Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
You are absolutely correct.
I obviously don't know my Nagel from my Spectrolux (although most people reckon I don't know my a*** from my elbow!).
Apologies for any confusion.
2close
You are absolutely correct.
I obviously don't know my Nagel from my Spectrolux (although most people reckon I don't know my a*** from my elbow!).
Apologies for any confusion.
2close
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: York
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVD Corrective lenses
A friend of mine recently went for the colour vision assesment down in Gatwick. She unfortunately and rather unsuprisingly failed the exam. As I am currently a doctor (wanting to become a pilot), on her behalf I then sent a letter to Mr Adrian Chorley who seems to be the senior Opthalmic AME in Gatwick, regarding the use of a product known as Chromagen Lenses. These lenses obviously cannot cure CVD though they do help people manage the condition, even to the point that I conducted the Ishihara Plate Test on my friend and she passed the test with no errors. I conveyed this to Mr Chorley asking the question, "could Chromagen Lenses be used with the colour vision assesment ?"
Mr Chorley replied saying "Chromagen Lenses are not accepted in terms of the Colour Vision Assesment, as they cannot adequately correct for CVD"
While I agree that they may not in all circustances correct CVD to the same degree as my friends Ishihara results, however in my view that is surely what the Ishihara test is there to determine. As the Ishihara Plate test is the De Facto standard for CVD detection if a person using the lenses is able to pass the test with no mistakes how is Mr Chorley able to say that a person wearing chromagen lenses is not able to distinguish colours the same as person not wearing the lenses as they both attain the same results on the test.
Thoughts and comments appreciated
Mr Chorley replied saying "Chromagen Lenses are not accepted in terms of the Colour Vision Assesment, as they cannot adequately correct for CVD"
While I agree that they may not in all circustances correct CVD to the same degree as my friends Ishihara results, however in my view that is surely what the Ishihara test is there to determine. As the Ishihara Plate test is the De Facto standard for CVD detection if a person using the lenses is able to pass the test with no mistakes how is Mr Chorley able to say that a person wearing chromagen lenses is not able to distinguish colours the same as person not wearing the lenses as they both attain the same results on the test.
Thoughts and comments appreciated
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: York
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally with you 2close, that the CAA has to take a cautious approach in regards to CVD, but, the point I was trying to make is that if a person using the lenses is able to pass the CVD tests just the same as another person that does not require any Colour Vision correction, how can they say that they see colours any different than normal colour vision individuals, as the Ishihara plate test is in place to detect CVD issues, and if a pass is gained using the lenses then they obviously see colours the same, whether this is corrected or not I believe should not be relevant as lenses/ glasses to correct distance vision are accepted.
The only issue I can find is if the lenses were to become damaged, however this is just as much an issue for distance vision correction devices and so the answer is simple........carry a spare pair.
As for the issue of existing colours in daylight and night (PFD/ caution/ warning lights etc.) these lenses are not "off the shelf" products they are tailored to suit the needs of the individuals and so only correct the colours which the individuals have difficulty with.
Nick
The only issue I can find is if the lenses were to become damaged, however this is just as much an issue for distance vision correction devices and so the answer is simple........carry a spare pair.
As for the issue of existing colours in daylight and night (PFD/ caution/ warning lights etc.) these lenses are not "off the shelf" products they are tailored to suit the needs of the individuals and so only correct the colours which the individuals have difficulty with.
Nick
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, Nick, I think the CAA would argue that the lenses only prove an individual can pass an Ishihara Test and that the lenses may also affect a person's ability to discern other 'critical' colours inside and outside the cockpit (although the CAA's own report of July 2006 identified the only critical lighting as being parking berth lights and PAPI lights).
You must also remember that the CAA do not conduct the Ishihara Test in accordance with the manufacturers instructions in the first place so I couldn't see them permitting anything that would benefit the examinee. Apart from that, the CAA policies and procedures would involve a study that would take about 5 years before allowing such a change.
As a doctor, you know better than anyone else the risks involved in adapting prescribed medical procedures to suit your own needs, especially in such a manner as to elicit the results you desire. I know for a fact what the medico-legal profession think about this as I have held talks with solicitors in that area of the legal profession and the phrases 'treading on thin ice' and 'asking for trouble' spring to mind.
2close
You must also remember that the CAA do not conduct the Ishihara Test in accordance with the manufacturers instructions in the first place so I couldn't see them permitting anything that would benefit the examinee. Apart from that, the CAA policies and procedures would involve a study that would take about 5 years before allowing such a change.
As a doctor, you know better than anyone else the risks involved in adapting prescribed medical procedures to suit your own needs, especially in such a manner as to elicit the results you desire. I know for a fact what the medico-legal profession think about this as I have held talks with solicitors in that area of the legal profession and the phrases 'treading on thin ice' and 'asking for trouble' spring to mind.
2close
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chromagen
Early in the research programme I suggested that these contacts were looked at and the company kindly gave me a pair to try out....or should I say one to put in my dominant left eye because that is how they work.
I then went to City uni again and sat all of the tests that I had already down with them in order that a 'before and after' comparison of results could be down.
I passed all of the Ishihara cards but got some of the simple lantern test wrong. The lens sent everything a bit awry and I don't think they are answer in this case.
Anyway, as 2close has said many times, it is not a question of passing the tests it is the matter of making the tests realistic and representative.
G
I then went to City uni again and sat all of the tests that I had already down with them in order that a 'before and after' comparison of results could be down.
I passed all of the Ishihara cards but got some of the simple lantern test wrong. The lens sent everything a bit awry and I don't think they are answer in this case.
Anyway, as 2close has said many times, it is not a question of passing the tests it is the matter of making the tests realistic and representative.
