered to be the gold standard.
My experience of the Spectrolux is that it is very similar to the H-W.
G

airwjo

You are right, gijoe 2 wrote about the nagel anomaloscope.
In fact spetrolux and holmes wright are very similiar
and 2close i don´t think the caa will refuse the results
I didn´t write about the whole test, think about it
cheers