One can say there are two types of discrimination. 'Just' and 'unjust'.

An example of just discrimination is stopping a person with a serious cardiac problem from being in command of a fast vehicle carrying other people if they could drop dead at any time and therefore cause injury to others.

An example of unjust discrimination is denying a person an entire career path based on a load of assumptions about what they can and can't see when they can prove repeatedly to their peers that they can perform the task as capably as any other person and further, there is zero evidence of their condition ever causing an accident or incident ever! Other suitable examples of unjust discrimination that come to mind would be racism and sexism.

If someone with a disability can perform all the required tasks as well as someone without the disability they should not be barred from doing it!

Hi Bealzebub,

I think we all agree that no one wants to see a degradation in safety. The issue that I've got is that none of the aviation colour vision tests actually test whether we can safely perform our duties as pilots. All the tests throughout the world are basically colour naming tests which are designed to be difficult for colour defectives to pass. Most of the tests are conducted in laboratories and are not reflective of the environments that pilots operate in.

Visual perception is a hugely complex area and a decision on whether a pilot can operate safely needs to be based on evidence. Aviation authorities throughout the world assume that because we can't name a colour that makes us unsafe. These decisions are typically made by beaurocrats who have normal colour vision and have no idea what us colour defectives see or how we've learnt to adapt throughout our entire lives.

I fly for an airline in Australia and regularly fly into busy international airports at night and often with weather conditions such as those you describe. I do operate EFIS equipped aircraft. I do fly approaches using PAPI. I am regularly assessed in both the simulator and on line checks in the aircraft itself and have always passed without any issues whatsoever (and have done so over my last 15 years of flying experience). However, when it comes to colour vision tests, I fail them miserably!

There are many other examples of professional pilots just like me in Australia. Therefore the link between an individual's ability to name colours and being able to fly complex aircraft in complex environments is tenuous at best. The fact that I can have a rewarding airline career here in Australia, yet if I was to go to Europe or even across the Tasman to New Zealand and would be restricted from even flying a C172 at night surely highlights that there is a major problem with the standards and the assumptions on which they are based.

The reality is that there is simply no evidence to prove that we are any less safe than our colour normal peers. As outofwhack points out, it is nothing more than 'unjust' discrimination.

BP that's great evidence!

BTW today Dr. Arthur Pape of the CVDPA is presenting a paper to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) conference in Melbourne about the 3 Australian CVD (protanope) airline pilots and the final Australian AAT court case set to start mid October to eradicate the last vestiges of unjust discrimination left in our system that still hinders the protanopes.


"2012 ICASM Congress | 60th International Congress of Aviation & Space Medicine"

well ive just checked the caa website and they have now got the Lapl requirements on, and more important the colour vision requirments, 9/15 plates.. for the time being it is a good impact, I will be applying for lapl and for a night raing, its rather funny that the medical form is more or less identical to the FAA form. Caa have also placed the instructions for all the colour vsion testing processes..

I also found out that the caa are charging to two fee's for the cad test, one for a screen only test, and the full fee for full testing, i asked caa what this was for, and the screen is a 30 second test on several targets on the critical scale, if one fails to achieve the pass score, then the full cad is done,

I was not given this will be asking them to retest me, personally i dont want to go back to lgw, as the times i have been regarding colour vision, always has a negative, and city university is a pain on the traveling as well, but we will see..:rolleyes:

How can it make any sense that a LAPL is safe to fly at night with a 9/15 pass while a PPL or CPL is unsafe at the same standard? You could not make this up:ugh:

LAPL privileges are embedded in the PPL and CPL. So if I go to an AME and scrape a 9/15 pass on the plates I can do a night rating, but only use it within the LAPL privileges. Doh!

ano mate, but its better that nothing at the moment :rolleyes:, have you taken the cad test? just out on curiosity dobbin1..

the caa have also amended the vfr night regulations, i bet you that whats happening is that now lapl has reduced cp standards, caa or easa are preparing for an increase in night ratings, the standards for the vrf at night is the same as the icao, ie like the faa, also the medical form for gp's is the same format as faa form,

cp standards for the faa and lapl are getting closer, lapl is still stricter at 9 plates but faa is still 7 or more errors on the 24 plate, did you happen to see my last message regarding cad?

I have not yet taken the CAD. I was under the impression that it was not approved for EASA anyway.

