I'm going to talk to my AME when I go for my next medical (sadly only class 2 from now on). I'll ask him to test me on the plates and if I manage a 9/15 pass I'll take it to the CAA.

I fear that I won't even manage 9/15 though, but worth a try.

let me know how it goes, when are you due your renewal, just take your time with the plates, how many can you read, have you have different results!

Guys I only found out a couple days ago that I'm colour blind and am now in absolute shock. I planned to become an Air Traffic Controller for so long and then this hits me out of nowhere! I done the Ishihara online and couldn't see any of the plates whereas my parents could. What's the chances of me being able to do the CAD test and passing it?

For those who went through that route is the job THAT colour demanding in reality?

If you haven't done the test but merely trawelled the Internet, how do you know you are colour blind???????

you can take the isihara test on the internet, it's just looking at a bunch of dots and finding the number

Most people with Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) are unaware of it until they are tested.

The Ishihara Test is the primary test for initial screening for CVD .

The test used is the 24 plate version and the test is done using the first 15 plates, all of which show numbers in amongst the dots.

The manufacturer's pass standard is 13 out of 15, which allows for mis-readings (even colour normal persons can do this). However, our civil aviation authorities know better than the experts, the designer and the manufacturers and deemed that 15 out of 15 shall be the pass mark for Class 2 and Class 1 EASA medical certification.

If you fail (get even one wrong!) the Ishihara Test you will be asked to take the CAD Test (at Gatwick at least), a CAA only non-EASA approved test which involves you identifying rapidly flashing coloured squares in amongst a background of rapidly flashing grey-scale squares. This has two tests, a quick test; pass this and you're OK, fail and you're onto the extended test (particularly unpleasant by all accounts) - pass this and you're OK, fail it and you're limited to Class 2 certification only with VCL - daytime only.

I'm not sure what the alternative tests at the NATS Aeromedical Centre (AeMC) at Southampton are.

The best thing to do is to go to your local optometrist and have them check you before going anywhere near an AeMC.

Now check your PMs.

:)

I had the most bizarre medical ever! I had always had a fraction of colour blindness which was deemed as not a problem and happily sailed through my Medicals for years!
Colour blindness as far as I know does not get worse or better!
I trundled off for another test and the AME determined that I needed the lowest strength reading glasses!
He refused my medical till I had the glasses so I drove the fifty miles back home and rushed a new set of glasses through!
Problem is I don't like wearing glasses and asked for a tint so they looked more like sunglasses!
Fifty miles back with my tinted glasses and the AME insisted I did the full spectrum if tests wearing the new glasses!
Vision fine until he wated a colour test !
I could not read a thing in the numbers book and was perplexed as was he! I would also need to take the other test!
Then it hit me ! Get the best colour vision pilot in the world give him
Tinted glasses and he will fail the colour test!
Look at blue say through yellow and you will see green etc!
He insisted I go and buy another very expensive pair of glasses which were clear and redo the tests yet again!
I was livid and moaned that did they ban pilots using sunglasses as they would all effectively turn colour blind!
I never used him again after that very expensive medical
Yes I also had the ishicara test as a precaution

FlyingBlindUK,

Have a read of this link to a submission to the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission in 2002.

It is a submission from an experienced air traffic controller in Australia who suffered discrimination at the hands of the authorities as a result of his CVD.

While I'm not aware of what the outcome for him personally was, his experience again highlights that colour defectives are just as capable at performing tasks as our colour normal colleagues.

Just like the CVD standards for pilots, I would suspect that the standards for ATC's are founded on baseless assumptions of risk rather than actual evidence and experience.

As others have mentioned, make sure you go and get a formal test done from an optometrist before you get too worried. Don't just trust the ones done online!

gothe,

The Ishihara test has a few flaws, there are a few different books but they are mostly the same 14,24,38 plate edition, as the manufacturer states 2 errors or misreading are accepted as ok, misreadings happen when the light used is not correct, its supposed to be used with a blue filter that simulates true norther daylight, but the other issue is that the books need to be replaced very few years dependent on use..

also practitioners will arrange the plates in a random format to prevent learning or any visual hint,

If you have done the test before and passed all the plates, and then did the test again on a older book, one plate might be slightly faded and will cause a misread :ouch:

we had all had to take a few seconds more to look at a plate to decide if its a number 8 or 3, as one part of the 8 is darker and the other side is lighter :oh:

hope it helps if you need anything else just PM me :ok:

@2close: Thank you for your informative reply! What's the chances of me doing well at the CAD tests when I can't see a single Ishihara plate? My parents have sat with me and went through all the plates like a hot knife through butter (pretty much confirms my CVD). I will also read the PM, thanks!

@brissypilot: It's really frustrating. Why not just test us on the primary colours associated with the job? Is it really that difficult? I for example can tell the difference between most colours. It's shades of reds and green that do me in. Of course I will book an appointment with my optometrist(?) and see what they have to say! Thanks!

FlyingBlindUK
 

FlyingBlindUK: don't give up.
Different countries have different rules. Canada, Brazil, Australia are for instance different than European countries ruled by EASA.

google cvdpa and you'll find that some work is being done in Australia to change this worldwide.

Google cvdpilots for more info also on the policies for different countries.

We need to group and fight this together. pvt me for more info.

flyingblinduk

listen i pass 13/15 plates or more, but struggled with one or two at gatwick, and i failed the cad by 1.44 units, so really from what people are pointing out, its your luck if you can keep up with the cad, as its not so user friendly, its basically the same background as ishihara plates but the background flickers,

Oh man that's terrible news :(

I called NATS the other day and it seems that there isn't an obvious correlation between how many Ishihara plates one can see and how well they do on their CAD test. I decided I'm going to go to City University and take the tests there as they invented CAD in the first place. NATS also accepts a pass if you pass in City.

Is that not the CAD test? It only disappears for a few seconds in my case... but people have been pointing out that this isn't what it really looks like or is easier than the actual.

hey there, yeah that screen shot is also on utube, and is nothing like the real test, for one the real one is faster, flickers allot, and gives you a headache after 5 min, be warned that if you fail to achieve the pass 6 units for green weak, and 12 units for red, its hell to pass to be honest,

also caa state that if you or example were green weak and score of 7 units, they can let you retake the test and all scores under 7 are averaged out and if you get under 6 then they pass you, there is no instruction on the caa website to my knowledge or the city's knowledge when i asked them about this that this is corect!!! some one lease correct me on this.. cad is still not EASA approved!!

Lol it's not a screen shot. It's probably the video you were speaking of. But yes CAD is not in the EASA standard. We should be doing lantern/anamoloscopy instead. But oh well :\

I disagree. We should be forcing the CAA to drop all colour vision testing and give us unrestricted medicals because CVD pilots can perform just as safely and as well as colour normals in every aviation task. Google cvdpa

Correct Scottish.CPL, the CAD is NOT approved by EASA and the situation could be more serious than you think.

EU Regulation 1178/2011 Annex IV Part MED 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.

This is complemented by the Acceptable Means of Compliance, which then states:

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.


The question arises whether the AMC is an "APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE" and if so, it has the same status as a legal Statutory Instrument, e.g. the Highway Code is an ACOP to the Road Traffic Act and as such, whilst charges for alleged offences would be brought under the RTA the authoritative document for determination of knowledge of the rules would be the Highway Code, i.e. the man on the Clapham omnibus is not expected to know the ins and outs of the RTA but is expected to know the Highway Code.

Myself, as there are two levels of sub-regulatory document I believe the AMC has the status of an ACOP, with Guidance Material forming a less regulatory Code of Practice, which normally contains information such as best industry practice, to be used, as the name suggests, as guidance.

This being the case, the CAA must use the tests prescribed by law and any medical issued by the CAA using the CAD Test as its means of determining colour vision is not compliant with EASA Part-MED and as such (using the word very carefully) illegal, rendering the Part-FCL licence unlawful and the operation of aircraft by any person holding such a licence unlawful and uninsured.

This could be disastrous for any persons holding such a licence involved in any accident which resulted in damage to property or injury to persons, regardless of whether the cause of the incident had anything to do with eyesight. Any decent insurance investigator would look closely at the holder's licence and if he came to the same conclusion the insurer could refuse to pay out.

As the CAA prosecutes breaches of aviation legislation in the criminal Courts it stands to reason that this is covered by criminal and not civil law.

The CAA also states unequivocally that it is unable to make any exceptions to EASA driven EU Regulations and that it is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation. How can the licence holder comply with the law if it is the regulator that is breaking the law in the first place.

This needs clarification and I think it's about time AOPA stepped up to the mark here with the CAA Legal Department and get them to state, in writing, why these medicals ARE lawful and why the CAA Medical Department is permitted to breach EU Regulation 1178/2011 and the AMC.

At the very least, CVD pilots should be permitted to hold a Class 1 medical with the following restrictions:

CAT MPA OML as FO only
(Commercial Air Transport Multi-Pilot Aircraft Operational Multi-Pilot Limitation as First Officer Only)
CAT SPA VCL
(Commercial Air Transport Single-Pilot Aircraft by Day Only)

Once an ATPL is held, with >100 hours Night Flight and on successful completion of an assessment flight by an appropriate TRE, the first restriction should be removed.

I don't see much to be gained from aiming for too much to start off with but the above would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

I agree with you all

The ICAO Colour Perception Standard has been thoroughly examined by Dr Arthur Pape & Prof. Boris Crasinni.

Have a read of this article that was published in the Journal of the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine a few years ago. It's very insightful and is well worth a read.