Collective Colour Vision Thread 3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently took the CAD test at Gatwick. I had previously done the web based test and not lost sight of the box, so I was quite confident.
Before I did the test, they use that web based test as a demo to make sure that you are using the remote correctly etc etc. I was still confident.
Then they told me that everyone should be able to see the box in the demo and that the test was going to be far harder.
I was then suddenly, far less confident.
I'm not an expert, but I think that if you lost sight of the box on the web based test, you don't stand much of a chance of passing the actual test.
But I don't know for sure and could be wrong.
Good luck.
Before I did the test, they use that web based test as a demo to make sure that you are using the remote correctly etc etc. I was still confident.
Then they told me that everyone should be able to see the box in the demo and that the test was going to be far harder.
I was then suddenly, far less confident.
I'm not an expert, but I think that if you lost sight of the box on the web based test, you don't stand much of a chance of passing the actual test.
But I don't know for sure and could be wrong.
Good luck.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this thread, I get the impression that many pilots aren't happy with the CAD test, but I'm not sure why.
I read through the CAA's paper on minimum color vision requirements for flight crews, and it is quite clear that the CAA wants to pass more pilots, not less. There are at least three objectives that they seem to be pursuing: (1) They want to reliably screen out only those pilots or potential pilots who truly cannot see colors well enough for flying; (2) they want to eliminate any possibility of cheating or inaccurate testing insofar as possible; and (3) they want a test that will actually quantify a person's degree of color deficiency, instead of just pass/fail.
The CAD test is exceptional in that it gives an indication of the degree of color deficiency. It's not just pass/fail. If a person doesn't have normal color vision, the CAD test identifies the abnormality AND gives an indication of severity, which most other color vision tests do not do. This allows the CAA to set thresholds for each type of color deficiency; anyone below a certain threshold cannot fly, whereas anyone above it can.
With other tests, there's no way to know how severe a person's deficiency is, which implies that many people tested must be rejected even though they might see well enough for flying, simply because there's no way to know how bad their deficiency is, so the worst must be assumed.
The CAD test apparently grades test subjects with standardized deviations from normal vision. By carefully setting the threshold deviations that are acceptable for pilots, it should be possible to pass more pilots who might have failed in other tests. Overall, about 35% of people with deficient color vision can still see colors well enough to fly, and the goal is to make sure that anyone with color vision that's good enough can get certified.
In contrast, something like Ishihara or Dvorine plates give only a very coarse indication of color deficiency. Miss a plate or two and you fail. In reality, your color vision might be good enough to fly, but since these tests do not provide detailed quantification of a color deficiency, one must err on the side of safety and reject many who might actually be qualified.
Another, lesser goal of the CAA is apparently to eliminate cheating and inaccuracy. Cheating would be something like memorizing the Ishihara plates, and inaccuracy could result from improper lighting, from holding the plates the wrong way, or from shifting colors in the ink (printed inks shift over time, and since the differences are so subtle in color vision tests, only a brand-new set of plates kept in perfect condition can really be trusted).
Color deficiencies are congenital (in the context of this discussion) and do not get worse over time. Age has very little effect on color vision, and someone who has normal or good color vision won't get significantly worse over time. However, there are some acquired conditions that can impact color vision, so retesting is designed to catch these, particularly in persons who already had a deficiency.
A person with normal color vision will always pass the tests—the false positive rate for tests such as Ishihara, Dvorine, and CAD is effectively zero. So a person who fails the tests under slightly less than optimal conditions almost certainly has some sort of anomaly in his color vision … the only question is how bad that anomaly is, and the CAD is supposed to be able to measure that.
The most important color distinction task in flying is the PAPI, and I note that the CAA's paper appears to use this to establish a threshold of CV anomaly for granting certifications and designing test criteria. It's practically the only situation in which confusion between white and red could cause a serious problem.
It has occurred to me that if the PAPI issue could be resolved, a lot more people with color deficiencies could fly. But that would require a huge, huge effort worldwide to replace these devices with something friendlier to people with CV anomalies, so I suppose that isn't going to happen. And since every pilot is likely to have to use a PAPI sooner or later, during a critical phase of flight, it can't really be allowed to slide.
I read through the CAA's paper on minimum color vision requirements for flight crews, and it is quite clear that the CAA wants to pass more pilots, not less. There are at least three objectives that they seem to be pursuing: (1) They want to reliably screen out only those pilots or potential pilots who truly cannot see colors well enough for flying; (2) they want to eliminate any possibility of cheating or inaccurate testing insofar as possible; and (3) they want a test that will actually quantify a person's degree of color deficiency, instead of just pass/fail.
The CAD test is exceptional in that it gives an indication of the degree of color deficiency. It's not just pass/fail. If a person doesn't have normal color vision, the CAD test identifies the abnormality AND gives an indication of severity, which most other color vision tests do not do. This allows the CAA to set thresholds for each type of color deficiency; anyone below a certain threshold cannot fly, whereas anyone above it can.
With other tests, there's no way to know how severe a person's deficiency is, which implies that many people tested must be rejected even though they might see well enough for flying, simply because there's no way to know how bad their deficiency is, so the worst must be assumed.
The CAD test apparently grades test subjects with standardized deviations from normal vision. By carefully setting the threshold deviations that are acceptable for pilots, it should be possible to pass more pilots who might have failed in other tests. Overall, about 35% of people with deficient color vision can still see colors well enough to fly, and the goal is to make sure that anyone with color vision that's good enough can get certified.
In contrast, something like Ishihara or Dvorine plates give only a very coarse indication of color deficiency. Miss a plate or two and you fail. In reality, your color vision might be good enough to fly, but since these tests do not provide detailed quantification of a color deficiency, one must err on the side of safety and reject many who might actually be qualified.
Another, lesser goal of the CAA is apparently to eliminate cheating and inaccuracy. Cheating would be something like memorizing the Ishihara plates, and inaccuracy could result from improper lighting, from holding the plates the wrong way, or from shifting colors in the ink (printed inks shift over time, and since the differences are so subtle in color vision tests, only a brand-new set of plates kept in perfect condition can really be trusted).
Color deficiencies are congenital (in the context of this discussion) and do not get worse over time. Age has very little effect on color vision, and someone who has normal or good color vision won't get significantly worse over time. However, there are some acquired conditions that can impact color vision, so retesting is designed to catch these, particularly in persons who already had a deficiency.
A person with normal color vision will always pass the tests—the false positive rate for tests such as Ishihara, Dvorine, and CAD is effectively zero. So a person who fails the tests under slightly less than optimal conditions almost certainly has some sort of anomaly in his color vision … the only question is how bad that anomaly is, and the CAD is supposed to be able to measure that.
The most important color distinction task in flying is the PAPI, and I note that the CAA's paper appears to use this to establish a threshold of CV anomaly for granting certifications and designing test criteria. It's practically the only situation in which confusion between white and red could cause a serious problem.
It has occurred to me that if the PAPI issue could be resolved, a lot more people with color deficiencies could fly. But that would require a huge, huge effort worldwide to replace these devices with something friendlier to people with CV anomalies, so I suppose that isn't going to happen. And since every pilot is likely to have to use a PAPI sooner or later, during a critical phase of flight, it can't really be allowed to slide.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnthonyGA,
Whilst I pretty much agree with everything else you have said in the previous post, I would disagree that
I think the biggest issue with colour distinction is to be found on the ground whilst operating the aircraft. I have normal colour perception and a lot of flying experience in busy traffic environments, but am constantly perturbed by the difficulties of colour distinction at crowded busy airports. Just taking two examples, Gatwick and Manchester (and there are many more,) the endless melange of taxiway, runway, stopbar, signage illumination, and works in progress, together with a high density of aircraft with often very poor visibility lighting, often results in difficulty making distinctions, observations and recognition. I would challenge any experienced pilot to say otherwise. Despite this, these are airports in first world countries, employing some of the best air traffic systems as well as the latest in airport technology.
If you add to this already difficult mix, an additional input of a colour perception difficulty, then it only makes a bad situation even worse. Unfortunetaly this isn't something that is likely to improve anytime soon, and it is therefore both important and desirable that there must be a sufficiently acceptable level of colour discrimination in applicants for a professional licence.
I do agree that modern methods of testing being developed, should refine the standard beyond the simple methodology of old, and that the regulator is properly seeking to positively assess more applicants than was previously the case. However I still believe that the requirement is as important as it always has been, and the rationale for that requirement is broader than any one isolated system or visual aid.
Whilst I pretty much agree with everything else you have said in the previous post, I would disagree that
"The most important color distinction task in flying is the PAPI.."
If you add to this already difficult mix, an additional input of a colour perception difficulty, then it only makes a bad situation even worse. Unfortunetaly this isn't something that is likely to improve anytime soon, and it is therefore both important and desirable that there must be a sufficiently acceptable level of colour discrimination in applicants for a professional licence.
I do agree that modern methods of testing being developed, should refine the standard beyond the simple methodology of old, and that the regulator is properly seeking to positively assess more applicants than was previously the case. However I still believe that the requirement is as important as it always has been, and the rationale for that requirement is broader than any one isolated system or visual aid.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys you are missing the point. colour vision requirements needed to be revewed due to the current testing equipment and standards being doubtfull,
i will remind some, a mate of mine went to do intial c1 medical, he passed the ishihara plates, and the asked him , to have a go at the CAD, no charge was made, it was just new and they wanted to run the test, he said fine, well he failed the caf test, to a level that it a reslt of severve 9-10 units. more importmant he was over the 7 units retest and the optician could not give a real explanation, so really , the cad test will be questioned. Also i was told that if you cant dont see the signal then you are to GUESS ,OMG, SAFETY yeah ill guess, mm let someone with a reall issue guess the right diirection and be made colour safe, get real..
i failed the cad 7.44 , .44 over the retest. can can read 13 plates and i have been to not city but other cv dept and they say my cv is normal, its the jaa standard that is high.
i also feel that the way the test is done, ie the remote that you use, is a wireless unit and not connected to the laptop , so how do i know that the remote is sending the signal to the tv properly, explain than tone...
the cad is crap, ishihara yes there are flaus to it, and so with the lanterns and normal can aslo fail the nagel as well.
go on and argue and say im worng, i dont care anymore..
i will remind some, a mate of mine went to do intial c1 medical, he passed the ishihara plates, and the asked him , to have a go at the CAD, no charge was made, it was just new and they wanted to run the test, he said fine, well he failed the caf test, to a level that it a reslt of severve 9-10 units. more importmant he was over the 7 units retest and the optician could not give a real explanation, so really , the cad test will be questioned. Also i was told that if you cant dont see the signal then you are to GUESS ,OMG, SAFETY yeah ill guess, mm let someone with a reall issue guess the right diirection and be made colour safe, get real..
i failed the cad 7.44 , .44 over the retest. can can read 13 plates and i have been to not city but other cv dept and they say my cv is normal, its the jaa standard that is high.
i also feel that the way the test is done, ie the remote that you use, is a wireless unit and not connected to the laptop , so how do i know that the remote is sending the signal to the tv properly, explain than tone...
the cad is crap, ishihara yes there are flaus to it, and so with the lanterns and normal can aslo fail the nagel as well.
go on and argue and say im worng, i dont care anymore..
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Syria
Age: 41
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where to do the alternative color test in Greece or turkey?
Hi Guys
Any one who knows where I can do the color test in Greece or in Turkey other than the Ishehara test?
I have the Green-Red problem so any advice of what is the easiest one to do?
Thanks alot and looking to hear from every one, it will be my honor>>>>>>>>>
Any one who knows where I can do the color test in Greece or in Turkey other than the Ishehara test?
I have the Green-Red problem so any advice of what is the easiest one to do?
Thanks alot and looking to hear from every one, it will be my honor>>>>>>>>>
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bealzebub
I think the biggest issue with colour distinction is to be found on the ground whilst operating the aircraft.
I would tend to agree with you. There are far more coloured lights on the ground than there are in the air.
This creates a new area of concern. Many aircraft are taxied around airports, often at night, by maintenance engineers. There are no colour vision limitations on aviation engineers, neither B1 nor B2. That's another beauty isn't it; the electronics engineers fixing your GPS or RNAV equipment have no colour vision requirements.
On another note, it may interest you to know that, so far as the UK CAA are concerned, there is only one safety critical area and that is the correct identification of PAPI lighting during the approach to landing. This is documented within the transcript of a legal hearing at the CAA.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you fail the ishihara plates, what is your results. you have the options for the Lantern tests, Holmes-wright, or bynes, these are available at Gatwick CAA, for the CAD.
what are the issues you have..
what are the issues you have..
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Herts
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i will remind some, a mate of mine went to do intial c1 medical, he passed the ishihara plates, and the asked him , to have a go at the CAD, no charge was made, it was just new and they wanted to run the test, he said fine, well he failed the caf test, to a level that it a reslt of severve 9-10 units. more importmant he was over the 7 units retest and the optician could not give a real explanation, so really , the cad test will be questioned. Also i was told that if you cant dont see the signal then you are to GUESS ,OMG, SAFETY yeah ill guess, mm let someone with a reall issue guess the right diirection and be made colour safe, get real..
Having not yet done the CAD I'm not exactly sure how many passes the little box makes, but assuming it moves at roughly the same speed on the actual test as it does on the web based version, and you have to sit there for 15 minutes doing it I would guess there are probably 80 or so? (Someone who's done it please feel free to correct me!) I would like to assume there are many passes to be identified though. That said, if you have a severe enough colour issue to fail, what realisticly are the chances of you guessing enough of what you can't see right to pass? Surely it has to be less likely that you would pass that than it would be for you to fail the IP's if you'd learnt them? I would say that once a test like this has been shown to be able to be passed simply by learning the correct answers instead of being able to demonstrate it then it is no longer a feasable test. That would be like someone reading a book on how to drive a car and leaning the correct answers and the driving test consisting of them asking you how you would change gear or how to do an emergency stop rather than you actually being able to do it.
I agree, the CAD isn't perfect, what test is? Maybe there should be a time limit on the answers, maybe a button for when you can't see it, but even these wouldn't stop people guessing even if they were told not to, after all you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting it right, but again if you're guessing at lots then those odds get a lot bigger at getting them all right.
Does anyone know if the monitor used for the CAD has to be checked and calibrated for colours before its used? That could cause problems if not, but then even other tests like IP's and lanterns are susceptible to the test of time, IP's will fade Lanterns will gather dirt and dust and fade over time. I doubt there will ever be a perfect CV test as long as I live but at least they appear to be trying to improve the testing, albeit they may have made a few mistakes with the approach.
As for me, I won't know either way until I do the test. I'm not attempting to cheat my way to a class 1, just simply to find out if my CV is good enough for this environment, if not then so be it, I'll rethink and start looking at other things, but I have to know and at least give it a shot first. If nothing else I will get a better understanding of the level of my CV!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im not arguing, im stating the fact, and ive done the cad test and failed, not a bad fail, just not close enought to pass.
the cad test, just go to city then? do the test and see what happen you pass great get your money ready, if you fail, move on. the caa use a tv fed through the laptop and i agree with you rpoint on the caibration but, you could base an agrument with then, good luck with that.
the only other test would be the 100 hue test, u can google it, but again caa say ITS TO EASY lol..
we are all colour blind to an extent, ..
the cad test, just go to city then? do the test and see what happen you pass great get your money ready, if you fail, move on. the caa use a tv fed through the laptop and i agree with you rpoint on the caibration but, you could base an agrument with then, good luck with that.
the only other test would be the 100 hue test, u can google it, but again caa say ITS TO EASY lol..
we are all colour blind to an extent, ..
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: BCN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyne Latern Test
Hello Everybody
Im new here, and looking for some information...
I Failed the color vision test, like the ishiara plates and the anomaloscop of Nagel.
Now I have to do the Beyne Latern test.
I would be very happy if somebody can tell me in what it consist, how to prepare, and if there is shown always the same order of the colors...
Actually I see pretty good. My right eye passed all the tests, but my left eye didnt at all, just 2 points below to permitted... yep, it's a pitty...
so, I would be really greatfull if somebody tells his experience...
private email :
drnisda at yahoo.es
thanks
Im new here, and looking for some information...
