AnthonyGA

I've only tried the online demo version of the CAD, which I passed. I note, however, that the demo version has a slight reddish tint to the "gray" background, which I verified in Photoshop. However, variations in screen color balance don't seem to matter, as I was able to pass it with various different color settings on the monitor.

I've been administered the Ishihara and possibly the Dvorine (it was a long time ago) under real-world conditions by an ophthalmologist in the past, on several occasions many years apart. These tests verified that my color vision is normal. I pass all the online tests as well, even though they are only for "fun" (if one can call it that).

Why do you ask?

My personal interest in this thread stems from my general wariness about medical standards for pilots. I think they've been way too stringent for way too long, and the things they check for do not necessarily match the things they should be checking for. Color vision is an excellent example of the disconnect between the medical standards and the realities.

Scottish.CPL

right one thing, you can pass the online cad test, its a demo... that proves nothing, second if you not done the REAL cad test you have no right to say the cad test
is 'The CAD is a very accurate test, so there's not much point in questioning its accuracy' . second online tets are not accurate,

i suggest the instead of spending time on writng a long answer you actually have a think before you comment..

you didnt pass the cad test you modified the bloody thing to your eyes hense...

I've only tried the online demo version of the CAD, which I passed. I note, however, that the demo version has a slight reddish tint to the "gray" background, which I verified in Photoshop. However, variations in screen color balance don't seem to matter, '''as I was able to pass it with various different color settings on the monitor'''.

i suggest that you take the cad and them come back with proof of you arrgument...

ChiefDM

A point I couldn't agree more with..... however, that rules out every test that could ever be done, as no matter how a test is done if someone doesn't know the answer there is nothing to stop them guessing however wrong they may turn out to be. For example I know what colours are used in a lantern test, so even if I didn't know I could guess. Likewise for the IP's even if all i learnt were the numbers that I should see on the 15 plate test I could take a guess out of those 15 numbers on all plates if my CV were that bad, but more likely most people would only have to guess 3 or 4 out of the numbers they knew they hadn't seen yet.

Just out of interest which tests do you think they should be using? Or do you think they should be testing for it at all? Don't get me wrong I'd be happy to see them do away with CV testing all together provided there were adequate measures taken to ensure that it wasn't needed at all, but this seems a long way off!

763Nick

Hello all, I have been reading this thread with great interest over the last fortnight, as my Class 1 renewal is fast approaching and I am very curious about how many of you that have taken the CAD test and subsequently failed it are able to discern the difference between the PAPI lights or airport lighting.

I am just trying to gauge the test against the practical application of colours.

Thanks

Nick

Scottish.CPL

again, ive taken the CAD, caa amc, failed 7.44 r/g, pass is 6, and .44 over the reset limit...

i have flown in the US with class1 faa and never had issues with runway lights, light and high intensity, taxy way light, even light gun when i had a lost comm senario, that was fun.lol..

i had issues with the plates at gatwick and i had a retest done and my university eye clinic and they used the propper light box, the plates at gatwick i f ound to be old and faided, yet the ones at the eye clininc were new ones, and all the numbers were there, gatwick wont accept due to there experience, the lanters were different, have a slght issue wth with white/green on the fact that it was at low intensity and high no problems, even the nagel scope thing is hard and people with normal colour vision i know have gone off the scale, jaa 4 scale units and my mate scores 24 units lol

there is a section on the aeromedical handbook that statae that colour vision can the retested in there is clinical ground for it, and i will be looking at that, im also curious to find the official instructions on the use of the cad, i why they need an average of 3 runs, and why they have a retest limit ie under 7 for r/g.

AnthonyGA

The design of the test seems very sound, and it has been favorably evaluated by third parties using experimental subjects, in comparison to other tests that already have a reputation for accuracy. Thus far I haven't seen anyone in the academic community suggesting that the design or implementation of the test are any more flawed than those of other reliable tests currently in use.

In other words, the accuracy of the test is not really in question, particularly for identifying test subjects with the most common red-green color deficiency. One evaluation that is quite interesting to read is that of researchers at the College of Optometry at the University of Missouri, which reached precisely this conclusion.

As I've previously indicated, the real question is the appropriateness of the test result standards observed by the aviation authorities. If there is a problem, it's not with the accuracy of the test, it's with the "pass/fail" levels set by the aviation authorities. I do think it is appropriate to question the current levels, which may be too stringent (or too lenient, although I doubt that).

Put another way, it's not that the CAD test inaccurately scores a subject at +7 or whatever, it's more that a threshold of +7 or whatever may or may not be too stringent with respect to the real-world requirements for pilots. The CAA uses PAPI lighting as its touchstone, but is PAPI lighting really that critical? The only incident I can recall that may have involved PAPI lighting and color vision is the famous FedEx incident, and even there, it's not at all clear that one pilot's color deficiency had anything to do with the accident, which could have been avoided even with that deficiency.

Anyway, if you have a problem with the CAD test or with the standards set by the CAA or other authorities, what solution do you suggest?

It was the other way around: I took the demo test with the monitor set as-is, then, curious about whether or not monitor settings could really affect the test, I tried the test again with several other monitor settings (6500K, 9000K, color correction turned off, etc.). In every case, I had no trouble seeing the colors in the test, so it would appear that monitor settings are not that critical.

It should be noted that third-party and developer tests of the CAD indicate that it does not produce false positives—that is, it won't label normal individuals as color deficient. It can produce false negatives, however—that is, it can occasionally allow a color-deficient test subject to be labeled as normal.

