dobbin1

....but he could fly at night on a LAPL, because that seems to only need a 9/15 pass. You could not make this stuff up!

Scottish.CPL

yeah that is very true,

Scottish.CPL

just a thought, as you will all know, the lanterns that are used, holmes-wright and so on, the JAA medical books states that the any lantern my be retested after 6 months, now i was denied this, reason, typical stupid one memorizing the sequence, well i have access to a university that has a holmes wright lantern, and was looking at a retest, i know LGW has the holmes, and the bynes lantern.....

any thoughts on this people

thanks

Scottish.CPL

would never want to see that cad test again, the lantern mabye, when i did the bayne im sure i passed it, but the un-named practitioner said i didn't, and when i did the lantern, he tested me at low brightness, and should have been at high,

The reason i don't want the cad, was that i got a letter from Gatwick when i challenged them, and there chief medical officer said that i could retest on the cad... but wait for this, that they would have to take the previous results and average them out, do a retest on cad is not a retest...

Scottish.CPL

yep got a letter advising me of this, one guy on here, did the cad, and got under 7units, but needed to do the test again to try and get a pass, during the retest he hit 5units and under 6 units, ie a pass, but because they said they needed to average this he still failed, needless to say he was not impressed, and i cannot find anything regard the procedures for the cad, and to be honest i was pi**sing myself laughing when they promote the cad as 100% accurate, how can that be when the technician to tested me , clearly stated, if you cannot detect a signal that have a guess, how the hell is that accurate.....

outofwhack

The third case, with the support of both the applicant and the CAA, was conducted as a comprehensive review of all the evidence pertaining to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard. By agreement, the evidence submitted in the earlier case on the role of colour coding of navigation lights was not repeated, but was transposed into the substance of this hearing. Between the two cases, the total number of days devoted to the submission of oral and written evidence was approximately forty. Not a single instance of the use of colour in civil aviation was ignored. The evidence was comprehensive and was subjected to intense and critical analysis. The Tribunal performed its function with meticulous impartiality and thoroughness. It performed what amounts to the most thorough and comprehensive examination of the issue ever conducted anywhere on the globe to that point in time and since.
*
The result was a resounding rejection of the proposition that defective colour perception poses any threat to the safety of air navigation
*
Summary
The evidence heard at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal was comprehensive and focused on detailed analysis of what pilots do and how they do it and what, if any, role colour played in the process. It was the first time in the history of aviation the „problem“ of the colour perception standard had been so meticulously put to independent scrutiny.

brissypilot

This in fact should've already been done by Australia's own CASA - from the CVDPA website:

"Of interest is the fact that on the final day of submissions, all parties agreed that the hearing had been thorough, unbiased and exhaustive. The Authority’s legal team indicated to the Chairman of the Tribunal that whatever the outcome, the Authority intended to promote the result on the international stage; such was their satisfaction with the encounter."

As we know, the appeal was successful and CVD's in Australia were declared safe... but guess what - the authorities have never promoted the outcome internationally as they promised they would.

It is has been left to the minority with people such as Arthur Pape who still twenty three years later are fighting to get our message out there on the international stage. Even today he continues to work hard and presents at various Aeromedical Conferences around the world and spends his spare time writing articles for aviation medicine journals. He deserves all of our support through CVDPA if we are to win this battle. The massive task ahead of us is too big for any one person - so join up and get involved and lets do this together!

barne_as

Ive been reading through this post for a while now, and am a little confused, maybe I missed something earlier on:

- Can you instruct PPL students without holding a CPL?,

I.e. A PPL holder, with FI qualification and class 2 medical can instruct and get paid?

2close

I have to correct you there Windforce (in the nicest way of course )

It is a very common misconception that 17th September is the date that EASA regulations come into force in the UK.

That is not the case.

EASA Part-FCL and EASA Part-MED are in place now and have been since the 8th April.

The ony thing postponed to 17th September is the issue of new EASA Part-FCL licences and the new VFR Night privileges.