G
Join Date: May 2004
Location: About 4Nm at 220 from runway 21 EGTC
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
Like so many of you, i've been to Gatwick about 3 years ago now and failed all the tests going, despite getting a lot of the Ishihara's right (just not enough). I paid my money and know where I stand.
In June this year, I paid even more money, this time to City University, to run through all the tests available, including a CAD one in its early stages of development and the D15 test, American versions etc..... My diagnosis is mild protan deficient which means I struggle with light greens and whites when there is a red around to confuse the issue. At this point I would like to say how terrific the team at City are. They are the ones working on alternatives to the vintage test procedure currently used by the CAA and I take my hat off to them. It was the best £125 I've ever spent.
The PAPI lights simulator was very good. Just a plasma telly but with the PAPI lights at a distance, changing sequence. For me no problem at all (reds and whites dont cause a problem for us Protan deficient types!)
In October at the tender age of 33, I started my PPL and in November at dusk I saw and pointed out every colour on the runway to my instructor. That's right, the PAPIs turning from 3 whites + 1 red to 2 whites + 2 reds. I could easily see the edges of the runway in white, the close threshold in green and the end of the runway in red. My instructor said "I thought you were colourblind". Well according to the tests I am.
So the question I ask you all is this - does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is? I'd be quite happy to pen a letter to the CAA at Gatwick, but I wouldnt want to take the team from City away from their work. I'm sure that it was supposed to be later in 2007 that a new test procedure would be introduced, but I may be mistaken. Afterall, if City are doing all this research at the request (and funding?) of the CAA then there must be a purpose to it.
While the floor is mine - a big thanks to all of you for keeping this thread alive and well, in particular Blinkz, Gijoe, East Sider, 2Close and Windforce to name but a few
I guess for now we still remain green with envy of those Commercial pilots. Or is it white with envy..... don't ask me, I'm colourblind.
Keep smiling. Keep talking and get flying.
The question again - Does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is?
In June this year, I paid even more money, this time to City University, to run through all the tests available, including a CAD one in its early stages of development and the D15 test, American versions etc..... My diagnosis is mild protan deficient which means I struggle with light greens and whites when there is a red around to confuse the issue. At this point I would like to say how terrific the team at City are. They are the ones working on alternatives to the vintage test procedure currently used by the CAA and I take my hat off to them. It was the best £125 I've ever spent.
The PAPI lights simulator was very good. Just a plasma telly but with the PAPI lights at a distance, changing sequence. For me no problem at all (reds and whites dont cause a problem for us Protan deficient types!)
In October at the tender age of 33, I started my PPL and in November at dusk I saw and pointed out every colour on the runway to my instructor. That's right, the PAPIs turning from 3 whites + 1 red to 2 whites + 2 reds. I could easily see the edges of the runway in white, the close threshold in green and the end of the runway in red. My instructor said "I thought you were colourblind". Well according to the tests I am.
So the question I ask you all is this - does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is? I'd be quite happy to pen a letter to the CAA at Gatwick, but I wouldnt want to take the team from City away from their work. I'm sure that it was supposed to be later in 2007 that a new test procedure would be introduced, but I may be mistaken. Afterall, if City are doing all this research at the request (and funding?) of the CAA then there must be a purpose to it.
While the floor is mine - a big thanks to all of you for keeping this thread alive and well, in particular Blinkz, Gijoe, East Sider, 2Close and Windforce to name but a few
I guess for now we still remain green with envy of those Commercial pilots. Or is it white with envy..... don't ask me, I'm colourblind.
Keep smiling. Keep talking and get flying.
The question again - Does anyone know how near, far, likely or unlikely a revised testing procedure is?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi troops,
Whilst I am 100% certain that my earlier statement is how it was related to me at the time I now have an update (and airwjo will like this!).
Assume you have failed the tests at Gatwick and go overseas to another JAA member state:
a. If you PASS the Spectrolux or Nagel these will be accepted by the UK CAA as evidence of having passed an approved CVD test.
b. If, however, you PASS the H-W or Beynes (having already failed them at Gatwick) this evidence will be subject to review by a UK CAA senior Medical Officer who will make a decision whether or not to accept them.
To me, this latter case sounds very nebulous and open to personal interpretation but looking positively the bottom line is, if you are succesful then your medical will be exchanged like for like and does not rely on provision of a CPL from another member state.
So I retract my earlier statements regarding necessity to hold a JAA CPL.
Hope this clears up any confusion (apart from my own confusion vis-a-vis conflicting information but I think I've mentioned that before!!)
Whilst I am 100% certain that my earlier statement is how it was related to me at the time I now have an update (and airwjo will like this!).
Assume you have failed the tests at Gatwick and go overseas to another JAA member state:
a. If you PASS the Spectrolux or Nagel these will be accepted by the UK CAA as evidence of having passed an approved CVD test.
b. If, however, you PASS the H-W or Beynes (having already failed them at Gatwick) this evidence will be subject to review by a UK CAA senior Medical Officer who will make a decision whether or not to accept them.
To me, this latter case sounds very nebulous and open to personal interpretation but looking positively the bottom line is, if you are succesful then your medical will be exchanged like for like and does not rely on provision of a CPL from another member state.
So I retract my earlier statements regarding necessity to hold a JAA CPL.
Hope this clears up any confusion (apart from my own confusion vis-a-vis conflicting information but I think I've mentioned that before!!)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
colourblindgeek you are weclome, we are united in our problem. good luck
My answer to your question - not clear when, there have been news articles in Flight International fairly recently saying a new test would be introduced in 2007, but I've been told verbally by City Uni that they are still working on the development, then the CAA have to decide what to do and introduce it, so they estimated up to three years. Others have heard other, possibly conflicting, info I believe.
Either way its my personal opinion that the new test might not be any better for marginal CVDs, I'd still be trying to pass a lantern somewhere in Europe and get the CAA to accept that, except I've decided not to pursue a commercial career.
Good luck
My answer to your question - not clear when, there have been news articles in Flight International fairly recently saying a new test would be introduced in 2007, but I've been told verbally by City Uni that they are still working on the development, then the CAA have to decide what to do and introduce it, so they estimated up to three years. Others have heard other, possibly conflicting, info I believe.
Either way its my personal opinion that the new test might not be any better for marginal CVDs, I'd still be trying to pass a lantern somewhere in Europe and get the CAA to accept that, except I've decided not to pursue a commercial career.
Good luck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tel Boy,
I believe you have to undertake the full medical and not just the lantern tests but I don't know for certain.
East-Sider,
None of my business of course but why have you binned the idea of a commercial career, not because of the CVD issue I hope?
The CAA will not introduce the testing unilaterally - as a member of JAA they can't. When the research is complete, the results will have to be reviewed and reported upon. If the CAA then believes the test will benefit aviation safety (and their argument will have to be convincing) the proposal will have to be put before a JAA Medical Review Board (or whatever it's called). The matter will be put to a vote (all countries being equal) and if accepted the new tests would need to be introduced over a period of time. This would require all AMEs throughout the whole of JAA land being provided with the software and computer equipment and being trained in its use. Furthermore, all AMCs would require the PAPI simulator as the secondary testing equipment. As can be seen this will be a very expensive and time consuming programme and I wouldn't hold my breath on (a) seeing it introduced at all and (b) even if it is, not in the next couple of years.
I have already made enquiries with the FAA via US AOPA and any person already holding an unrestricted FAA medical (e.g. me) will NOT be required to undertake the new test again, IF it is accepted. I feel we should be making formal objections against the introduction of this new test to the FAA via US AOPA (very powerful organisation with a strong voice in the US Senate). The current system in the USA is more than adequate - they apply Ishihara correctly, they have an alternative lantern test and lastly a practical test. There is no need to change anything and I'm sure the US will see through that.
The CAA has funded this research, which has quite nicely resulted in a PhD for someone, and this has been achieved at the fee payers expense. I would have no truck with this if it seriously benefited aviation safety but the simple fact is it does NOTHING to benefit aviation safety. Quite honestly, I think the whole project is nothing more than someone's academic wet dream and I feel somewhat miffed at having to pay, through our over-inflated fees, for a pointless project. I honestly cannot see how this will benefit aviation safety in any way, shape or form.
I know for an absolute fact that there are CVD pilots out there in the RAF (admitted to me face to face by a RAF squadron leader Tornado pilot) and UK commercial aviation who have got through the system and we can safely assume that the same exists in other countries. There are many US and Canadian pilots flying commercially into UK airspace who would not pass the JAA standards. So with all these dangerous pilots out there, has anyone noticed planes falling out of the sky because of CVD pilots? No. Why? Because there have not been any CVD related aviation accidents in the history of aviation.
Many may disagree but I am being completely honest when I state that I believe the reason the CAA is pushing for the introduction of this test is that they can then set the Pass-Fail benchmark and no-one can argue against it whereas the Ishihara Pass-Fail criteria have been blatantly manipulated to suit their own ends and they know fully well that, in today's climate it is only a question of time before someone puts them in the dock. Saying that, I also think the CAA is a victim of the old regimental tie brigade (the same Ishihara nil errors Pass-Fail criteria is applied by the military). The old CAA was mainly ex-military personnel so it is quite likely that the current criteria is a hand-me-down from the old days.
Time to put the soap box away and do some work.
Have a good weekend, troops.
2close
I believe you have to undertake the full medical and not just the lantern tests but I don't know for certain.
East-Sider,
None of my business of course but why have you binned the idea of a commercial career, not because of the CVD issue I hope?
The CAA will not introduce the testing unilaterally - as a member of JAA they can't. When the research is complete, the results will have to be reviewed and reported upon. If the CAA then believes the test will benefit aviation safety (and their argument will have to be convincing) the proposal will have to be put before a JAA Medical Review Board (or whatever it's called). The matter will be put to a vote (all countries being equal) and if accepted the new tests would need to be introduced over a period of time. This would require all AMEs throughout the whole of JAA land being provided with the software and computer equipment and being trained in its use. Furthermore, all AMCs would require the PAPI simulator as the secondary testing equipment. As can be seen this will be a very expensive and time consuming programme and I wouldn't hold my breath on (a) seeing it introduced at all and (b) even if it is, not in the next couple of years.
I have already made enquiries with the FAA via US AOPA and any person already holding an unrestricted FAA medical (e.g. me) will NOT be required to undertake the new test again, IF it is accepted. I feel we should be making formal objections against the introduction of this new test to the FAA via US AOPA (very powerful organisation with a strong voice in the US Senate). The current system in the USA is more than adequate - they apply Ishihara correctly, they have an alternative lantern test and lastly a practical test. There is no need to change anything and I'm sure the US will see through that.
The CAA has funded this research, which has quite nicely resulted in a PhD for someone, and this has been achieved at the fee payers expense. I would have no truck with this if it seriously benefited aviation safety but the simple fact is it does NOTHING to benefit aviation safety. Quite honestly, I think the whole project is nothing more than someone's academic wet dream and I feel somewhat miffed at having to pay, through our over-inflated fees, for a pointless project. I honestly cannot see how this will benefit aviation safety in any way, shape or form.
I know for an absolute fact that there are CVD pilots out there in the RAF (admitted to me face to face by a RAF squadron leader Tornado pilot) and UK commercial aviation who have got through the system and we can safely assume that the same exists in other countries. There are many US and Canadian pilots flying commercially into UK airspace who would not pass the JAA standards. So with all these dangerous pilots out there, has anyone noticed planes falling out of the sky because of CVD pilots? No. Why? Because there have not been any CVD related aviation accidents in the history of aviation.
Many may disagree but I am being completely honest when I state that I believe the reason the CAA is pushing for the introduction of this test is that they can then set the Pass-Fail benchmark and no-one can argue against it whereas the Ishihara Pass-Fail criteria have been blatantly manipulated to suit their own ends and they know fully well that, in today's climate it is only a question of time before someone puts them in the dock. Saying that, I also think the CAA is a victim of the old regimental tie brigade (the same Ishihara nil errors Pass-Fail criteria is applied by the military). The old CAA was mainly ex-military personnel so it is quite likely that the current criteria is a hand-me-down from the old days.
Time to put the soap box away and do some work.
Have a good weekend, troops.
2close
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ww/W First you will need to be able to live and work in Australia if you want to work there. The FAA licence is limited outside the US, but work IS available.
I can't comment on the Austrailian ideas as I do not have any experience of them. The FAA will test you using Ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong) and then lantern. However if you have an FAA medical with colour vision restrictions on you can do the light signal test at any time during flight training. If you pass the light signal test (95% do) then you will get a letter of evidence from the FAA and this will act as your colour vision during any future medical. It is also good for ANY class FAA medical. I do not think you will be able to do the signal test in the UK though. I did mine in the US, but it is worth asking about.
You can get a list of FAA AME from http://ame.cami.jccbi.gov/amelist.asp There are 2 at our freinds place at Gatwick.
The FAA are very approachable in my experience and do genuinley want to help. Why not have a look through their website and mabe give them a call. www.faa.gov
All the best mate - don't give up, keep flying
I can't comment on the Austrailian ideas as I do not have any experience of them. The FAA will test you using Ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong) and then lantern. However if you have an FAA medical with colour vision restrictions on you can do the light signal test at any time during flight training. If you pass the light signal test (95% do) then you will get a letter of evidence from the FAA and this will act as your colour vision during any future medical. It is also good for ANY class FAA medical. I do not think you will be able to do the signal test in the UK though. I did mine in the US, but it is worth asking about.
You can get a list of FAA AME from http://ame.cami.jccbi.gov/amelist.asp There are 2 at our freinds place at Gatwick.
The FAA are very approachable in my experience and do genuinley want to help. Why not have a look through their website and mabe give them a call. www.faa.gov
All the best mate - don't give up, keep flying
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA class 1 renewal - colour vision test
Hi fellow pilots,
I am due to have my first casa classs 1 renewal soon. On my initial class 1 examination I was tested for colour deficiency with the Ishihara plates. I did pass them but I got 2 wrong for some weird reason, since I have never had problems with my colour vision. The DAME told me that I would have failed if I would have gotten one more plate wrong. I was just wondering if they will test me again for colour deficiency on my renewal since I am afraid that I might get more than two wrong and thus fail well in my flight training.
Any information relating to this wil lbe appreciated.
I am due to have my first casa classs 1 renewal soon. On my initial class 1 examination I was tested for colour deficiency with the Ishihara plates. I did pass them but I got 2 wrong for some weird reason, since I have never had problems with my colour vision. The DAME told me that I would have failed if I would have gotten one more plate wrong. I was just wondering if they will test me again for colour deficiency on my renewal since I am afraid that I might get more than two wrong and thus fail well in my flight training.
Any information relating to this wil lbe appreciated.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for the congrats, encouragement and support, it still feels good a few days on!
2close, to answer your earlier question and TelBoy your point on this page about why I've given up on the commercial route... having failed all the tests here it seems to me my options are:
1. Spend time/money going to other JAA states to take the lantern tests hoping to pass under a different testing protocol, then persuade CAA to accept this result. I have considered this, but given how relatively badly I've failed the lanterns in the UK, both at City and Gatwick, I'm not sure I'd pass anywhere to be honest.
2. Move to FAA land, live, train and seek employment there. I've decided on a personal level this isn't right for me, if I was young free and single I would consider seriously, but I'm in a happy relationship which is as if not more important to me, although my girlfriend is v supportive of my flying generally, this is a serious (5 years or more) lifestyle change I'm not willing to make.
3. Move to Australia, train live and work there for a carrier that only operates in Australian airspace - hardly viable for an Aussie, plus all the above mean its not for me!
Do you guys agree, in all seriousness am I missing any other options?
I've got to be honest with myself about how badly I failed the lanterns. Although my diagnosis from City is only "Moderate Protonamolous" in reality I was a long long way from passing... getting 25-50% of the test wrong. Mind you I reckon I could pass the Beyene if I could have 10 goes at it in a row!! And certainly in my flying so far I've never felt distinguishing colour was a problem for me, not even at night with a safety pilot/instructor.
Any ideas welcome. Keep smiling and flying!
cheers all
ES
2close, to answer your earlier question and TelBoy your point on this page about why I've given up on the commercial route... having failed all the tests here it seems to me my options are:
1. Spend time/money going to other JAA states to take the lantern tests hoping to pass under a different testing protocol, then persuade CAA to accept this result. I have considered this, but given how relatively badly I've failed the lanterns in the UK, both at City and Gatwick, I'm not sure I'd pass anywhere to be honest.
2. Move to FAA land, live, train and seek employment there. I've decided on a personal level this isn't right for me, if I was young free and single I would consider seriously, but I'm in a happy relationship which is as if not more important to me, although my girlfriend is v supportive of my flying generally, this is a serious (5 years or more) lifestyle change I'm not willing to make.
3. Move to Australia, train live and work there for a carrier that only operates in Australian airspace - hardly viable for an Aussie, plus all the above mean its not for me!
Do you guys agree, in all seriousness am I missing any other options?
I've got to be honest with myself about how badly I failed the lanterns. Although my diagnosis from City is only "Moderate Protonamolous" in reality I was a long long way from passing... getting 25-50% of the test wrong. Mind you I reckon I could pass the Beyene if I could have 10 goes at it in a row!! And certainly in my flying so far I've never felt distinguishing colour was a problem for me, not even at night with a safety pilot/instructor.