The net effect is that more pilots pass the color vision test when the CAD is used. To me this seems like a very good thing for current and aspiring pilots, so I'm not sure where the resistance to it comes from.

Even though the tests allows more people to fly, it seems that a handful of people who fail this test but passed others are bitter about that fact, which is understandable. But the problem is not really with the test, but with the standards that aviation authorities impose for "passing" the test. If you have a quarrel with the use of this test, it would be more productive to lobby for changes in the standards, not for changes in the test itself, which seems to work pretty well.

Scottish.CPL

anthonyGA

Take the test.... you are speculating on information, do the test... you seem so happy to tell us all about stat.. i mabye agree that the test might be faverable, and that the test pass limit might be high, its possbile, and that a good point..


however, you need to adjust to on other thing as well, the nagel anomoloscope is another test which is jaa accepted, the issue is that the test pass required 4 scale unit or less, its can be difficult even for a colour normal to pass.. so could the standard to challanged???

Pace

Scottish

The problem i have with all these different tests is that they dont have a practical basis.

Ok if I am going for a job reading numbers in colour dotted books then that would be an excellent tool for seeing how good I would be at it.

If my job is determing shades of green foliage in trees then thats what my test should be.

Aviation colour tests should be based on how practically you can determine colours that are used. Ie in a simulator or simulated viewing device or even actual aircraft you should be tested in a practical way on whether your colour vision poses any problems in the real world.

Pace

Assad Spaceship2

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

Scottish.CPL

before i answer the question, have you taken the canadian class 1???

the faa colour vision is different as to the number of plate errors you can have..

Scottish.CPL

pace,

i agree this you, and i think the faa styple is more practice, mainly becuase it uses the proper light signals from the tower, the lanterns you get test the deficiency level or intensity of the signal, not the recognition of the colours red/green/white..

Scottish.CPL

with regards to the spectrolux lantern, has anyone been told this, got theis eamil today..

people your thoughts, bearing in mind they have no idea of my colour colour vision .history

ndr1804

Hi everyone.

This has been a bobby box of mine for many many years ,since I was 13 years old.

I think a proffessor in Australia did a study on this exact subject many years ago and proved that people who were tested with black and white information understood no less than those presented with colour information.

I have a slight colour deficiency and many years ago sat a lantern test which was mainly distinct colours of varying appertures. This I duly passed with i believe 100%. My doctor wrote to the CAA and gave them my results. They wrote back to me to explain that I would have no problem obtaining a class one medical.

When I renewed my class 2 medical they change the rules to. Once you had passed the colour defficiency criteria you did not have to resit any further colour test as difficiency does not improve or deteriorate with age.

So does this rule lapse when obtaining a class one medical. I don't see why it should surely the ability to see PAPI lights or any other pretty coloured lights that are around the airfield at night should apply wether you are at the controls of a A380 or a piper PA-28. I've been flying since 1984 and at night sometimes..........Does this put me in good contention for passing all these new confangled tests that are required for a class one.?

Something has to be done. Should we all get a November registerd aircraft and fly around our country. It seems to me that some countries allow alot more lee way in this field. Hell don't we all fly in each others airspace. It would be a bit annoying watching some foreign pilot landing at one of our airfields with worse eyesight than some of us.

Someone once said to me.

"Doesn't matter what colour it is, just don't hit."

Scottish.CPL

in theory, you colour vision should be tested again if you are going to a initial class 1 medical. I dont know if the letter wil stand or not, possibily. The best thing to do is call gatwick and get the optometrist to check this out.

ndr1804

Well my initial result and the re medical were all examined by the caa. They had a letter that I had from the chief medical examiner many years ago so they must of had a copy of the results. My new doc had to wait for the caa to notify her of the previous colour test pass results before allowing me my new medica.

This subject gets me so annoyed even to this day.Even now with all that flying. Its like gremlins come out of the woodwork.......

regards
NDR1804

Scottish.CPL

it depends when you did the test, guess it was the homes wright lantern you did, if was done a few years ago they may ask for ot again, im assuming you failed the ishihara plates, and you got sent to a university optometry clinic for the lantern.

ndr1804

I had my very first medical in a hospital where my doc was based. She sent my results to the caa I still have the initial letter confirming everything. Needless to say I never let this letter get away from me. And now I have my upto date letter as well..............In this day and age are we not able to fly around without having to use colours hell we can now land in fog with a cat 111 approach. I know I'm being synical its the blood boiling.

regards
ndr1804

Scottish.CPL

right so it was an initial class 2 then , ok

if you read the whole subject, you will find that the people that pass the ishihara plates on the bases of acheiving 13 plates min, which by the test standard in normal or cp2, then most can be train drivers, more demanding job. ive had my cv tested by my university and they say that although there might be a vslight green weakness, it would certinaly not be enough to be concidered unsafe for night flights, i have an faa cpl/ir and i have never had any issues with night flying at all....

ndr1804

Hey Scottish Cpl.......I'm logging off now but will talk again soon. Now that my bloods boiling I'm going to try calm down.........but, hey, best of luck with this and we'll speak soon. If I had a FAA CPL IR I wouldn't be existing in this hell hole I'd be sunning it in a country that liked me. Speak soon mate.

regards
NDR1804

Scottish.CPL

yeah i am in the process.

i guess then that anyone that is a flying instructor then will loss there license rating due to VCL. And that info does not state specifically that CVD is included ie no dificiency at all.

The thing is that mitchell, will probably not play ball over this, ie standards will be standards.

secondly i have found out that i am able to do the lanterns or cad test again after 6 months, i can also ask this if it is felt of a clinical bases. EASA in 2012 i think.

you are right though mate..