....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!

yeah that is very true, :ok:

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

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... :D

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.....

The Pape cases
 

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.

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!

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?

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

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!! :)

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.

:mad:

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..

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..

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.

:mad:

But I bet they sleep easy.....

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!!

:)

Coming home
 

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).

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?

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...

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

The response will be published here.

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..

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...

In what way do you fall foul?

:oh::confused::rolleyes:

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

What's up mate ?

Just sad to see so many careers denied for an invalid reason - nothing changed in the last 30 years in Europe - hope European courts might provide a mechanism for us to turn things around.

a question, ive just checked the caa website and under list of charges, they have two charges for cad test, on for

Colour Vision assessment – Full CAD Test 125.00
Colour Vision Screen (CAD) test only 41.00

right so whats the difference, the date for these charges was
(From 1
st
APRIL 2012)

I would kindly invite the optometrist from caa, as he will know the difference, because i payed the full fee, was told nothing about a screen test only..

i want answers to this one, and by the way the rumor im hearing is that cad is NOT easa approved and people that have passed may not be subject to grandfather rights, and the approved test will be lanterns...

I have emailed caa for answers for cad, and as usual no answer.

Hi there.
Given EASA is here to stay and it should be considered one entity for all countries who have joined, they should be based in only one country I suppose.
The question is how can we take them to court, should we use EU court or the country EASA is based in?

Thanks

I've just started my PPL, I've got a restricted class 2 in Europe and an unrestricted class I in Brazil.

FAA OCVT AND MFT IN OZ??
 

Hello everyone ,

I currently hold a Australian class 1 medical without any restrictions. I did a signal test years ago and was handed a unrestricted medical.

Recently I have been requested by an international airline to get a FAA medical. They specifically want me to do the OCVT and MFT.

I have contacted few doctors here in Sydney who are authorized to do a FAA medical but have no idea where i would be able to OCVT and MFT.

So I m wondering if anyone is able to advise if I would be able to take these tests in Australia or i am only able to do them in U.S.


And if someone can give me some
Information as to what is involved in these tests.

Thanks.

ocvt is an occupation colour vision test, basically its a real world ability test to discriminate colour tasks, like reading maps and pointing out different areas like airspace that have colour rings, victor and jet airways.. also telling the difference of shades, ie the hight of hills in mountain areas

mft is the practicle flying element, telling the difference on an airspeed indication, random colour based questions, colour of taxi ways lights, runway and so forth,

i think this type of testing is what we need in europe, because its fair..

I agree with Scottish.CPL except for the last 4 words ..... "because it's fair".

IMHO the OCVT and MFT would be "fair" only if they tested whether we can perform the required task of safely flying an aircraft and do not ask us to name the colours. We don't always get that right.

After all - naming colours is not a task a pilot has to perform [except in medical tests].

Does anyone here actually think you need good colour vision to fly an airplane?

I stand corrected haha,

Yes, I do.

to fly a night, an airman must be able to distinguish colors used in aviation, for safe operation..

there is not one test available that can give an accurate conclusion, ishihara is based on fake color combined, the lanterns are ok, but issues over them being maintained, the cad is just a completely academic test, the anomalscope is a test designed to confuse normals into failing... and yes i can explain all of this?

Bealzebub,

Which particular aspect of flying do you say needs good colour vision?

night flying needs good perception of colour, red and green plus white lights, i know that when flew at night in the US seeing and knowing if a aircraft will pass me from left or right, or if im behind is helpful, all navigation light have the same intensity so should not pose a problem, runway lights are dimmed at lower intensity just to save the light bulbs lol...

outofwhack,

Just taking one example from my own experience of the last fortnight.

Taxiing out at a major international airport at night. Driving rain and a whole host of work in progress. The usual myriad of taxiway lighting, runway edge lighting, LVP lighting, works in progress, roadway lighting, vehicles and signage lighting. Straining to disguinguish the subtlety of aircraft tail lights of preceding aircraft in this visible spectrum. Difficult at the best of times, but hampered by the distortions of rain and spray.

Add to this mix, crossing active runways with the same impairments to the normal colour spectrum with other distractions (noisy wipers) ATC, visual lookouts for active runway traffic etc.

The subtlety of the colour spectrum is difficult enough under such conditions with the advantage of strong colour perception.

This example is without the aircraft ever leaving the ground (flying,) yet it is an integral and common part of the operation.

"flying" isn't simply VASI's, tower light guns and stop bars. It is the whole range of dynamics for which visual colour acuity plays an important part, and particular when conditions are less than ideal.

There are a great many posts on this thread that cry "foul" because the test lighting conditions were less than optimum or ideal. In this environment those conditions can be found almost every day in relative extremis.

As you spearhead a campaign, I doubt that my answer will carry much sway, but you asked and I answered.

Bealzebub,

Thanks for the detailed response. I assume you are a pilot.
QUESTION FOR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION: Imagine you approach an airport where every green light has been replaced with a white light? Same goes for green lights/displays in the cockpit - they are now white. No other colour is affected. What real effect does this have? Is it safe?

No need to consider wingtip lights because every pilot knows that flashing strobe beacons are seen way before wingtip lights can be seen and relative bearing changes indicate whether they will pass left or right of you.

If you are asking: "Is degradation safe?" The answer is no! If you are asking: " Is temporary degradation safe enough?" Then the answer is maybe. More precisely is the compromise acceptable?

In your example:
The temporary degradation may be acceptable if other safety factors provide a compensatory element.

In the real world example I gave you, removing the safety discrimination of the green taxiway lighting and substituting it with white now gives you the same colour factor for the taxiway lighting, the runway lighting and the tail lights of the aircraft in front (whose rotating beacon and the safety colour you are now relying on) might not themselves be serviceable.