Any ideas welcome. Keep smiling and flying!
cheers all
ES
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had mt test.
Hi everyone.
I'm not sure if this should be a new thread. I started reading CVD Threads on here a couple of weeks ago and read one that was 7 years long. If my eyes worked before they certainly don't now. So I read only the last couple pages here so I hope this is the place to gain a feeling of solidarity. If I have missed something if you can point it out I’d be grateful.
Mostly I just want to share the awfully disappointing day I’ve had at a university having my colour tested. I too dream of gaining a CPL. My journey started at the local AME. He was unable to officially test me but said “come on down and you can look at the Ishihara plates. So it was a beautiful sunny day and he stood me in the path of the sunlight and proceeded with the 24 plate set. Despite the pain of my squinting eye lids trying to shield my eyes from the suns radiation bouncing from the page. I managed to fail only 4 plates. He said I should not give up just yet and sent me to the university.
I have just come back. I have never felt so low but reading all your comments still gives me hope.
If you are interested here’s how it went. I did the Ishihara plates again under daylight balanced fluorecent and only got one wrong. Next I did the Farnsworth test where you arrange the coloured buttons. I felt I was on fire and nothing was going to stop me.
Then, it starting to go wrong.
The next test was one that involves matching two semicircular segments of green and red colour. First I had to say which was brighter then match the colour. It was like asking someone else to focus a camera for you. By telling him when to stop he would take the reading. Often he would go passed the point where the colours matched and I would look at the result and think, hang on that’s not where I said stop. So ultimately my adjustment of these colours had to go through one level of communication and an old professors hands who passed the points that I said stop.
Finally I had the lantern test. He left me in a room to become dark adjusted.
In this time alone I took an opportunity to look at the lantern just so I could identify what these machine was calling green red and white. I'd done it earlier in just a darkened room and I could not see any green at all. MY word I’ve never seen white and green look so similar.
At the end even he was a little amazed. He said he had test subjects with worse CVD than I but they still passed the lantern test.
I did not. Science is about getting repeatable results. Ishihara books from 1969 will have faded colours and Lanterns that have never been cleaned or calibrated. Until these test can be conclusive then we should all just keep trying. At the moment I don't know what to do. I am not convinced I am a risk to the world if I flew. I will continue to read here and find out how it can be done. I can only feel that your results get better the more you try and they are by no means conclusive. I paid for this test so I’m not registered as failed unless he sends the CAA the results. So until I go to Gatwick I can’t know for sure. So I will soldier on with my PPL and cross that unknowing bridge when it crops up next.
Good luck all CVD.
I'm not sure if this should be a new thread. I started reading CVD Threads on here a couple of weeks ago and read one that was 7 years long. If my eyes worked before they certainly don't now. So I read only the last couple pages here so I hope this is the place to gain a feeling of solidarity. If I have missed something if you can point it out I’d be grateful.
Mostly I just want to share the awfully disappointing day I’ve had at a university having my colour tested. I too dream of gaining a CPL. My journey started at the local AME. He was unable to officially test me but said “come on down and you can look at the Ishihara plates. So it was a beautiful sunny day and he stood me in the path of the sunlight and proceeded with the 24 plate set. Despite the pain of my squinting eye lids trying to shield my eyes from the suns radiation bouncing from the page. I managed to fail only 4 plates. He said I should not give up just yet and sent me to the university.
I have just come back. I have never felt so low but reading all your comments still gives me hope.
If you are interested here’s how it went. I did the Ishihara plates again under daylight balanced fluorecent and only got one wrong. Next I did the Farnsworth test where you arrange the coloured buttons. I felt I was on fire and nothing was going to stop me.
Then, it starting to go wrong.
The next test was one that involves matching two semicircular segments of green and red colour. First I had to say which was brighter then match the colour. It was like asking someone else to focus a camera for you. By telling him when to stop he would take the reading. Often he would go passed the point where the colours matched and I would look at the result and think, hang on that’s not where I said stop. So ultimately my adjustment of these colours had to go through one level of communication and an old professors hands who passed the points that I said stop.
Finally I had the lantern test. He left me in a room to become dark adjusted.
In this time alone I took an opportunity to look at the lantern just so I could identify what these machine was calling green red and white. I'd done it earlier in just a darkened room and I could not see any green at all. MY word I’ve never seen white and green look so similar.
At the end even he was a little amazed. He said he had test subjects with worse CVD than I but they still passed the lantern test.
I did not. Science is about getting repeatable results. Ishihara books from 1969 will have faded colours and Lanterns that have never been cleaned or calibrated. Until these test can be conclusive then we should all just keep trying. At the moment I don't know what to do. I am not convinced I am a risk to the world if I flew. I will continue to read here and find out how it can be done. I can only feel that your results get better the more you try and they are by no means conclusive. I paid for this test so I’m not registered as failed unless he sends the CAA the results. So until I go to Gatwick I can’t know for sure. So I will soldier on with my PPL and cross that unknowing bridge when it crops up next.
Good luck all CVD.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danielremon,
Yes, the examinee should adjust the controls on the Anomaloscope NOT the examiner.
With one error on Ishihara you PASSED the test according to the manufacturer - up to 2 errors is a pass. However, the CAA (and all other JAA countries) will FAIL you, their criteria being NIL errors.
Every single doctor, optometrist and solicitor I have talked to has stated that it is not acceptable to alter the criteria in this manner to make it more difficult for people to pass.
To quote a doctor involved in the aviation industry I spoke to only last Tuesday when discussing the JAA's manipulation of Ishihara - "If I manipulated a medical test to get the results I wanted I would be sacked and probably sued".
Interesting point about calibration. Considering the age of the equipment and non-availability of spares, etc. I would be very keen to learn when the equipment was last calibrated or subjected to any form of maintenance. What guarantee is there that the equipment meets the required levels of luminance?
The examiner cannot send the results to the CAA unless you gave him explicit permission to do so.
BTW, welcome to the madhouse!
Yes, the examinee should adjust the controls on the Anomaloscope NOT the examiner.
With one error on Ishihara you PASSED the test according to the manufacturer - up to 2 errors is a pass. However, the CAA (and all other JAA countries) will FAIL you, their criteria being NIL errors.
Every single doctor, optometrist and solicitor I have talked to has stated that it is not acceptable to alter the criteria in this manner to make it more difficult for people to pass.
To quote a doctor involved in the aviation industry I spoke to only last Tuesday when discussing the JAA's manipulation of Ishihara - "If I manipulated a medical test to get the results I wanted I would be sacked and probably sued".
Interesting point about calibration. Considering the age of the equipment and non-availability of spares, etc. I would be very keen to learn when the equipment was last calibrated or subjected to any form of maintenance. What guarantee is there that the equipment meets the required levels of luminance?
The examiner cannot send the results to the CAA unless you gave him explicit permission to do so.
BTW, welcome to the madhouse!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad It Is!
Ah yes mad it is. I am totally amazed that I failed the lantern. I am arranging my PPL Training in the US at longbeach. So I will do my test there and see if it comes up with different results!
Does any one know anyone who has challenge the CAA on the Criteria.
I've read a theory that CVD come from the need to have improved night vision. apparently this indicated in the fact that races nearer the equator have less CVDs than those further toward the poles.
I'm not a rich man but I'd love to fight either the way the testing is done or the fact that no proof can be found that CVD people cause more accidents than others even in other modes of transport.
But my one big worry is where this selective behavior will stop. they'll bring in psycometric testing next. when they know more about the genome I wonder if they'll bring that in. because if someone has potental to suffer heart problems it would be deemed preventable possible accident.
IN FACT WHY DID WE FIGHT AGAINST EUGENICS.
sorry I'm ranting it still a recent wound.
Does any one know anyone who has challenge the CAA on the Criteria.
I've read a theory that CVD come from the need to have improved night vision. apparently this indicated in the fact that races nearer the equator have less CVDs than those further toward the poles.
I'm not a rich man but I'd love to fight either the way the testing is done or the fact that no proof can be found that CVD people cause more accidents than others even in other modes of transport.
But my one big worry is where this selective behavior will stop. they'll bring in psycometric testing next. when they know more about the genome I wonder if they'll bring that in. because if someone has potental to suffer heart problems it would be deemed preventable possible accident.
IN FACT WHY DID WE FIGHT AGAINST EUGENICS.
sorry I'm ranting it still a recent wound.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danielremon,
As far as your CAA medical goes you can do the colour vision tests at the CAA at Gatwick. The colour vision test on its own costs £28. First you will do the ihihara. If you do not pass ALL of the plates you will be given an eyesight test by reading a chart and then dark adapted. Next is the Bayne test. This is taken in darkness at 5 metres. You will see a light for about 1 second and have to identify the colours red, green, white, blue and orange. The light you see is about 3mm in diamiter. If you fail any of these you will then go to the Holmes Wright test. This is two lights, one above the other. The lights can be red, green or white. The lights stay on for about 3 seconds, but I find it VERY dificult as the lights are only a pin prick at 6 metres and they alter the hew. If you pass any of these it counts towards ANY class of medical. If you fail them all (like so many of us in this forum) you will only be able to fly by day VFR with no public transport.
As for the FAA, they are a LOT more liberal. If you fail the ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong I think) and get a restricted medical, you can then apply to do a light signal test. This is at an airport and the tower signal gun is fired at you when you are with an FAA examiner at about 1000 and 1500 yards. If you identify red, white and green ok then you get a letter of evidance that acts as your colour vision test in any future medical and restrictions on your current medical are lifted. Many of us here have failed the CAA tests, but have passed in the US and have unrestricted FAA medicals.
As both the CAA (and in fact all JAA states) are ICAO it is stupid that the CAA do not recognise the FAA tests. The FAA are the largest aviation authority in the world and have 16500 CVD pilots that have passed alternative and PRACTICAL tests. 2000 of these have ATP licences and 5000 Comercial - and their planes are NOT falling out the sky, which is proof that their system works and the JAA is discriminating without reason.
Any how I hope this helps a bit, but do read ALL the threads in this forum. I know it is a bit of a drag, but there is good info to be had - and hey if you pass the colour vision tests and go for ATP you are in for a LOT of reading.
All the best mate - keep flying and keep fighting these stupid rules.
As far as your CAA medical goes you can do the colour vision tests at the CAA at Gatwick. The colour vision test on its own costs £28. First you will do the ihihara. If you do not pass ALL of the plates you will be given an eyesight test by reading a chart and then dark adapted. Next is the Bayne test. This is taken in darkness at 5 metres. You will see a light for about 1 second and have to identify the colours red, green, white, blue and orange. The light you see is about 3mm in diamiter. If you fail any of these you will then go to the Holmes Wright test. This is two lights, one above the other. The lights can be red, green or white. The lights stay on for about 3 seconds, but I find it VERY dificult as the lights are only a pin prick at 6 metres and they alter the hew. If you pass any of these it counts towards ANY class of medical. If you fail them all (like so many of us in this forum) you will only be able to fly by day VFR with no public transport.
As for the FAA, they are a LOT more liberal. If you fail the ishihara (you can get about 6 wrong I think) and get a restricted medical, you can then apply to do a light signal test. This is at an airport and the tower signal gun is fired at you when you are with an FAA examiner at about 1000 and 1500 yards. If you identify red, white and green ok then you get a letter of evidance that acts as your colour vision test in any future medical and restrictions on your current medical are lifted. Many of us here have failed the CAA tests, but have passed in the US and have unrestricted FAA medicals.
As both the CAA (and in fact all JAA states) are ICAO it is stupid that the CAA do not recognise the FAA tests. The FAA are the largest aviation authority in the world and have 16500 CVD pilots that have passed alternative and PRACTICAL tests. 2000 of these have ATP licences and 5000 Comercial - and their planes are NOT falling out the sky, which is proof that their system works and the JAA is discriminating without reason.
Any how I hope this helps a bit, but do read ALL the threads in this forum. I know it is a bit of a drag, but there is good info to be had - and hey if you pass the colour vision tests and go for ATP you are in for a LOT of reading.
All the best mate - keep flying and keep fighting these stupid rules.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I pass all 24 plates will i be tested further.
Thanks telboy.
I can't give my dream up. I am reading this thread from the begining and it's fascinating. Though my partner is going mad at the fact I've been reading this all day. WOW what a read.
Does anyone know what Ishihara test is used at Gatwick. Is it the same one all the optitians use. i.e 24 plates 1969 version. Has it ever even changed for that matter.
Can someone tell me.
If I pass all 24 plates. will I be tested further or will I of passed? My fear is being tested on the faded fansworth lantern test like that at the uni.
I had got 4 wrong on my first Ishi test in sunlight with an optician, I got 1 wrong on my second at a university under balanced day light. Now I took my time, so is there a time limit on guessing? It seems to me that I'm getting better.
Colour perseption is extremely complex.
My thoughts are that there are so many factors that can affect colour.
Eye's and there system for seeing(the brain)are highly adaptive.Like all senses it is responsive to change in stimulation.
this is why we don't see colour changes from tungsten to daylight over a period of time when camera's make us aware of this fact. This becomes more apparent when you wear coloured specs and then remove them. Our vision takes a moment to correct it's balance and is left with an opposite colour cast. So there must be all sorts of variables, so although our genes will never change. Surely our situations do. But when thinking about dark readying for 15 minutes I wondered where this would leave our colour balance. I almost past my Ishihara test but failed the farnsworth Lantern.
Weird. So if I can nail the Ishihara. Will I be OK.
I can't give my dream up. I am reading this thread from the begining and it's fascinating. Though my partner is going mad at the fact I've been reading this all day. WOW what a read.
Does anyone know what Ishihara test is used at Gatwick. Is it the same one all the optitians use. i.e 24 plates 1969 version. Has it ever even changed for that matter.
Can someone tell me.
If I pass all 24 plates. will I be tested further or will I of passed? My fear is being tested on the faded fansworth lantern test like that at the uni.
I had got 4 wrong on my first Ishi test in sunlight with an optician, I got 1 wrong on my second at a university under balanced day light. Now I took my time, so is there a time limit on guessing? It seems to me that I'm getting better.
Colour perseption is extremely complex.
My thoughts are that there are so many factors that can affect colour.
Eye's and there system for seeing(the brain)are highly adaptive.Like all senses it is responsive to change in stimulation.
this is why we don't see colour changes from tungsten to daylight over a period of time when camera's make us aware of this fact. This becomes more apparent when you wear coloured specs and then remove them. Our vision takes a moment to correct it's balance and is left with an opposite colour cast. So there must be all sorts of variables, so although our genes will never change. Surely our situations do. But when thinking about dark readying for 15 minutes I wondered where this would leave our colour balance. I almost past my Ishihara test but failed the farnsworth Lantern.
Weird. So if I can nail the Ishihara. Will I be OK.
Last edited by Danielremon; 6th May 2007 at 21:48.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danielremon,
I think Gatwick use the first 15 plates of the 24 plate edition. You must pass all 15. Once you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick they will not test you again. It is a part of your initial medical, which is more stringent than renewals. The CAA see colour vision as never altering so if you pass they will not retest you and likewise if you fail they will not retest you. However to be fair to them I did get a retest as they added the baynes test since my first try (still failed).
The CAA do NOT use the Farnsworth lantern, that was just something the uni use.
You get about 3 seconds to answer on each plate. The rules say something like “no hesitation” so don’t umm and err over them.
I do agree with you at how complex colour vision is and lets face it “colour normal” people (who make the rules) can only guess at what we can really comprehend in real life. Hence the FAA more relaxed system and the Australians having NO colour vision requirements for CPL (limited to Oz airspace though) and they do NOT have accidents due to CVD!! – I rest my case on that one.
Again to set your mind at rest. If you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick, you will NEVER have to take them again. You can book just the colour vision assessment for £28, so I would say give it a go.
Good luck to you mate.
I think Gatwick use the first 15 plates of the 24 plate edition. You must pass all 15. Once you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick they will not test you again. It is a part of your initial medical, which is more stringent than renewals. The CAA see colour vision as never altering so if you pass they will not retest you and likewise if you fail they will not retest you. However to be fair to them I did get a retest as they added the baynes test since my first try (still failed).
The CAA do NOT use the Farnsworth lantern, that was just something the uni use.
You get about 3 seconds to answer on each plate. The rules say something like “no hesitation” so don’t umm and err over them.
I do agree with you at how complex colour vision is and lets face it “colour normal” people (who make the rules) can only guess at what we can really comprehend in real life. Hence the FAA more relaxed system and the Australians having NO colour vision requirements for CPL (limited to Oz airspace though) and they do NOT have accidents due to CVD!! – I rest my case on that one.
Again to set your mind at rest. If you pass any of the colour vision tests at Gatwick, you will NEVER have to take them again. You can book just the colour vision assessment for £28, so I would say give it a go.
Good luck to you mate.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Are Going to Love This!
Troops,
In my never-ending battle to have this ridiculously discriminatory ruling overturned within civil aviation I have been trying to think of other employment groups where colour vision may be considered as equally important as in aviation. This led me to Maritime & Coastguard Agency.
The following are excerpts from the MCA Manual of Medicine.
4.1 Vision testing
Background
4.1.1 All seafarers are required to meet the internationally agreed eyesight standards as specified in the medical and eyesight standards (MSN 1765(M), Annex B, Appendix 1) (copy at Appendix 1). These include a basic standard for unaided vision to ensure a degree of capability in emergency situations, should glasses be missing. The standards are framed to provide maximum flexibility in their interpretation compatible with ensuring the health of the individual seafarer and maintaining the safety of ships at sea.
4.1.2 Both good visual acuity and unimpaired colour vision are essential for those undertaking lookout duties. This includes all deck officers and ratings. Lookout duties are those involving actually looking out to sea, (to check for hazards, other vessels etc) and should not be confused with ‘watchkeeping’ which is simply a nautical term for being on duty. Engineering staff generally do not carry out lookout duties and are therefore required to meet somewhat less stringent eyesight standards. However, they will need to be capable of correctly recognising colour coding on cables, pipes and display screens.
4.1.4 Since good vision is central to lookout duties and hence to ship safety, it is essential that vision testing is carried out to a high standard, which ensures consistent results. Discrepancies between repeat tests which result in restriction and consequential loss of work, for instance where previously undetected colour defects are found, can have a disastrous effect on a seafarer’s career. It is therefore essential that conditions such as lighting balance and level are suitable and that any delegation of the testing is to someone who is fully trained in procedures and aware of the need to be alert for any deception. Test results brought by the seafarer should not be used as a substitute for testing at the examination. Borderline results should always be rechecked and all results recorded.
Colour vision
4.1.7 The AD must also ensure that the seafarer meets the colour vision standards. To comply with international guidelines, testing for all seafarers should be done with the standard Ishihara plates and should be carried out at every medical examination unless the AD has his own record of a previous medical where the test has been passed within the previous four years. Illumination should be good north facing daylight or with daylight fluorescent lighting. Incandescent lighting is unsuitable because of its colour balance. The criteria for a pass is three or less misreadings on the 24 plate test. It is essential that seafarers applying for certificates of competency as deck or dual career (merchant/fishing) officers have full colour vision.
Here is the link to the full document:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-se...ch-4-Anchor4.1
Not only does the professional seafaring industry apply Ishihara correctly they have even gone one step further and relaxed the criteria by permitting three errors as opposed to the two stipulated in Ishihara.
The ice gets thinner.........
In my never-ending battle to have this ridiculously discriminatory ruling overturned within civil aviation I have been trying to think of other employment groups where colour vision may be considered as equally important as in aviation. This led me to Maritime & Coastguard Agency.
The following are excerpts from the MCA Manual of Medicine.
4.1 Vision testing
Background
4.1.1 All seafarers are required to meet the internationally agreed eyesight standards as specified in the medical and eyesight standards (MSN 1765(M), Annex B, Appendix 1) (copy at Appendix 1). These include a basic standard for unaided vision to ensure a degree of capability in emergency situations, should glasses be missing. The standards are framed to provide maximum flexibility in their interpretation compatible with ensuring the health of the individual seafarer and maintaining the safety of ships at sea.
4.1.2 Both good visual acuity and unimpaired colour vision are essential for those undertaking lookout duties. This includes all deck officers and ratings. Lookout duties are those involving actually looking out to sea, (to check for hazards, other vessels etc) and should not be confused with ‘watchkeeping’ which is simply a nautical term for being on duty. Engineering staff generally do not carry out lookout duties and are therefore required to meet somewhat less stringent eyesight standards. However, they will need to be capable of correctly recognising colour coding on cables, pipes and display screens.
4.1.4 Since good vision is central to lookout duties and hence to ship safety, it is essential that vision testing is carried out to a high standard, which ensures consistent results. Discrepancies between repeat tests which result in restriction and consequential loss of work, for instance where previously undetected colour defects are found, can have a disastrous effect on a seafarer’s career. It is therefore essential that conditions such as lighting balance and level are suitable and that any delegation of the testing is to someone who is fully trained in procedures and aware of the need to be alert for any deception. Test results brought by the seafarer should not be used as a substitute for testing at the examination. Borderline results should always be rechecked and all results recorded.
Colour vision
4.1.7 The AD must also ensure that the seafarer meets the colour vision standards. To comply with international guidelines, testing for all seafarers should be done with the standard Ishihara plates and should be carried out at every medical examination unless the AD has his own record of a previous medical where the test has been passed within the previous four years. Illumination should be good north facing daylight or with daylight fluorescent lighting. Incandescent lighting is unsuitable because of its colour balance. The criteria for a pass is three or less misreadings on the 24 plate test. It is essential that seafarers applying for certificates of competency as deck or dual career (merchant/fishing) officers have full colour vision.
Here is the link to the full document:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-se...ch-4-Anchor4.1
Not only does the professional seafaring industry apply Ishihara correctly they have even gone one step further and relaxed the criteria by permitting three errors as opposed to the two stipulated in Ishihara.
The ice gets thinner.........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry davidd,
I believe you have to go through the whole test again.
Curiosity raises its head here - did you pass the Ishihara test at your Class 2 medical? If so, why worry about the Class 1 medical? If not, who did your lantern test - as I understand it lantern test results for Class 2 have to be validated by the CAA AMS for the issue of an unrestricted Class 2?
I believe you have to go through the whole test again.
Curiosity raises its head here - did you pass the Ishihara test at your Class 2 medical? If so, why worry about the Class 1 medical? If not, who did your lantern test - as I understand it lantern test results for Class 2 have to be validated by the CAA AMS for the issue of an unrestricted Class 2?