AMEandPPL

A perfect description of what is still officially known today as "colour deficient, SAFE". Class 1, and flying career, permitted.

2close

Webster v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is now established case law in Sex Discrimination.

There are two other cases presently going on in Scotland with McCullie v Strathclyde Police and Dixon v Stratchlyde Police; the latter of the two is being contested by the police on grounds of it being outside the time barred period.

There is an impending Class Action on grounds of Disability and Sex Discrimination as well as breach of Human Rights and expert Counsel's advice has been received in this respect (at considerable expense). Any persons interested in joining should contact me by PM.

2close

robert f jones

I passed the lantern test in 1955, 3 lights - red,green,white. They showed a combination of 2 , red/green or white/green etc. "mild red/green deficiency"
Aircraft : F/O DC3, Viking, Hermes, DC4, Britannia, BAC1-11.
Captain : All the Beechcraft aircraft from small single to King Air (Short Bros)
Captain/Trainer BAC1-11.
Simulator : BAC1-11 and as panel operator, B747-200 for EL AL.
Don Everall/Air Safari 1958 - 1961. BUA 1961 - 1963 Redundant due loss of trooping contract. 1963 - 1966 Short Bros. Back to BUA in 1966. Then Bcal until 1987. BA until Jan 1990. Birmingham European 1990 - 1993.
Flight Safety Boeing/Alteon until 2001 as panel operator on B747-200 with EL AL.
Not many hours compared to my colleagues but I many hours sim instructing on the 1-11 and then the B74. Trust this helps your cause.

Neo_RS14

You're quite welcome, I think I can safely speak for all the chaps on here when I say we appreciate being kept in the loop on the official standpoint.

Benjamino8888 - the Spectrolux is a shorter distance from you than the other lanterns, I think it's about 3m away.

Robert f Jones, thanks for sharing. It's always great to hear of someone with this harmless but damning infliction that has made it

That's very interesting about the sex discrimination precedent, it will be interesting to see how this develops.

Another great post there by Shunter, I could not agree with your sentiments. It is without question unfair, unjust and illegal to judge somoene as unfit without having the necessary system to demonstrate practically that the candidate is not safe for commercial flight. Take me out on to an airfield or the like, and give me real life aviation colours to discern, if I make a mistake, I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the right man for the job.

shgsaint

Well I've finally taken the plunge and booked my Class 1 at Gatwick. After years (literally) of putting it off !!!

I have a couple of quick questions however:

1. Regarding the lantern test that I may have to do; will the lights be either green, red or white? What I mean is I know that the hue apparently changes so would they be gits and put on one green light above another green light below but have them in different hues? Trying to confuse me.... Or would it simply be; one light will be either red, green or white and the other light will be one of the other two left?

i.e. Top light red, thus bottom light will be either green or white.

2. If I do fail, (touch wood!) can I go to Switzerland and get a JAA class 1 over there? Would I have to declare that I failed over here and would it restrict me flying GB reg aircraft? Is a JAA class 1 as simple as that. Once you've got it, irrespective of in what country and after a few attempts you have it and it's job done?

I'm trying to go into it as prepared as possible!!

Many thanks,

SHG.

colourblindgeek

There are two lantern tests at Gatwick.

Holmes wright - two lights, one above the other. Alternates Green, White and Red with different hues. That means that it could put a red at the bottom and swap a light green for a dark white. It is designed to catch you out but you cant plan for that except to know that the hues change.

The Beyne lantern - flashes one light at a time. A red, dirty white, green, blue yellow/orange. The white can look like green or the yellow orange. It is not a clear bright white.

If you want a practice, go to City Uni, who will do a comprehensive assessment, although they do have Holmes Wright, they dont have the Beyne.

What City will do is give you a really accurate understanding of your type of CVD. My understanding is that any protanomolous, even very mild like me, will always fail the lanterns. If you are dutanomolous, you have a chance of passing. Mine is very mild protan, but I still failed the Spectrolux by 1 - i.e. 23 out of 14. It can still catch you out too. The lights are bigger, so I found it easier. A protanomolous will really fluff the Holmes Wright.