You could make the same argument for having two pilots. Is it safe to operate with just one? No! Is it an acceptable compromise to operate with one when the other becomes incapacitated? Yes. The compromise is acceptable (and indeed vital) under those conditions of degradation.

Visual acuity is an important tool. Is it acceptable to permit deviance from the highest standard? Obviously it is, since such deviances are commonplace with the standards set at correctable limits. Colour deficiencies do not appear to be correctable at this time, and it would therefore require a compromise to make such deficiencies acceptable. Some countries already do this, and many don't. Is that safe?

Those countries that have accepted the compromise think so. That neither compels other countries to follow suit, nor does it prove that a deviance from the standard is anything other than a compromise.

I am not asking if degradation is safe. Obviously it's less safe.

I am asking if removal of the colour green really makes any significant degradation at all.

You hit the nail on the head - degradation may be acceptable if other factors provide a compensatory element.

I believe that it makes such a tiny degradation that the affect on safety is negligible since there are so many other factors helping a pilot taxy at night like aircraft headlights and difference in texture between grass and pavement. I believe the reliance on colour is quite exaggerated - even your good self said you rely on the safety colour of the rotating beacon. I say it would not matter what colour was used.

I think that even a pilot with complete monochromacy 'vision like black and white Tv territory' would have no issue with avoiding rear-ending another aircraft on the taxiway. Do you really rely on the rotating beacon being red? If the red lens of the rotating beacon had fallen off could you mistake the taxying aircraft for something else and would you hit it? My own aircraft has a rotating red beacon and the lens is held on with a single bolt without a wire lock! Collision avoidance is not by recognition of colour it's by relative bearing - ask any pilot. Sure aviation uses lots of colours but in a very adhoc way.


Nobody really knows what another sees and many colour deficient pilots think they can see the colours. They are simply wrong. Any colour vision test shows that. Why do they think they can? Its because in the actual physical task of piloting they know they perform no differently than colour normal pilots. 99% of colour deficient pilots confuse white and green and have no problem recognizing red. I believe in modern aviation confusing white for green is not an issue.

Additionally there is simply no evidence that supports the idea that colour deficient pilots are unsafe.

Of course that's possibly because they have been eradicated to extinction in aviation by unjustly discriminative regulations. But not for pilots licensed in Australia where colour deficient pilots fly side by side with colour normals at all levels including international airline flying for the last 23 years. Yes! Colour deficient pilots fly 747s and A380s into Heathrow and elsewhere repeatedly and by day and night. Tell them they are unsafe!

More info at the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association website (CVDPA)

Yes, the removal of the colour green would be a degradation. It is one colour that is widespread in aviation. For example if you fail the colour green on CRT tubes the resulting screen displays become much more difficult to read and require careful discrimination of the resulting colours hues and shades available. This is acceptable on a temporary basis, but not as a normalization of that deviance.

I think you misunderstood the point about the rotating beacon. I was making the point that it cannot be relied upon to override the ability to make subtle discrimination of the colours used when taxiing under the circumstances I described. You brought it up as an example, and my response was that it could not be relied upon as evidence to provide for a normalization of deviance in the circumstances you described. It might be fine for light aircraft at a rural airfield. Not necessarily the case for a large busy airport with poor weather conditions.

The fundamental problem here is who is "unsafe?" If you ask car drivers the same question, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would tolerate such a notion, much less be told by somebody else that they are. Yet clearly many are. If a degradation is less safe (and we agree that it is,) then the question becomes what degree of degradation is acceptable, and in what circumstances?

Really? Collision where? Under what circumstances? Collisions on the ground may well be caused by the poor ability to discriminate lighting. In the air the relative bearing is determined by the use of colour. Colour and the subtlety thereof, is used as an aid in establishing glideslope and safety areas on the ground. There are so many examples that arguing the relative merits of them all, simply detracts from the question as to whether an inability to discriminate between them all, is an acceptable compromise in standards. That colours are used in "a very adhoc way" rather suggests the need for the maintenance of a high discriminatory ability in the user rather than a lower one.

If there is going to be a normalization of deviance, and there already is in so many respects, then there are clearly going to be compromises to whatever degree. Such compromises already exist. For example many authorities permit the use of hypertension medication. Many of those same authorities have no stipulations as to the combinations of crew taking such medications. Is it safe therefore to have both pilots operating with controlled circulatory deficiences? Many would argue, yes! Some would argue, no! Similarly some authorities will not permit it in pilots certified within their own jurisdication, even though such pilots may regularly operate into their airports.

Visual acuity in the colour spectrum is obviously necessary and desirable. Any upheld standard in the ability to discriminate between not only colour, but the subtlety of colour, is in my experience essential. I can therefore see why there is a standard set at the level that it is. If an authority chooses to relax the standard (for example, for one pilot on a two man crew,) then the degradation becomes the acceptable standard by way of compromise.

There are many other examples of countries with different standards (including standards of safety) that have pilots "flying 747's and A380's into Heathrow and elsewhere." There are examples of countries with higher standards. However that simply relects the compromise that any one authority is prepared to allow within the scope available to them.

Different countries, and in turn different authorities, set different standards in so many areas. Some will permit no deviance from the highest standards. Is that wrong? Perhaps in the eyes of those cannot meet those standards. Is it discriminatory? Yes, it is intended to be. However the discrimination is used to ensure the standard is met at the level required.

However, there may not always be those compensatory factors, and should such a degradation be acceptable on a permanent basis rather than a temporary one?

Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

This is one hell of a conversation lol !