Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

Unless you married to an Aussie or got a visa a job won't happen for us Brits !! Even with license conversion

Tallahassee B727 Crash - Colour Vision Standards
 

An interesting read below regarding the B727 which crashed in Tallahassee in 2002. The FO's CVD was implicated as a possible causal factor and ever since many worldwide authorities continue to quote this accident as a justification for more stringent colour vision requirements.

The article raises some serious issues which must be examined and in particular questions the reliability of the PAPI to provide correct indications under certain atmospheric conditions:

The Puzzle of the Crash of FedEx Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation

what a load of blinkered nonsense all this colour discrimination is.

why is it that the accident safety investigators have never once thought to recommended changing the bloody colours!!!!

for :mad: why white and red lights? why not white and magenta? yellow and blue?

aviation regulators must be some of the blindly stupidest people on the face of this earth.

:mad: "standards" - fix the actual problem.

after all it actually only involves changing the colour filters in front of the red lights.

T-vasis didnt need any colours.

it is perhaps just an accident of history but on our airfield if you were to name all the really good pilots among the 200 and something of us I guarantee you that most of the people named are colour blind in at least red green.
a more valid screening would be to knock out the lowest 30% of the population on intelligence. that after all would exclude all the cretins populating CASA.

Bravo!
But we dont need the colours changing anyway - they are fine as they are even for severe CVD pilots because we have used them without error for 24+ years.

Check out the CVDPA Facebook page for a new video.

It is of our Senator David Fawcett (an ex army pilot and UK ETPS graduate) raising questions in our Senate to the CASA CEO enquiring if they are trying to roll back the changes CASA were forced to make 24 years back after the Denison AAT case that allowed all CVD pilots to fly commercially by day and night up to First officer but not Captain in RPT.

The CVDPA (Arthur Pape et al) need you to join NOW and contribute directly to fund this case. They have court dates set for an appellant who has been an FO for several years and whose company want to promote him to Captain and the preparation for the show down is well underway. This case will likely result in all colour vision testing for pilots dropped in Australia and this will be a fine precedent for use in all countries.

If you know of other CVD affected pilots or wannabe pilots please alert them and encourage them to join.

"aviation regulators must be some of the blindly stupidest people on the face of this earth."

How dare you say such a thing?

Who on earth do you think you are?

Everyone knows that they are unquestionably the stupidest creatures* on face of the earth....to restrict your statement to only people is to limit the unquavering ineptitude of the aviation regulator to a mere sub-species.

Grunt, grumble, harrumph!!! Strolls off into darkness........... ;)

*Editors Note: This includes all single celled life forms and plankton

PS. Only joking - we love all aviation regulators really!!! :)

Virgin Pilots Association supports CVD pilots!
 

It's great to see the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) has also joined to support CVD pilots in this campaign in meetings with members of the Australian Federal Parliament.

Media Release - December 9 2013 - Pilots' Careers put at risk by Court Appeal | VIPA

Hi chaps
I haven't been very vocal on here of late. However I would like to encourage everyone to subscribe to cvdpa.com. Memberships are needed to help fund the upcoming legal challenge for Australian pilots to basically abolish restrictions due to CVD. I realise that if this case is won it may take sometime to effect change in other country's but rest assured it will be closely watched by your relevant authorities and pressure will be felt immediately.

Lets face it at this point its the best hope for major change. If CASA succeeds and wind back the clock no one wins and there is little to look forward to. Momentum is building and I believe the case will be heard in April 2014. So lets let the pro's do the work with our support yeah!

There's an interesting letter by a 6000 hour colour deficient airline first officer in Australian Flying magazine Jan - Feb 2014 edition.

CAD or LANTERN
 

Hi Folks,

Recently at Gatwick I did the whole colour vision testing. Failing that (Deutan) I was thinking of doing the lantern test at the City Uni in London.

My only worry is that, will the CAA accept the Lantern results if passed, if I've already failed the CAD?

Like it says below;
[B][B]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.



Class 1 and 2
(a) At revalidation colour vision should be tested on clinical indication.

Ishihara test to be conducted as per manufacturer’s instructions: test distance 75cm with plane of plates at right angles to line of vision under daylight or daylight simulated light (usually colour temperature around 6500K) allowing 3 seconds per plate for response. The plates should be presented to the applicant in a random order. Ishihara plates should be updated periodically or if showing any signs of fading.
(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.
(b) The Ishihara test (24 plate version) is considered passed if the first 15 plates, presented in a random order, are identified without error.
Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test is required if there are any errors on the first 15 plates.

Part MED.A.010 defines colour safe as ‘the ability of an applicant to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights.

CAD tests should be conducted under CAA protocols (available on request). The CAD test will only pass as colour safe, those individuals who perform as well as individuals with colour vision in the normal range on the most difficult aviation colour vision tasks. See CAA papers:



CAA Paper 2006/04 Part 1
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Flight Crew: The Use of Colour Signals and the Assessment of Colour Vision Requirements in Aviation

CAA Paper 2006/04 Part 2
Minimum Colour Vision requirements for Professional Flight Crew: Task Analysis

CAA Paper 2009/04
Minimum Colour Vision Requirements for Professional Flight Crew. Recommendations for new colour vision standards.

Implementing Rules

Acceptable Means of Compliance

Guidance Material

(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.

(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.
(3) Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test. this is considered oassed if the threshold is less than 6 SU doe deutan deficiency, or less than 12 SU for protan deificency. A threshold greater than 2 SU for tritan deficiency indicates an acquired cause which should be investigated.




