Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys, see if you visit the CAA website, go to medical, there is a new guidance form, and it does show and state the CAD test is used as advanced testing,
I also find it funny that cabin crew need to demonstrate colour safe, same requirments for passing LAPL....
I also find it funny that cabin crew need to demonstrate colour safe, same requirments for passing LAPL....
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let's support what we're saying then..
I heard recently that Australia is considering the introduction of the CAD test to replace the tower signal light test. The reasoning given was the arguments against the current relevance of the tower signal test.
I'm cvd for all the world but I'm only a "problem" to some countries. For others, I have a class 1 unrestricted license. But I can still land in the countries who restricted me without limitations if operating the airplane from a country who approved me (all under ICAO). Inconsistent right? The same applies to the color vision exams. They find cvds, not incapable pilots.
By supporting CAD you'd be supporting an exam that compared all the existing standards, mentioned they're not fit for the purpose therefore, they're introducing a better way to identify cvds (not unfit pilots). It's just a matter of time before this is dismantled given the audience is not just a small group of local people but an worldwide audience following this discrimination with inconsistencies and different approaches.
We need to stop using theories or protecting ourselves by creating more defense mechanisms from the unknown instead of trying to fix our mistakes by learning from them. The sooner the better. The whole world is watching now and its not only the doctors anymore.
Happy to go to court.. Are you?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just hold your horses there pponte. At no point did I say that I supported CAD, or that I even thought it was a good idea. I'm not trying to "make a point". Indeed, all I have done is report what I heard from various people at the conference brought up by brissypilot, as well as correct a few factual errors. Were you at the conference?
You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?
You are really off the mark in your quite aggressive comments at me. How about playing the ball, not the man! I have no intention of going to court, as I have no vested interest in the outcome.....do you?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about playing the ball, not the man
This will change, of this I'm sure and it's just a matter of time and effort like all the rest since the current laws have no solid/scientific base.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why keep talking about these tests?
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one would pass the anomaloscope at City Uni. Would that result be valid for a JAR class 1 medical?
Although you might want to remove your restriction, please join CVDPA to remove this nonsense exams for everyone as Arthur mentioned.
It's just another exam, I've tried them all and it only makes us waste time and money loosing our focus on the main thing - work together to change what is known to be wrong.
Last edited by pponte; 12th Oct 2012 at 08:36.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rasco, anomalscope results are valid from any vaild professional body, as easa advises on the website, as long as anomalscope results show a results of 4 scale units or less then you are fine..
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why keep talking about these tests?
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
It intrigues me why people want to keep talking about these various tests! In terms of their validity in detecting and grading the various colour vision defects, they all have their various validities and weaknesses. But that is no longer the issue. The fact of having defective colour vision, no matter how it has been found and classified, is irrelevant to the main issue of the relevance to the ability to operate safely under all circumstances in the aviation environment. The question of "testing for colour vision deficiency" is, may I suggest, a "red herring" and doesn't deserve any further discussion. What I have spent some thirty years trying to demonstrate, with more than a little success, is that when it comes to flying safely (ie, "safely performing the duties", as specified in the ICAO colour perception standard) the existence of defective colour vision is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. We are now at a point in the development of (?our collective) argument where we should stop being defensive and reactive, and take up a fully pro-active stance of demanding recognition for this hypothesis. Our Austrlalian CVD pilots who are in command of B737, B747s, A320s and A330s, to name just a few, are performing without any detriment to safety. The accident data from at least the last forty years, and from all over the world, is overwhelmingly supportive of the safety of CVD pilots at all levels.
If we are to be committed to change, we need to get away from the eternal moaning about the colour perception tests, because they have no relevance to the task of flying aeroplanes safely.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Color Deficiency and Glass Cockpit
Will a pilot with color deficiency will have a problem to fly glass cockpit aircraft.
Thank you
Thank you
Last edited by ILS 26R; 23rd Oct 2012 at 03:28.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot with color deficiency will have a problem to fly glass cockpit aircraft.
I'd like to know your facts to support this statement?
I've got over 5000 hours including many of those spent on EFIS equipped aircraft with no problems whatsoever. There are many other colour defective airline pilots in Australia too with even greater experience levels than myself.
Once again, people assume that colour defectives will have a problem, without any evidence to support it!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think ILS 26R may be asking a question and not making a statement.
I suspect English may not be his/her first language but the question would seem to be whether CVD would have a problem with EFIS displays, the obvious answer to which is 'absolutely not', otherwise the authorities would have to stop CVD pilots flying at all in case they (heaven forbid) find themelves in charge of an aircraft with a G1000 (or similar).
It is a known fact that CVD persons are often better at discriminating subtle changes in colour in a mash of colours than colour normal persons, one I can attest to, having proven it on many occasions.
The issue with CVD tests is their fitness for purpose not the fact that they identify persons with CVD. What should be on test is how the individual's CVD affects his ability to operate a modern aircraft?
The test needs to be specific-to-task and not a simple 'catch and ban' all and sundry.