CAP 804 has replaced LASORS, although it is without doubt the most atrociously written document ever to come out of Gatwick. You are better off referring to the EU Regulation and the Acceptable Means of Compliance documents than trying to navigate through CAP 804 which excels at filling you with unnecessary information whilst omitting the real need-to-know stuff.

Yes, under EU Regulation 1178/2011, Annex I, Sub-Part C, Section II, FCL.205.A, a PPL can be paid for flight instruction for the LAPL or PPL.

SECTION 2

Specific requirements for the PPL aeroplanes — PPL(A)

FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges

(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:

(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);

(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;

(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.



Back to the subject in hand:

Annex IV, Sub-Part B, Section , MED.B.075 states:

MED.B.075 Colour vision

(a) Applicants shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily the colours that are necessary for the safe performance of duties.

(b) Examination

(1) Applicants shall pass the Ishihara test for the initial issue of a medical certificate.

(2) Applicants who fail to pass in the Ishihara test shall undergo further colour perception testing to establish whether they are colour safe.

(c) In the case of Class 1 medical certificates, applicants shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail further colour perception testing shall be assessed as unfit. Applicants for a Class 1 medical certificate shall be referred to the licensing authority.

(d) In the case of Class 2 medical certificates, when the applicant does not have satisfactory perception of colours, his/her flying privileges shall be limited to daytime only.

Part-MED AMC further clarifies this:

Class 1 Medical

AMC1 MED B.075 Colour vision

(a) At revalidation, colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.

(c) Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by:

(1) anomaloscopy (Nagel or equivalent). This test is considered passed if the colour match is trichromatic and the matching range is 4 scale units or less; or by

(2) lantern testing with a Spectrolux, Beynes or Holmes-Wright lantern. This test is considered passed if the applicant passes without error a test with accepted lanterns.

NOWHERE does it state that the CAD is acceptable or that it may be used in lieu of the Anomaloscope, Spectrolux, Beynes or H-W. However, it does states that "Those failing the Ishihara test should be examined either by". The important word here is 'should' which in EU legal parlance simply means a recommendation - it is not absolute and alternatives may be considered. Therefore, if the extremely suspect CAD is acceptable then so should other tests.


Incidentally, out of curiosity I took an anomalscope at a different location to City University and was given different, far clearer instructions on what to do and passed it. However, in the same way that the CAA would not accept my H-W pass results from the UK military forces or Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital, the CAA will not accept anything not conducted by themselves or City University. It does not state that in the EU Regulations so I sense another legal challenge coming on!!

Also, folks, please stop referring to the JAA and JARs - it is misleading - so far as FCL and MED go it is dead, deceased, defunkt, it has shuffled off its mortal coil and gone to join the bleedin' choir invisibule!!

2close

The CAA's lanterns have not been serviced as they cannot find anyone able to do it.

The lamp in the Ishihara daylight simulating lamp had been used for about 20 years past its manufacturer recommended life. They put a new one in about 5 years back but that is probably still the same one.

The equipment is out of date and decrepit and not fit for purpose. A serious challenge in the civil courts would easily see them kicked into touch, however, it is the cost of fighting the case that makes it prohibitive.

The powers that be know this and play on it.

Scottish.CPL

yeah i have been subject to dodgy equipment, the light is important in the ishihara, and the maintenance of the lanterns for sure, a dirty white can look green haha, ive seen that to, i also had a renewal at Gatwick for my faa, and struggled on a few plates cause they never had the light, and the optometrist never even said anything, go figure on that one..

Scottish.CPL

hey guys, well if the CAD is not approved does that not mean then that anyone that passed this, will now have there restriction back, i mean if i found out that someone had passed the cad and now the test is not approved, ie not valid i would be annoyed that people would be given colour safe status when they are not???

im waiting to the LAPL medical to become available after 17 September and go on from there..