The UK CAA does not conduct lantern testing as servicing and output of the machines cannot be quality assured. If the AMS is to consider the result of a lantern test, the report should include clear detail of the protocol used, responses made and documentation of the calibration/maintenance of the equipment. Non-UK tests must have been conducted by an Aeromedical Centre in another Competent Authority.

Class 1 applicants who fail advanced colour vision testing can request individual assessment by the Authority under MED.B.001 (“issued by the Licensing Authority”) and consideration will be given to restriction of privileges to “valid by day only” and “no public Commercial Air Transport” (VCL + SSL-ILA + SSL-NCAT).


Is it the top half of the box or the bottom half of the box they follow??

So confusing....

Thanks for your input, time and help folks. :)

Hi wind force,

Thanks for that. If EASA again disapprove of CAD testing and choose to only use the other methods as secondary testing. Will the CAA have to stop doing the CAD test and go back to the Lantern testing?

Thanks again.

That would be correct, but the issue would be that the CAA state that any lantern taken must be taken and a report regarding calibration if the rest, in other words they may not trust other institutes testing including city university which as we know designed the cad and Gatwick have sometimes refused results and made people retest there!!! And possibly lead to failure !!!

So, it wouldn't do me any harm to make sure I request the calibration certificates from the City Uni for the CAA.

Don't waste your time.

You could take a calibration certificate 15 seconds old together with a certified letter from the designer and original equipment manufacturer, signed in blood, with a guarantee that he would hand over all his worldly possessions and sacrifice his youngest daughter to the God of Aviation Regulatory Madness, should it be found to be out of calibration to 0.0000000000000000000001% and they still wouldn't accept it.

If it does not happen at the hallowed turf that is Aviation House Aeromedical Centre, as dictated by certain egoistical individuals, full of their own self-importance and not willing to accept the opinions of real-world time-served experts from the same industry with decades of real life experience (and not in the narrow-minded and massively restrictive artificial world of aviation regulation), then it will not be accepted......simple as that.....

......UNLESS the sweeping and very welcome changes (not quite as welcome at Aviation House though!) imposed on other CAA departments by Andrew Haines have managed to permeate the resistance-to-change armour surrounding the Medical Department. We can but hope!!! :)

Haha thanks,

I suppose the question is, "Will the CAA ever buck up their ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE CRAP?" And maybe update it to follow the EASA protocols? Or will EASA be looking to change their views on CVD pilots?

At the end of the day, it's complete bull:yuk:!!

They've yet to actually prove that we, as CVD pilots are unsafe in the skies! The truth is, they never will. As people say, they've got nothing better to do than make peoples lives a misery. If they like pushing paper around all day to try and prove a point then let them. Hopefully one day soon their noses will be out of joint with some new relaxed protocol..:ok:

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

All they need to do Is follow the rules of the test 13/15 is a normal pass on ishihara and for the lanterns test on aviation red/green/and white none of this light red or dirty white crap or changes in intensity bull

Interesting TedTalk here.

Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com

Shows how fallible colour perception can be, and also how many secondary cues the brain uses to make sense of the colour data it receives.

The point is that the existence of a VERY small number of aviation medical professionals, i.e. the optometrists, depends on this colour vision nonsense and in particular the introduction of the CAD. Get rid of this test and go back to the time served Ishihara Test and Lantern Tests (there ARE acceptable alternatives available to the now defunct Holmes-Wright Lantern).

We are no longer in the 1920's with coloured boards!!! This is the 21st Century and there are many alternative ways of conveying information other than simply by colour. :ugh:

A FOIA request should be submitted to the CAA to establish EXACTLY how much the CAA donated to the development of this laughable CAD test (Quote: "If you're not sure then guess".....so, although I am CP4 in one eye and monochromatic in the other, through nothing other than guesswork I could pass the colour vision test and be passed fit to fly in that respect!).

Once it has been established how much fee payers' money has been wasted a formal complaint should be submitted to the Transport Secretary demanding the heads of those responsible on silver platters.

Apart from academic advancement I fail to see any real benefit that has come out of the CAD test.

Apart from the CAD test, there is NOTHING that could not be achieved at a high street optometrist.

I'm sorry if the aviation optometrists have to get a real job and and work for a living but if the CAA is genuinely concerned about reducing costs they need to look at the obscene salaries they pay out in certain areas.

:ugh: :mad: :*

9/15 on Ishihara will get you a night rating on a LAPL. How can that be safe for a LAPL if not safe for a PPL?

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

I put it down to the fact that the Lapl medical is done via your gp and not CAA so that the so called risk is on the gp to sign u off !!

Please note the following:

SECTION 2

Specific requirements for the LAPL for aeroplanes — LAPL(A)

FCL.105.A LAPL(A) — Privileges and conditions

(a) The privileges of the holder of an LAPL for aeroplanes are to act as PIC on single-engine piston aeroplanes-land or TMG with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 2 000 kg or less, carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, such that there are never more than 4 persons on board of the aircraft.

(b) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers after they have completed, after the issuance of the licence, 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG.


You can be issued a LAPL(A) after 30 hours of training and go on to fly a large (2,000 kg!) SEP aircraft with lots of fuel but admittedly only 4 persons on board in total.

Obviously it is impossible to cause much damage to either the four POB or any property with such an aircraft and an overwhelming 10 hours of post licence issue experience, hence, the decision to grant this reduced requirement to LAPL(A) holders.

As for the risk being transferred to the GP I'm afraid that is not the case - the competent authority bears the responsibility for licence issue.....full stop! If they chose to implement reduced visual requirements for a particular class of licence that must be based on solid evidence, studied through careful risk assessment. I suspect this decision was made over a glass or two of wine in a Horley pub and written on the back of a fag packet!!

:ugh: