ChiefDM

I was thinking the same thing

Maybe someone could send us a link to the regs document that says its not going to be allowed under EASA regs?

I'm confused by this because, as has already been posted, EASA says that its own proposed requirements are based directly on JAR FCL 3?

ChiefDM

I see what you're getting at now, I was blissfully unaware that anyone deemed as unsafe was able to still obtain a CPL (I assume this carried some form of day only flight restriction?).

That said though is it right to assume that if you have CVD but are deemed safe that you can still gain a Class 1?

Still got two weeks to wait before I find out how bad my CVD is!

pilgrim flyer

.... SCPL posted

1) we do not issue any Class 1 Medical Certificates with a color deficiency limitation (VCL limitation is not possible for Class 1)

I don't know where that comes from, but it's not true because I have a VCL limitation on my Class 1, and have done for a number or years.

Cheers

PF

Scottish.CPL

my appologies, prilgram, i was sharing an issue over the spectrolux, and the message had gone all strange, please just disrigard that, thanks..

ndr1804

hi boys and girls ....yes some girls have cvd. yhis is the exact chap I mentioned a while ago. he has done wonders for cvd people and prooved it correct. The fact that colour difines full information only is not always the case.

regrds Nigel 1804 (currently colour safe)

ChiefDM

Forgive my cynicism, but proving it is one thing, getting people to listen and change things is quite another

RVR800

The Isihara cards test result was at my initial medical, deemed insufficient and I was then referred for the Holmes Lantern test, that test was difficult, and although I passed, I often reflect on what might have been; a colour VDL restriction. No Class I.

Imagine my surprise when visiting an optician I was given the all clear on Isihara; this backs up comments made above.

The whole thing lacks credibility in my view as the number of plates shown to the patient for the type of colour blindness I was alleged to possess before that was deemed satisfactory under holmes, was low 2 plates maybe 3 and in uncontrolled lighting - the whole thing doest stack up not enough evidence and varying test conditions make it a bit of a farce....

ndr1804

Ok. Here is more food for thought. I know cvd can't be cured at moment, but if a lense can be produced that corrects the defficiency to allow you to pass the ishihara test why can't it be used as an aid. Just as some pilots carry two lots of glasses or contact lenses around. I can see nearly all ishihara test plates a normal bulb lit room but not all in outdoor light......?????? so read this and see....!!!!!!!! Correction of Colour blindness - colour vision deficiency test

If it worked,,,,,,why couldn't it be used as an aid ? god knows how many pilots need glasses as an aid. Some pilots I know can't even read instruments without glasses

Regards nigel

ChiefDM

Funny you should mention this, I did ask about the Chromogen lenses which do a similar thing and got this response from CAA.

Like I said earlier it's one thing to prove that there are ways around it and things that can help and even proving that its not relivent, but it's another thing entirely to get requirements changed to reflect these things.

ndr1804

MMMMMMMMMM. No explanation as to why they are not allowed. What would be the responce then if a guy needs eye sight correction long sighted or short sighted. Surely we are doing the same thing correcting a defect........? So the guy who has a heart attack (and I believe military too) go have correction surgery on the heart.......If it proves that it works then why can't we do this. Someone give us an answer, a proper answer not the usual drive Z response without explanation...........

regards ndr1804

2close

The reason they're not allowed is that this would further erode the last bastion of resistance for a very small group of aviation optometrists who are clutching on to their raison d'être by the finest of threads.

There is very little justification for the massive costs incurred by the CAA medical department, a task which could easily be administered by the DVLA with oversight over AMEs, and every post they lose would weaken their position further.

Therefore, they dream up excuses for maintaining the status quo over CVD and conjure up invalid objections to any positive progress.

It is all about protectionism of jobs, perks and final salary schemes.

AnthonyGA

Glasses that correct refractive errors are different from glasses containing color filters. The former type of glasses does not remove information from visual input, whereas the latter does. This means that, while glasses that correct refractive errors do not reduce the information available to a pilot but merely reformat it, glasses that "correct" color deficiencies actually provide a pilot with less information, and from a mathematical standpoint this means that color filters can only be useful in certain very specific circumstances, while they may be more of a hindrance than a help in all other circumstances.

For example, suppose you wear filters that selectively pass red light but filter out a lot of green and blue. With filters like these, red light will seem brighter to a person with deuteranomaly (red-green deficiency), making it much easier to distinguish from green. However, since so much green and blue is being removed from vision, the total amount of information reaching the eyes will be reduced, and blue and green lights will be much harder to see. In very specific circumstances that require only enhanced perception of red, the filters might be useful, but in most other circumstances they'd only make things worse.

Thus, a set of glasses that makes it easier to pass the Ishihara plates under a given type of light might work well for that specific situation, but might make things a lot worse under other types of light, and might make overall color vision in any other circumstances than an Ishihara test considerably worse.

This is why colored glasses aren't allowed for aviation. They only change things under very specific circumstances, enhancing perception for those circumstances at the expense of making things worse in all other circumstances. This is different from glasses that correct refractive errors, which do not remove information from visual perception but simply transform it (although the transformation may be one that also works best in certain circumtances).

The difficulty is in finding a set of color filters that would consistently improve color distinction for color-deficient individuals under a wide variety of flying conditions and for a wide variety of color deficiencies. While refractive errors are common and much research has gone into solving this type of problem, almost no effort has been made to try to compensate for color deficiencies in the same way (CVD being much less common than refractive errors). And while glasses can make a blurry image sharp, effectively providing more information rather than less, filtered glasses always remove information, so they may enhance certain differences but the overall image quality is always diminished.

Also, since filtered glasses always remove part of the light reaching the eyes, they greatly diminish night vision, whereas ordinary glasses don't (the light waves are redirected, but there's no reduction in light intensity).

ChiefDM

Makes a certain amount of sense I guess. Out of interest are there any rules governing the use of sunglasses while in the cockpit? I.E. are you allowed to wear them whenever you want, or at anytime except landing and take off? Surely they would have the same effect as CVD contact lenses? I do appreciate with this however that you can always just remove them if you're having trouble seeing things clearly

Just curious really as if there are no guidelines on the use of sunglasses then theoretically a pilot could wear them from gate to gate, and this would surely substantially reduce the wearers colour perception.

Scottish.CPL

hey guys, ok the sunglasses, caa recommends neutral grey 70% .

second, come on guys, i know people are getting possibly annoyed, but we are using up cyberspace, and i know im bad at this, but wee need to stop using space on issues that are clearly not helping, do you not see a certain amount if slagging goin on.

we are disputing the standards of colour vision, ie to make it faire, or more human friendly,

on offend but writing a paragraph on sunglasses and cvd, yes it has been disputed, but people who say mathematically based results, OMG , thats like plonkers who ask, what are the statistics on people who fail the plates but pass thae holmes-wright lanter, WHO CARES, TAKE THE TEST, and stop annoying us.

2close

Save me the trouble, please, ScottishCPL of reading endless pages of material by advising me of your own position.

I take it from your 'User Name' that you hold a CPL, possibly with a restricted Class One Medical.

Cheers,

2close

Scottish.CPL

my cpl, is an icao, issued in the states, with a unrestricted faa class 1, no soda for color vision. I can pass more than the requirment for ishihara, im in the process of looking at gaining a canadian cpl/ir, through conversion.

after i failed at the intinal jaa class1 at gatwick and failed the lanterns, i got a restricted jaa class 1 medical, and was waiting for the stupid cad test to come, not worth 120.00 for a test which in my opinion, was several flaws to it.

Captcook

I had this problem back in 87, i couldn't pass the colour plates or the lantern test, I had to take a special flight test with an examiner to determine the colours on the ground, i.e. Yellow rape seed, green grass,
brown for dirt and ploughed fields etc, and then he made a report to the CAA if you can do that you get a restricted instructors licence, no night flying

ndr1804

Hell,......maybe its time to start the most rediculous way you have passed a cvd test to gain a class 1. My lantern test consisted of red,white ,yellow and geen light in a dark room with different appetures of light shown..........and thats how its been for 27 years. i could fly night day ifr vfr.....

regards ndr1804

ndr1804

I know what you are saying captcook..............restricted instructor rating on knowing the colour of fields...............Its so important to know the colour of fields on a night. So if you know the colour of fields during the day ,why does it stop you from flying at night, surely all fields are black at night and that doesn't help anyone cvd or not.........unless of course its a brightly lit retangle of white lights that depicts the shape of a runway how would we find that.? I don't know Over the last 27 years I have some times spent 10 hours a day frequently in an aircraft and never had a problem........

regards ndr1804

N3rull

Hello people. I'm new here, so please don't be too harsh if I do something silly. I tried to use the search engine for what I'm looking for, but didn't find anything.

I am looking for people who:
- are protanomal (red-weak)
- took an anomaloscope test at some point on their way to their medical certificate

If you are such a person or know of such a person, please let me know (pm/post) if you/he/she managed to obtain an unrestricted license and how.

I am a protanomal person with the following results on a Nagel anomaloscope:

Moreland (test for blue deficiency) - Patient is colour-normal

Rayleigh - Patient is protanomal(red-weak)
I took two tests:
AQ = 0,33 ; B = 07 to AQ = 0,28 ; B = 07
AQ = 0,32 ; B = 06 to AQ = 0,19 ; B = 06

I would like to know if there are people with a deficiency similiar to mine who managed to get a class1 unrestricted in europe (by taking another test).

Thanks in advance.