In this day of advanced, state-of-the-art simulation (and I operate a very advanced 737-800 sim with zero problems) with their high-end graphics, both on the ground and in the air, there is no excuse for not being able to devise a thorough practical CVD test, which could test all aspects of aircraft operation, including taxiing in severe inclement weather through flashing multi-coloured lights.
On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority.
As well as this, over the years I have personally come across many CVD pilots who, through one way or another, have slipped through the net, one of which I know was a RAF Tornado pilot/instructor and another had >15,000 hours on Airbus aircraft on a JAA licence for European operators, much of which was at night. Funnily enough, their aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky or landed on the taxiway at night.
It is a shame that an amnesty for CVD pilots flying for EU airlines could not be brought about with a guarantee of no loss of licence, in order that the authorities could see the prevalence of people who had beaten the test (and it is not difficult) so they could see how little effect it has on actual aircraft operation.
And in anticipation of the comment "yeah, but what about when such and such happens?"..... in response, how about when ATC orders an expedited climb and your FO forgets how to change altitude when you're in the toilet.....or when you forget your spare spectacles and accidentally break your only pair in flight. We cannot cater for every single eventuality, which is why we have risk factors, parameters and tolerances. With the current CVD issue, a probability of failure in excess of acceptable tolerances is being assumed with absolutely no empirical data to substantiate that assumption. Why? Also, stop making the argument against CVD fit the assumed bias - provide evidence. What seems to happen is that, whenever the anti-CVD lobby starts losing a part of their argument they introduce something else to fit the test.
There are wheelchair users flying as commercial pilots and good luck to them - they should be permitted to do so - but when it comes to certain conditions, the authorities are stuck in their ways because that's the way it has always been.
I am also fed up with this comment "Why should we reduce our standards to the lowest common denominator?" when it is mentioned that other countries (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada) have far relaxed CVD requirements and their pilots aren't regularly involved in colour related accidents. If that is your argument, then let's mandate that all drivers in the UK be 'Advanced Driver' standard -why should Advanced Drivers accept that other drivers should be of a lower standard? I would wager a good sum of cash that making 'Advanced Driver' the minimum standard for motorways and A class roads, accompanied by biennial testing, would significantly reduce accident statistics. But that would mean introducing legislation on the basis of assumption, which is wrong.
Back to the forum................
I suspect English may not be his/her first language but the question would seem to be whether CVD would have a problem with EFIS displays, the obvious answer to which is 'absolutely not', otherwise the authorities would have to stop CVD pilots flying at all in case they (heaven forbid) find themelves in charge of an aircraft with a G1000 (or similar).
It is a known fact that CVD persons are often better at discriminating subtle changes in colour in a mash of colours than colour normal persons, one I can attest to, having proven it on many occasions.
The issue with CVD tests is their fitness for purpose not the fact that they identify persons with CVD. What should be on test is how the individual's CVD affects his ability to operate a modern aircraft?
The test needs to be specific-to-task and not a simple 'catch and ban' all and sundry.
In this day of advanced, state-of-the-art simulation (and I operate a very advanced 737-800 sim with zero problems) with their high-end graphics, both on the ground and in the air, there is no excuse for not being able to devise a thorough practical CVD test, which could test all aspects of aircraft operation, including taxiing in severe inclement weather through flashing multi-coloured lights.
On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority.
As well as this, over the years I have personally come across many CVD pilots who, through one way or another, have slipped through the net, one of which I know was a RAF Tornado pilot/instructor and another had >15,000 hours on Airbus aircraft on a JAA licence for European operators, much of which was at night. Funnily enough, their aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky or landed on the taxiway at night.
It is a shame that an amnesty for CVD pilots flying for EU airlines could not be brought about with a guarantee of no loss of licence, in order that the authorities could see the prevalence of people who had beaten the test (and it is not difficult) so they could see how little effect it has on actual aircraft operation.
And in anticipation of the comment "yeah, but what about when such and such happens?"..... in response, how about when ATC orders an expedited climb and your FO forgets how to change altitude when you're in the toilet.....or when you forget your spare spectacles and accidentally break your only pair in flight. We cannot cater for every single eventuality, which is why we have risk factors, parameters and tolerances. With the current CVD issue, a probability of failure in excess of acceptable tolerances is being assumed with absolutely no empirical data to substantiate that assumption. Why? Also, stop making the argument against CVD fit the assumed bias - provide evidence. What seems to happen is that, whenever the anti-CVD lobby starts losing a part of their argument they introduce something else to fit the test.
There are wheelchair users flying as commercial pilots and good luck to them - they should be permitted to do so - but when it comes to certain conditions, the authorities are stuck in their ways because that's the way it has always been.
I am also fed up with this comment "Why should we reduce our standards to the lowest common denominator?" when it is mentioned that other countries (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada) have far relaxed CVD requirements and their pilots aren't regularly involved in colour related accidents. If that is your argument, then let's mandate that all drivers in the UK be 'Advanced Driver' standard -why should Advanced Drivers accept that other drivers should be of a lower standard? I would wager a good sum of cash that making 'Advanced Driver' the minimum standard for motorways and A class roads, accompanied by biennial testing, would significantly reduce accident statistics. But that would mean introducing legislation on the basis of assumption, which is wrong.