I failed 13 out of 15 plates at Gatwick so I think even LAPL night flying is out for me.

hi, yeah the cad is still valid for now, maybe work taking it a city first, or gatwick direct, i know that gatwick don't do the lanterns now..

when you say you fail the plates, do you mis-read the plates, or dont see anything?

in my experience the plates at gatwick are faded, cause ive taken then at local opticians, and at university clinic and passed, as the plates were nice and bright?

I went to the CAA today and converted my JAR CPL into an EASA CPL, using my restricted JAR class 1 medical. So now I have an EASA CPL, at least until my JAR medical runs out.

When it does I will not be able to get an EASA class 1, because the EASA rules prohibit the addition of the CVD restrictions to a class 1. This means that my CPL will revert to PPL privileges. I can continue to instruct for PPL and LAPL, but I will not be able to instruct for CPL. Not a big deal to me personally, because I don't have ambitions in that direction - however it could be a blow to someone like me hoping to move up the instructor ladder to the more lucrative CPL instruction rung.

Hi mate, well thanks for advising this, I got some info from CAA regarding certain things. First one was the two charges for CAD, aparently the Cad has to levels, the first is ascreening test which is 41 pounds, and this is the equivelant of the ishihara plates, a sinple screen, supposed to test us on a 30 second screen with a series of primary targets that concentrate of the hardest areas of the colour levels, well i never got this and politly asked for concideration for retest..

I still think there will be more changes needed,

Hi all,

Last week Dr Arthur Pape delivered a major presentation to the International Congress of Aviation and Space Medicine (ICASM) Conference held in Melbourne. It was attended by over 400 aviation medical experts from around the world.

The presentation was entitled "Case Studies: Australian Professional Pilots with the Colour Vision Defect of Protanopia."


It highlighted the fact that there is no link between tests of ability to name colours and tests of the "safe performance of duties" as pilots.

The presentation was reportedly very well recieved and is sure to generate further discussions amongst aviation medico's as to the relevance of colour vision testing.

I think you need to get some facts right to start with. I was at the meeting as well as at the lecture. The youtube video is not of the actual presentation at the meeting, but recorded at some other time. Total registrations for the meeting were around 460 (including day registrations and some partners). On any given day, there were around 400 present, of which about 200 were from Australia. These were a mix of military, DAMEs (and equivalent), engineers, nurses, researchers, pilots, adventurers, and a small number of regulators (including from CASA).

Dr Pape's 10 min talk was well delivered, but had marginal scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance (as is the case with many low-number case studies). The feeling I got was that Dr Pape was being a little disingenuous in his repeated line that these pilots were being disadvantaged by their inability to name colours. The main function of the test is not the naming of colours, but rather the ability to discriminate between colours. There was a bit too much "used car salesman" in it for me.

There was some broad agreement that the tower signal gun test was of little relevance in modern aviation.

It certainly promted significant discussion, especially the apparent discrepancy between the ability of pilots to fly in command of aircraft of certain categories. The feeling I got from those I spoke to (including a number of international delegates), was that this discrepancy would be better resolved by tightening the current standard rather than relaxing it. This was due to the complex, and often relatively subtle use of colour in modern cockpits (it is no longer a red/green/white environment).

Thanks ausdoc for clarifying the numbers present - post edited.

Having been at the conference, you will no doubt be aware of how deeply passionate Dr Pape is about this issue. As a result of his dedication and persistance to make a difference back in the late 1980's with the successful AAT challenges, there would now be thousands of Australian colour defective pilots who have gone on to have fulfilling careers. I've never heard of any of those having had an accident or incident as a result of a colour vision deficiency.

I believe he is simply trying to tidy up the last loose ends of the campaign and the pilots he describes in his presentation are a perfect example of how CVD's demonstrate that they can operate safely and professionally, despite their inability to pass colour vision tests. Three pilots with over 17,000 hours of combined experience with impeccable safety records, on complex aircraft types (including EFIS equipped) must surely be testament to this.

I disagree with your statement that the main function of the test is not the naming of colours, because that is exactly what candidates are required to demonstrate. I've done both of the tests which are mentioned in the presentation and for example with the signal gun test, if you score one light wrong it is classed as a fail. Similarly, the PAPI simulation test does not bear any resemblence to the real thing. Colour defectives will always have trouble passing any colour vision test.

I believe what needs to be more closely examined is the way pilots cognitively process information. Flying an aircraft and making appropriate decisions based upon information presented is far more complex than simply being able to identify and name a colour. If these pilots can (and have) safely demonstrated that they can perform all the requirements of their job relevant to the ATPL licences they each hold, why should they be discriminated against from exercising their licence's privileges?