2close

Hi Windforce,

It appears from correspondence received from a fellow training provider this morning that the information we were provided vis-a-vis the commencement date is incorrect and that you were correct in the first place, i.e Part FCL commences wef 17/09. I need to speak to my boss about this.

As for the Class 1 deviations, yes, I have now lost my Class 1 medical and CPL, my job, my livelihood and my family are now struggling to make ends meet, not that the CAA could care the slightest whatsoever, although I am selling body parts on e-bay if anyone is interested in a severely battered liver.

No, I haven't actually lost my job although I could very well have.

It is an absolute disgrace and certain individuals should be experiencing many sleepless nights as they hang their heads in shame.



But I bet they sleep easy.....

2close

Yes, Windforce,

I held a JAA CPL, ME, IR, FI (inlcuding NIGHT and Instrument) and also a PPL with an UNRESTRICTED Class 2 medical, issued on the basis of an unrestricted CAA Class 3 medical having passed a Holmes-Wright lantern in 1992.

I now hold a PPL, IR & FI.

I also passed the H-W test for HM forces, both the RAF in 1977 and the Army in 1982. However, the RAF had lost the records and the Army documentation only states CP 3 without mentioning the test - saying that, the ONLY lantern acceptable to HM Forces is the H-W. Nevertheless the CAA refuses to accept anything that they haven't done themselves.

I also passed the Farnsworth for the FAA.

Great innit!!

outofwhack

Hi Guys,

The 4 Australian airline first officers now have their date set for their appeal court hearing 'to let them use their ATPL and sit in the left seat'. Its set for mid October 2012. If we win this - the last remaining remnants of the aviation colour perception standard should be removed from the Australian regulations.

All countries can benefit from this! Think - A country devoid of ALL colour vision regulations flying airliners into your country! That will help your fight in your country!

Ofcourse, we already have Australian colour defective captains flying 747s and Airbusi into your country - the CVD pilots that can pass the tower signal light test - a test using real signal colours and not those with wavelengths on the lines of colour confusion on a CIE chart that ALL the clinical test use. This case fights for pilots that fail even the last ditch tower signal light test - because it is known that there have been no accidents caused by poor colour vision worldwide and, as examined by a protracted court case in 1989, that defective colour vision does not detract from the safety of civil aviation.

If you havent already - join the CVDPA (Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association). Your subscription is your donation to the fighting fund. The website is in two parts: The public side with some great info and the members side with private forum and access to heaps of interesting info, reports, letters etc.

Before the case starts browse the massive amount of information collected by and contributed to by Dr. Arthur Pape who won those cases in 1989 and is now active again in our fight.

I met with Arthur recently and he says he is, as ever, willing to advise groups and individuals in all countries but contact is preferred via the website.

It is very apparent that Arthur wont rest until the standard is removed - getting there has been his life's work. He still loves getting calls from pilots he has helped.

Right now he is preparing a presentation to an aviation conference in New Zealand next week. His travel is sponsored by a group of CVD pilots/parents. The press are going to be there too. There will be a video of the preso on the website once Arthur returns from his travels.

We are all in this together - too much money has been spent on stupid tests - legal is the only way that works.

Personally - I want the next battleground to be Europe (UK included) so I can come home (sigh).

gijoe

I am nothing but confused be this little lot of fun.

So my question is...is the CAD going to get heave-ho in Sep 12?

Scottish.CPL

well, i say it doesn't because its go no relevance to aviation vision physiology, and if they say its not approved, then i would say that the caa have been running a test, dare i say this but, illegally... you think of the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that have done cad, only to find they have received a night rating, or started a cpl, or frozen atpl course, only to find there medical to be revoked. just my personal view, people, but a to the point one...

gijoe

Well... I think I may just write a letter to the CAA to ask their opinion.

The response will be published here.

Scottish.CPL

i doubt they will tell you mate, could you imagine the panic and legal implication for that, but if you get a response, then please share lol..

gijoe

Will do.

I am one of the lucky ones = IMC, Night etc but fall foul of the new rules.

Oh how I will enjoy the watching the CAA squirm...