I Failed the color vision test, like the ishiara plates and the anomaloscop of Nagel.
Now I have to do the Beyne Latern test.
I would be very happy if somebody can tell me in what it consist, how to prepare, and if there is shown always the same order of the colors...
Actually I see pretty good. My right eye passed all the tests, but my left eye didnt at all, just 2 points below to permitted... yep, it's a pitty...
so, I would be really greatfull if somebody tells his experience...
private email :
drnisda at yahoo.es
thanks
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of warning bizarre but true
I have had many medicals through the years and all detected a very slight colour detection problem. Probably 10 AMEs considered it so slight as to not be a problem requiring further testing.
Getting older I was then adviced that I needed to wear the weakest glasses for reading and to come back when I had them.
Not wanting to look oldie baldie with glasses but groovy smoothie with Ray Bans I asked for these new glasses to be tinted.
Back to the AME with my new set of specs. He demanded I did all the eyesight tests as per regulation using my new prescription glasses.
All went well until the colour test where I failed every page I tried to read.
The AME cautioned that I would have to have further colour tests as he didnt understand why my colour perception was so bad.
Then it dawned on me. Wear yellow glasses and get the perfect colour vision guy to look at blue. Will he see blue ? NO he will see green! and so on with brown tints.
I objected to no avail. Ban the use of sunglasses by pilots as they will all be colour blind while using them had no effect on my AME who sent me off for a clear set at huge cost before he would issue me with my medical and still demanded a landtern test to boot.
Crazy world
Pace
Getting older I was then adviced that I needed to wear the weakest glasses for reading and to come back when I had them.
Not wanting to look oldie baldie with glasses but groovy smoothie with Ray Bans I asked for these new glasses to be tinted.
Back to the AME with my new set of specs. He demanded I did all the eyesight tests as per regulation using my new prescription glasses.
All went well until the colour test where I failed every page I tried to read.
The AME cautioned that I would have to have further colour tests as he didnt understand why my colour perception was so bad.
Then it dawned on me. Wear yellow glasses and get the perfect colour vision guy to look at blue. Will he see blue ? NO he will see green! and so on with brown tints.
I objected to no avail. Ban the use of sunglasses by pilots as they will all be colour blind while using them had no effect on my AME who sent me off for a clear set at huge cost before he would issue me with my medical and still demanded a landtern test to boot.
Crazy world
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do u hold a jaa class medical or faa,
yeah the issue would be the tint, its the same with the ishihara plates, any level of yellow sodium light will alter the plate, causing issues, that why correct lighting is needed, ie macbeth light, that was causes issues.
yeah the issue would be the tint, its the same with the ishihara plates, any level of yellow sodium light will alter the plate, causing issues, that why correct lighting is needed, ie macbeth light, that was causes issues.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scottish
FAA Class 1 JAA class 2 but yes back ground lighting and colours could have a major impact on on the colours you think you see and is probably something to date which has not been studied.
That also brings the issue of pilots wearing sun glasses flying with artificially created severe colour blindness which aviation medicine accepts and encourages?
Pace
FAA Class 1 JAA class 2 but yes back ground lighting and colours could have a major impact on on the colours you think you see and is probably something to date which has not been studied.
That also brings the issue of pilots wearing sun glasses flying with artificially created severe colour blindness which aviation medicine accepts and encourages?
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how many plates can you read normally
its the biggest bugger of a subject that opens a can of worms, i can read up 2 13 plates were are two which i cant make out, however on another medical not aviation, read the whole set and there was a light box which was controlling the brightness and was the proper brightness, at gatwick in the opticians the light is quite dim and i found it difficult to see some of the plates, the holmes wright lanterns are just strange, i found the white/green abit difficult at low intensity, and i thought i had passed the beyne lantern but he said no, red/green/white/amber yellow... was easy but cant under stand how i failed and the idiot that tests you does not have a personality at all,
the cad test is a right joke,
its the biggest bugger of a subject that opens a can of worms, i can read up 2 13 plates were are two which i cant make out, however on another medical not aviation, read the whole set and there was a light box which was controlling the brightness and was the proper brightness, at gatwick in the opticians the light is quite dim and i found it difficult to see some of the plates, the holmes wright lanterns are just strange, i found the white/green abit difficult at low intensity, and i thought i had passed the beyne lantern but he said no, red/green/white/amber yellow... was easy but cant under stand how i failed and the idiot that tests you does not have a personality at all,
the cad test is a right joke,
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there so much discussion going on about the CAD Test?
It is simple.
NO test which is supposed to eliminate persons from being employed in a colour related safety critical task on board a Commercial Air Transport aircraft, on which may depend hundred of lives, can utilise ANY degree of guesswork, immaterial of statistical probability.
If there is one chance in four of getting it right on each occasion and it is reset to zero on each occasion, then the overall chance of getting it right by guesswork is 25%.
Subtract from that the number of occasions where the colour definition is so clear that even the most colour vision defective person will get it right, then the chances of gaining a pass through guesswork are increased.
That is a staggeringly high chance for something which is supposed to be so safety critical.
If one person gets through 'the net' and is subsequently responsible for the deaths of many persons as a result of misidentification of colours then the CAA and City university AVRC will be crucified.
But it will not happen (thankfully) because in tens of millions of flying hours worldwide major incidents have not happened as a result of misinterpretation of colours. If they did, they would be happening left, right and centre in countries with a far more realistic approach to this issue.....e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia, countries where hundreds of pilots enjoy fulfilling commercial flying careers, who would otherwise be denied careers by the anally retentive stuffed-shirts in the EU.
And before anyone quotes the Fed Ex incident, read the statements of the Captain and the Flight Engineer first; both confirmed Red / White lights on the PAPI and not merely Red. There was a lot more than CVD which resulted in that incident but as always "Lets look for a scapegoat and hang him out to dry".
It is simple.
NO test which is supposed to eliminate persons from being employed in a colour related safety critical task on board a Commercial Air Transport aircraft, on which may depend hundred of lives, can utilise ANY degree of guesswork, immaterial of statistical probability.
If there is one chance in four of getting it right on each occasion and it is reset to zero on each occasion, then the overall chance of getting it right by guesswork is 25%.
Subtract from that the number of occasions where the colour definition is so clear that even the most colour vision defective person will get it right, then the chances of gaining a pass through guesswork are increased.
That is a staggeringly high chance for something which is supposed to be so safety critical.
If one person gets through 'the net' and is subsequently responsible for the deaths of many persons as a result of misidentification of colours then the CAA and City university AVRC will be crucified.
But it will not happen (thankfully) because in tens of millions of flying hours worldwide major incidents have not happened as a result of misinterpretation of colours. If they did, they would be happening left, right and centre in countries with a far more realistic approach to this issue.....e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia, countries where hundreds of pilots enjoy fulfilling commercial flying careers, who would otherwise be denied careers by the anally retentive stuffed-shirts in the EU.
And before anyone quotes the Fed Ex incident, read the statements of the Captain and the Flight Engineer first; both confirmed Red / White lights on the PAPI and not merely Red. There was a lot more than CVD which resulted in that incident but as always "Lets look for a scapegoat and hang him out to dry".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi all, i wanted to bring to your attention something that has really pi55ed me off. i asked the amc in swatzerland(sorry spelling) about the spectrolux, and i got this statment from them , have a read
1) we do not issue any Class 1 Medical Certificates with a color deficiency limitation (VCL limitation is not possible for Class 1)
2) our procedure for testing color vision is according to JAR-FCL3, Amdt 5, Appendix 14 to subpart B and C, § 2 a and b
The Spectrolux lantern is one of the JAR accepted lantern tests. The Spectrolux lantern test is passed, if 24 signals are recognised correctly without any mistake. It is at the discretion of the State of License Issue of your flight license if they would accept a Spectrolux lantern result. If you suffer from a color deficiency, diagnosed by other tests, it is not very likely that you would pass the Spectrolux.
We usually disencourage pilots suffering from color deficiency to travel from one country to another to try if and with which of the approved lantern tests the might fulfill the requirements
We cannot even win with anything..