As a professional engineer [and professional pilot], I would deduce that zero evidence of error in over 15000 flight hours of 3 pilots would provide ample 'scientific relevance in terms of statistical significance' to support the premise that reliable colour discrimination is not required in the task of piloting an aircraft.

Further, those with protanopia, like these 3 pilots, are supposed to have more severe colour deficiency than the vast majority of colour deficient pilots.
I think some aviation doctors and regulators alike are too scared to listen to logic and historical evidence that colour deficient pilots pose no increased risk to aviation safety.

Road transport authorities world-wide gave up banning colour deficient drivers long ago. Why? - because the evidence shows they are able to perform the task of driving as safely as a colour normal.

Hi folks,
It is a challenging task to make a point that has relevance in just ten minutes. I think the essential matter is that pilots perform their duties safely by assimilating and responding to vast amounts of complex information. It can be demonstrated that the addition of colour to the displays of that information is totally redundant in all instances. In my slides I showed several instrument panels which include colour, and the point I made was that the three pilots that were the subject of the talk had demonstrated repeatedly throughout their careers that they were able to access that information reliably and repeatedly without necessarily having the ability to name the colours present in the display. This is a different proposition from one where they might fail to detect the various zones represented by the different colours, for instance in a weather radar display. It is the information that is important, and that determines behaviour, not the naming of colours. Further, the task of making the judgment that a particular pilot does or does not display the skills and knowledge required to fly safely falls most appropriately in the lap of flying instructors and examiners, not in the office of medicos or optometrists.
Finally, though case presentations involving only three pilots does not constitute conclusive evidence, we have now built a sizable population of colour defective pilots who have no operational restrictions whatsoever, and the size of that population is now assuming a statistically significant group from which valid evidence can be deduced. As Ausdoc may or may not know, there are now other threads out there discussing this matter, and I am heartened by the shift in thinking that is being expressed among aeromedical people on this topic. It is ultimately going to be decided by the courts, and nowhere moreso than in Australia, where our legal system offers independent judicial review. It is going to be ALL ABOUT EVIDENCE, nothing more, nothing less.

If we are going to start discussing statistics, remember that a certain European authority unilaterally implemented a new Colour Vision test (and still uses it, despite it not being approved by EASA), from a very small sample study of persons and without any formal clinical testing or safety studies.

Having discussed it with persons involved in full-time medical research studies I feel assured that a sample of the size used would not be acceptable for mainstream medicine and the thought of implementing a medical procedure that was not first subjected to any form of clinical testing or safety risk assessment is absurd.

Then again, there is always the 'God complex'. :=

;) I say again.........."Then again, there is always the 'God complex'.:="

for 2close, and windforce,

can you update me, i noticed that there was a caption saying that the cad test is not approved by easa and yet its on the vision requirements for medicals, whats going on...

As far as I can work out, the EASA "acceptable means of compliance" for Part Med are listed here:-
http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measure...bin%20crew.pdf

No mention of the CAD test anywhere, from which I would deduce that the CAD is not an acceptable means of compliance. No idea what the CAA plan to do.

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.

The Tower Gun Test is probably of more worth than the CAD.

The CAD gives you a number readout whereas the light signal may, may, just happen.

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....

let's support what we're saying then..
 

Ausdoc, you've made your point here, you should have no problem sponsoring it in court where facts will be studied and proved by experts on the color vision and aviation field, as they were in Australia already and by other countries who lowered the color restrictions.

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?

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?

Hi Ausdoc, you're right, I do apologize fro targeting you and thank you for clarifying that. The rest of my comments remain and they are targeted at CAD and the rest of these discriminating policies that affect people with a vested interest considering they cannot pursue their careers not because they're unfit but because they were born in the wrong decade. Other than this, I have no other interest on this matter.

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.

If one would pass the anomaloscope at City Uni. Would that result be valid for a JAR class 1 medical?

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

rasco, yeah provided your score is 4 scale units or less.

Rasco, the citi uni is not recognized by CAA as I'm aware. It wasn't for me at least. I had to go to Barcelona to do the "official" one which cost me 800 euros.

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.

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..

Agree entirely with all of this, but surely you mean "green herring":)

Color Deficiency and Glass Cockpit
 

Will a pilot with color deficiency will have a problem to fly glass cockpit aircraft.

Thank you

ILS How do you know?

ILS26R,

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!

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. :ugh:

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................

:)

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.

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.

...at least you may soon be able to get an IR and use it for day flights only.

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]

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!!!