Back to the forum................
Last edited by 2close; 23rd Oct 2012 at 13:18.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument Rating for CVD Pilots
EASA have published this comment response document about the proposed en-route and modular Instrument Ratings:-
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135
Buried inside is this:-
This is good news I think, although the TK requirements for either of these qualifications remain onerus and are likley to deter all but the most dedicated of PPLs. The UK IMCr (or IR(R) as it is known under EASA) is more attainable and has never required a night qualification. We should continue to lobby for it to be issued after the current cut off date in 2014.
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135
Buried inside is this:-
12. The Agency received a reasonable number of comments proposing the review of FCL.610 ‘IR — Prerequisites and crediting’ in order to solve the issue of pilots not being able to obtain a night rating (i.e. due to non-compliance with the colour vision requirements in Part-MED) but wishing to attain the EIR or IR. This issue was further evaluated together with the Review Group. Based on these discussions and the fact that ICAO SARPs do not require a night rating as a prerequisite for the IR, the Agency decided to keep the proposed route to allow a day-EIR without any link to the night rating but to also allow EIR operations by night if the required night rating is held. As a logical consequence of this decision the text in FCL.610(a)(1)(i) for the IR was also amended in order to clarify that a night rating according to FCL.810 is only required if the privileges of the IR will be exercised at night. However, it should be highlighted that current medical requirements for IFR flying in Part-MED will be reviewed in order to verify the impact on medical issues related to this decision.
Last edited by dobbin1; 31st Oct 2012 at 12:38.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, in a nutshell ....
Pilots with a colour deficiency are not allowed a night rating.
Pilots with a colour deficiency need a night rating to use their IR at night.
Obviously there must be a new meaning to the word 'clarify' that I am not aware of.
Pilots with a colour deficiency are not allowed a night rating.
Pilots with a colour deficiency need a night rating to use their IR at night.
Obviously there must be a new meaning to the word 'clarify' that I am not aware of.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to 2Close
2Close made some good points on 24 Oct 2012. I agree with practically every statement, but I am intrigued by the reference to a review proceeding:
"On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority."
Would 2 close be happy to share more details of this review with me privately (or publicly) whatever suits.
The reason is that such procedures need to be scrutinized and exposed whenever possible.
my email is [email protected]
"On that point, this was not one of the reasons given by the authorities at a relatively recent legal hearing - in fact, the ONLY reason given by the authorities for denial of the removal of the restriction was the assumed inability of the pilot to be able to land an aircaft safely at night using PAPI, despite the evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of the pilot's stated ability, the (internal) hearing found in favour of the authority."
Would 2 close be happy to share more details of this review with me privately (or publicly) whatever suits.
The reason is that such procedures need to be scrutinized and exposed whenever possible.
my email is [email protected]
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey guys,
I wanted to ask this question, mostly for constructive advise and to advise as well.
I mentioned in a threat that the CAA were charging to fee's for the CAD test! i could not understant why, i spoke to Gatwick and the optometrist, and he advised me that there is two versions of the test, at to difference costs..
the first cost of £ 42 is a short 30 second to 1 min presentation, that tests you on primary targets that the test would task as being l signals, both in strength and brightness, i asked why i was not offered this, and i was not given a specific answer, now the 142 that i paid for was the full 15 min test, which i found long, fatiguing and to be honest sitting for 15 min looking at a tv screen was not a good experience, so i have been offered a retake, another thing is that the result for me was 7.44 r/g.. and according to the technician any result within 6 and 7 could be taken again and averaged out, but that score i got should not be used as it not within retake scale anyway..
also the optometrist, who i advised that the test was being promoted as 100 % accurate, and when i challenged him, he said that in order for the test to continue i would need to guess the signal direction and i could be fortunate to get the correct answer!!!!
should i take this bloody thing again, and to to city rather than caa again!!!
I wanted to ask this question, mostly for constructive advise and to advise as well.
I mentioned in a threat that the CAA were charging to fee's for the CAD test! i could not understant why, i spoke to Gatwick and the optometrist, and he advised me that there is two versions of the test, at to difference costs..
the first cost of £ 42 is a short 30 second to 1 min presentation, that tests you on primary targets that the test would task as being l signals, both in strength and brightness, i asked why i was not offered this, and i was not given a specific answer, now the 142 that i paid for was the full 15 min test, which i found long, fatiguing and to be honest sitting for 15 min looking at a tv screen was not a good experience, so i have been offered a retake, another thing is that the result for me was 7.44 r/g.. and according to the technician any result within 6 and 7 could be taken again and averaged out, but that score i got should not be used as it not within retake scale anyway..
also the optometrist, who i advised that the test was being promoted as 100 % accurate, and when i challenged him, he said that in order for the test to continue i would need to guess the signal direction and i could be fortunate to get the correct answer!!!!
should i take this bloody thing again, and to to city rather than caa again!!!