I have a PPL, and love flying at dusk with a 'colour normal' instructor, just to remind me that I have extremely mild CVD and I am not colourblind.

Keep us posted. If you fail, then send me a private message. We need as many people to battle against the CAA on this subject.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I personnally never want to see any young mans dream shattered by these antiquated and irrelevant rules and I will battle this until the day I cannot climb into an aircraft.

Also, my thanks to everyone that has posted in the last few days. It is fantastic to see this activity again.

colourblindgeek

"If I do fail, (touch wood!) can I go to Switzerland and get a JAA class 1 over there? Would I have to declare that I failed over here and would it restrict me flying GB reg aircraft? Is a JAA class 1 as simple as that. Once you've got it, irrespective of in what country and after a few attempts you have it and it's job done? "

Regarding failing - cross that bridge when you come to it! You can take the test in Switzerland. Make sure they are aware it is for a JAA licence, and you should bring the results back to the CAA and they should (!) accept this as a pass. Many have done so, therefore I see no reason that they cannot accept this. You will not be restricted to flying any aircraft. As far as I know, it is considered job done.

shgsaint

Thanks for the response colourblindgeek.

I don't think I will have time to go up to city uni. It might be worth while looking into that and practicing before I go to the CAA. Every little bit helps I guess.

Thanks for the explaination on the H/W lantern but you do you know if they would shine two greens, reds or whites at the same time? But both in different hues? So you might get one light green on the top and a darker green on the bottom. Or would it be simply be red on top or bottom and the other light would only be white or green?

I think i'm mild dutanomolous so there might be chance!! (where's the praying smiley!!)

It's good to know I could get a JAA class 1 somewhere else and flash it at the CAA saying look what i got!!!

I will let you know the results as soon as I have them!

Cheers.

Belgianboy

Be careful, I just tested the electronic Ishiara with 100% success, altough, in a former life as a Merchant marine officer, I experienced trouble when passing the paper version. bear in mind, that most people are not rejected for uncorrect reading of numerals but for reading numerals where you shouldn't see any. As you will note the plates which are not showing a numeralshow x. On the official Ishiara plates, the x is never located where the numerals are on other plates. The numerals and the x are present to assist a colour blind examiner when the plates are shown at random. If you carefully look at the location of his fingers hiding the marks, you know if you are entitled to read something or not.

I passed lantern tests( I don't know which ones) without problems as the contrast is much greater than on the paper plate.

My twopences worth.

Regards

Belgianboy

Neo_RS14

Shgsaint,

I'm sorry to say that yes you will probably get two greens of different shades at the same time, and reds and whites etc...As colourblindgeek said, it is designed to try and catch you out. We're talking about the Holmes-Wright here, as this is the only lantern there that has two simulatneous appearing lights.

TelBoy

Anyone seen this from Aviation House http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med_ColourVision.pdf

Does it mean they will not accept the spectrolux any more? might be worth checking with them before going!

Also looks like the CAD is just around the corner - more stupid tests.

Neo_RS14

Sure, they are not looking to just fail all cvds, as clearly some people with the condition pass the tests. But, then again....maybe these people who pass the lantern tests only fail one or two plates on the Ishihara test...Over the last year, I have encountered 2 people that passed a lantern at LGW, both of them only failed the Ishihara on a couple of plates.

"Oh dear I fail 1 or 2 pages of the Ishihara book, I have CVD! I can't be a commercial pilot"

Well, actually my friend according to Ishihara's standards, your colour vision is acceptable as 'Normal', providing you make no more than 2 mistakes (or is it 3? I forget) on the first 15 plates of the 24 plate set. Oh well, what does old Ishihara know anyway, he only designed the best and most widely used CVD screening tool known to man.

So, seeing as you've only made 1 or 2 mistakes (and are colour normal) you may as well go and take the tests at the CAA, you'll probably pass them. Then again, out of a study group of 24 colour normals, 12 of them failed the Beynes! So even though you have good colour vision, 12 people who passed all the Ishihara plates failed one of the lanterns, so I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

To be fair, out of that study group of 24 colour normals, they ALL passed the HW type A....however 3 also failed the Swiss Spectrolux, and 12 of them failed the Cadillac of CVD testing devices, the Nagel Anomaloscope. So basically, the Beynes, which is by word of mouth the 'New, Improved, Easier Lantern', is actually as hard as the Anomaloscope....nice one.

This is really strange, 12 people with so called 'Normal' colour vision couldn't meet the JAR standards for commercial flight....Guess you just have to have that extra special something over here, that uhhhhh 'ow do you say, je ne sais quois?!

I'm not coming down on the folks at the CAA before anyone says so, as I know that they are an absolute first class bunch of people They do their job, and they do their job well.

But the rules some of us find ourselves surrounded by, and the supposed attemtps to alleviate us of them, leave something to be desired.


Thank God for the CAD test coming in soon, a fair, practical, aviation environment based test, things are looking up, money well spent!

Sacky

So I'm coming up to my Class 1 medical soon, and I understand that they test for colour blindness. Although I have never been officially diagnosed with colour blindness I am aware that I have often had difficulty distinguishing reds and greens when they are close together.

After some research I came across the Ishihara test (which is apparently the same test used in Class 1 Medical Examinations). While doing these tests on the internet I failed almost every one, not boding well for the medical.

So if I do fail the Ishihara test in my medical, what are the options (I'm based in Australia by the way)? I hear theres a lantern test I can do, but how hard is that when compared with the Ishihara test? And If I fail that what next, give up? Has anyone been through a similar situation?

B2N2

This is what a Google search turned up for you:

The full document is here:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...e/080r0201.pdf
Here is an article that might be of interest to you:
Predicting Farnsworth Lantern success with a six-plate series of the ishihara Pseudoisochromatic plates | Military Medicine | Find Articles at BNET

Sacky

Thanks for that, does anyone have a video of the lantern test being done?

EDIT: Also since Class 1 medical examinations have to be done every year, does this mean I'll have to redo the colour blindness tests each year?

shgsaint

Hi Sacky,

I've just found a nice site that is worth a look.
Ishihara Plates Color Blindness Test in a Leaflet

There's a nice flash test about halfway down. I have a bit of difficulty on the plates but if I look up at them, i.e. tilt the screen back, I can see the numbers more easily.

I've heard that people that pass the lanterns are ony people that fail one or two Ishiara plates. However I know a ATC'er that can't do the Ishiara plates but passed the lanterns so i'm not sure what to think at the minute.

I believe those with red deficiency suffer worse than those with green deficiency. I'm not sure how you would go about it though as Australia is pretty isolated down there. Perhaps the only alternative would be for you to go to the States and get an FAA class 1 after passing a SODA ("Something" Of Demonstrated Ability) where you can demonstrate you can see different lamp signals at an airport. Once you have that you might be able to convert it to an Aussie Aviation Authority Class 1.

Good luck.

PPRuNeUser0161

Sacky
I had the same situation as you. I can read up to 9 Ishihara plates depending on the lighting sometimes more. I sat the last chance lantern test at the Melbourne School of Optometry (I had to request this test through CASA) and passed. This test was similar to the farnsworth however it only gives red and white lights. It was over ten years ago now and I have heard the practical test at the field is also an option now and is probably more common. Whatever you do don't rush in, find out as much info as you can before any test, if you are going to do the practical test ask the guys at the tower to give a run-through a few times in advance. This may be organised through your flying school. The extra effort may be the difference in career as pilot or career as something else. Remember you only have to pass it once and you only get one chance to pass. Contact me by PM if you want any further info.

Good Luck

2close

Sorry AMEandPPL,

I cannot agree that the CAD Test is a fair and practical aviation based test.

It is as relevant to aviation as fishing nets are to parachuting.

It is nothing more than a test aimed at academically identifying whether someone has a CVD or not and it may be very good at doing that but the fact remains that it has no relevance to actual flying abilities.

There has been absolutely no correlation whatsoever between performance on the test and practical flying performance. Not one test has been conducted outside the examination room.

Does this sound like a really professionally conducted study?......I think not.

To my mind, the CAD Test is and always has been nothing more than a tool for certain individuals to gain adademic qualfication and professional accolade amongst similar minded 'defenders of the standard'. It is yet another tool for them to protect their empires (and their pensions)

Regardless of whether they introduce it or not, the fact still remains, this issue is still discrimination.

Sorry to pull the soap-box back out but this issue really annoys me. I have never desired and do not want an airline career and in all probability it would be too late for me to do so in any case. I am infuriated though that career aspirations are denied to thousands of young men throughout the world on a daily basis by a VERY small group of individuals who hide behind convoluted academic data, quoting an unsustainable flight safety argument whilst at the same time refusing to accept the mathematical statistical FACTS from the USA, Canada and Australia which clearly disprove their weak argument.

And what is more, they do not even have the moral fibre to stand up and argue the point........I wonder why? Any ideas, folks?

Back under stone.

2close

belowradar

NEO RS214

going into such investment to devise another test along purely academic lines was a really poor (and excruciatingly unfair) decision.


Absolutely agree with 2 close comments and above comment but what a pity that CAA didn't actually follow standard academic practices properly.

Any academic would start from a logical basis of studying the actual real world risk and quantify it first. Not merely devise lovely computer programme to replace a very reliable Ishihara test book. Lets get to the root of the issue not merely the symptoms.

We know we have CVD but we disagree that we are unable to safely fly an aircraft.

Neo_RS14

Yep, I hear ya belowradar.

But I do not know whether it was actually the CAA that made this decision, or whether their hands are tied by the JAA as to what they can do etc...I'm really not pointing the finger here, I'm not looking to blame anyone, just to establish what the current state of affairs is, and how we could possibly move things in a more worthwhile direction, should the potential to do so arise.

I really think that there is hope yet. The powers that be, wouldn't have to discard the CAD test and all that's been invested in it's development, it could still be used to assess CVD. However, to give the unfit/fit final stamp a practical/real world based test would be required. This would bring us inline with other developed countries across the globe...who realised the farcity of CVD in professional flight many years ago.

So if we could ALL agree the need for something like this to be in place, then it would just be a matter of devising such a test, and I can imagine that's quite daunting for the said organisations. Obviously they do not all agree with the tower signal test, and maybe they think a practical 'in the cockpit' type test is too costly and impractical, afterall, it's much easier to just test the subjects in-house.

I really think though that we need to start practical testing asap, if we don't do it now, we will end up doing it sometime in the future anyway, so why not make the change sooner rather than later. They do it abroad, they have no safety issues, their systems work, what are we so afraid of??? Come on, this is the 21st century, let's innovate! CVD pilots are flying into our airports Europe wide anyhow on the basis of passing practical tests abroad, so really how different will it be to just adopt such testing here? There's been no safety issues due to foreign CVD pilots in Europe so far.

Seriously, I just don't get it. I really don't, it's so dissappointing.

To prevent someone from following their dreams on the basis of some computer screen/lantern test, and not give them any opportunity to prove themselves in anything remotely close to a real world environment, is flat out unfair, and this needs rectifying immediately.

It makes me cringe to think of all the poor people who've had to just give up on this, and go into something they didn't enjoy doing, for the remainder of their lives, always looking to the sky hearing the thunder of jets above, and 'sighing'...as they are reminded of their failed attempts to be fairly assessed fit for flight...or if we carry on as is, they'll simply be reminded that 'The computer said NO'.