1) we do not issue any Class 1 Medical Certificates with a color deficiency limitation (VCL limitation is not possible for Class 1)
2) our procedure for testing color vision is according to JAR-FCL3, Amdt 5, Appendix 14 to subpart B and C, § 2 a and b
The Spectrolux lantern is one of the JAR accepted lantern tests. The Spectrolux lantern test is passed, if 24 signals are recognised correctly without any mistake. It is at the discretion of the State of License Issue of your flight license if they would accept a Spectrolux lantern result. If you suffer from a color deficiency, diagnosed by other tests, it is not very likely that you would pass the Spectrolux.
We usually disencourage pilots suffering from color deficiency to travel from one country to another to try if and with which of the approved lantern tests the might fulfill the requirements
We cannot even win with anything..
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there so much discussion going on about the CAD Test?
While this concern is understandable, it is misplaced. The CAD is a very accurate test, so there's not much point in questioning its accuracy. The real question is whether or not the color vision standards set by aviation authorities are appropriate. If the required standard is set to X, for example, then the CAD can accurately test whether or not pilots meet standard X—so that's not the problem. The problem is whether or not X is really the appropriate standard. Maybe it's too high … or too low.
The CAA in its 2009 report pointed out that PAPI recognition had been identified as the most safety-critical task for pilots that depends almost exclusively on normal color vision. I wonder, though, how many other tasks are truly in the same category.
How many safety-critical tasks are there for a pilot in which normal color perception is mandatory? If you see ENGINE FAIL on your EICAS display, for example, it's pretty easy to figure out what's wrong, whether the color of the indication looks yellow, red, or green to you. I'm not a pilot, so I may be missing a few possibilities, but how many situations are there in which color perception is the only way to make some distinction that is critical to the safety of the flight? The PAPI example comes to mind, of course, but is there anything else? Is there anything outside the window or inside the cockpit that is absolutely essential to safety and depends exclusively on colors?
This is a very important question, because if the main difficulties of color-deficient pilots are limited to just a very small number of situations, such as PAPIs, then it might be worthwhile to simply eliminate those situations with appropriate changes, rather than continue to exclude 35% of color-blind pilots just because those few situations might be problematic.
For instance, the CAA's report points out that putting certain filters on PAPI lights greatly improves the ability of both normal and color-deficient pilots to distinguish them. So why not just put filters on all PAPI lights? If the PAPI is the most extreme case in which color deficiency is a problem, then fixing the PAPI problem would substantially increase the number of color-deficient people who could become pilots. It seems like a worthwhile notion.
Of course, if there are hundreds of situations in which color perception is critical to flying, then you can't realistically try to change them all, but I'm not convinced that the number of problem situations is really that large.
Anyway, the fundamental problem here is not the accuracy of the tests, but the justification for imposing restrictions in the first place.
The situation described by Scottish.CPL is especially worrisome. There's absolutely no justification for a total ban on color-deficient pilots, for any class of medical. If that is the case, the regulations need to change, period. It's not a matter of how well the tests work. There's no point in having rational, accurate tests of color vision if the regulations themselves are pulled out of a hat.
If there is one chance in four of getting it right on each occasion and it is reset to zero on each occasion, then the overall chance of getting it right by guesswork is 25%.
But it will not happen (thankfully) because in tens of millions of flying hours worldwide major incidents have not happened as a result of misinterpretation of colours. If they did, they would be happening left, right and centre in countries with a far more realistic approach to this issue.....e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia …
Just about all of the medical standards for pilots are arbitrarily established, because the aviation authorities think that certain conditions might incapacitate a pilot. But there's no real database upon which to base the standards—incidents of pilot incapacitation from epilepsy are scarce, for example, so the authorities can only speculate that having epilepsy is truly a problem … but they really don't know. In fact, if anything, color vision standards are some of the more rational standards, because at least there is some basis for imposing some sort of standard (e.g., PAPI lights). But even the color vision standard is still a bit arbitrary.
Aviation medical authorities still worry too much about having pilots who are as fit as astronauts, while they continue to ignore problems that regularly incapacitate pilots at least partially, such as fatigue. Having perfect color vision isn't going to help a pilot who cannot keep his eyes open.