Collective Colour Vision Thread 4
 

Dear All,
As the last thread has now reached 1000 posts, I am going to start a new one. The site owners have said that these long threads are a significant problem for the system, and are slowing the rest of the site down. The previous thread will remain for posterity, but there will be no new posts on it.
Cheers,

The time has come
 

I'd like to kick start this new thread by showing everybody the current restrictions imposed on colour vision defective (CVD) pilots by their respective countries aviation authorities. (The table is not quite complete and I suggest people from those countries not filled in make contact via this forum)

Table A: At What Levels Can a CVD Pilot Fly
http://arthurpape.com/CVDrestrictionsByCountry.png
from cvdpa

Note the immense freedom that Australians have where any CVD pilot can fly by day and night and reach first officer status in airlines. All this is achievable without passing any colour vision test. Pass any of the available colour vision tests and ATPL airline captaincy is then available. Pilots who fail the lab tests can choose to have a practical test - a tower light signal test of 6 lights (of red,green or white).

23 years ago Australia had the same super restrictive limitations as the rest of the world currently has but one man changed it all. His name is Dr. Arthur Pape an aviation medical examiner and commercial pilot. In 1989 he coordinated a court case lasting over 35 days which resulted in a decision that deuteropic/deuteranolamous defective colour vision is not a safety issue in aviation. Protans got left out but they are working on that. The costs were mostly self funded and many current Australian CVD airline pilots owe him dearly. Its very telling that these CVD pilots pass all their simulator check rides with identical performance to their colour normal peers. A more perfect test cannot be envisioned yet the results dont support the regulators expectations.

Dr. Arthur Pape has recently launched a world-wide campaign inviting all CVD individuals in all countries to unite. He asks for a small membership fee to access mountains of information. The membership fee goes to fund the legal procedures that will be required in each country to get you the freedoms he has attained in Australia.

I urge you to join the Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA).
There has been enough talk and too many people have had their dream career denied to them by unjust regulations.

Its now time to do something about it. Arthur is leading the charge again but on a much bigger scale but he cant do it without your help. So wake up that enthusiasm for flying you had before the regulators squashed it and stand up - you are not unsafe! You are colour deficient, you are hopeless at naming colours but dont let them kid you that it affects safety in aviation.

Please join the CVDPA now and help cause change.

hey all, i was checking the requirements out, and still no answer as to the CAD being approved my EASA, i have spoken to to dr or professors that were involved in the making of the cad, and they advised that the test is a clinical test, and not a practical test.. When i advised them that when i did the test, and was advised b the technician to guess the direct of the signal if i didn't see one, in other words i was questioning the 100% accuracy, they were taken back by this, and also the averaging if you scored within 7units, there is no mention of this anywhere that i can find regarding this.

Seeing as a new thread has been started, I thought it would be useful to include a link to the 1989 Australian court case to which outofwhack refers.

Re Hugh Jonathan Denison and Civil Aviation Authority [1989] AATA 84; 10 AAR 242 (7 April 1989)

There’s quite a lot of reading, but I highly recommend anyone with an interest takes the time to read and study it as it will give you a good appreciation of what was examined and the thoroughness of what was involved. Witnesses were called including vision experts and professors in optometry, ophthalmology and psychology as well as experienced airline pilots.

To quote a few pertinent paragraphs from the case:

“31. Signal lights are rarely used now because of the reliability of communication between air traffic control and pilots. They are used only where radio communication cannot be maintained. We consider that the possibility that a pilot with defective colour vision may not be able to identify signal lights is not a reason for prohibiting him from flying by night…”

"40. …We are satisfied that, because of the size and brightness of the VASIS lights, changes from one colour to another will be perceived by pilots with defective colour vision as changes both in colour and in intensity. Deutans will almost certainly perceive the red light as such and any other colour as something different. Protans will see the red light as having significantly decreased intensity compared with the other colours. So there is no significant risk of protan or deutan pilots maintaining the incorrect height during their approach to an aerodrome because of inability to make proper use of the VASIS.”

“44. Dr Samuel gave evidence that a person who had never had very precise colour vision was not going to be particularly reliant on the perception of colour. Consequently, such persons were less dependent on chromatic cues than those with normal colour vision. They might depend more on recognising shapes or changes in luminosity. He said that it was impossible to tell on the basis of clinical and laboratory tests what a person would do in the real world. He was unaware of any evidence published that protans or deutans had more difficulty passing flight tests than persons with normal colour vision. That appeared to indicate that, when they were tested on practical tasks, they had no difficulty in performing them and that their failure to pass colour-naming tests did not really have any correlation with how they could fly an aeroplane and perform the tasks required for doing so.”

"75. Having given consideration to all of the very considerable amount of evidence presented during these proceedings and with our knowledge of the evidence which was presented in the proceedings in Re Pape, we have come to the conclusion that a pilot who is a deutan does not, simply because of his defective colour vision, pose a significant and unacceptable risk to the public by flying an aircraft at all or at night or by flying an aircraft equipped with EFIS and EICAS instrumentation.”

"77. As the respondent has requested us to do so, we have stated our views inrelation to pilots who are protans. In summary, we are satisfied that, so far as the instrumentation of aircraft is concerned, a pilot who is a protan will not be at a significant disadvantage compared with a pilot with normal colour vision.”

"78. We recommend that suitable practical tests should be devised so that a protan can be tested individually…”

“79. Finally, while recognising that the Tribunal has no power to review decisions of the Authority to set medical standards under regulation 62, we suggest that protanomals ought not to be totally prevented, as they are at present, from meeting the colour vision standard.”

It's interesting to note that even in paragraph 31 above, that the tribunal agreed way back in 1989 that control tower signal gun lights were all but irrelevant in the modern age. Yet it's ironic, that even today in 2012, CASA are still using this as a"practical" test.

It also specifically mentions in paragraph 44 that laboratory tests (eg. CAD, farnsworth lantern test?) were found to be unreliable and beared no correleation to how a pilot would perform in the real world.

Even twenty three years later, ICAO’s own Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine states in section 11.8.29 “The problem with colour vision standards for pilots and air traffic controllers is that there is very little information which shows the real, practical implications of colour vision defects on aviation safety.”

The only “practical” way to assess a person’s CVD and its effect on aviation safety is to do so in an aircraft or simulator. This is already being done in Australia, with hundreds (if not thousands!) of CVD pilots now working at the highest levels of the industry including as airline captains. We pass our regular check rides to exactly the same standard as colour normals!

This would never have occurred if it wasn’t for Arthur Pape’s persistence and dedication to the cause. Through CVDPA, we can begin to coordinate legal challenges around the world so that others can enjoy the same freedoms as us in Australia. It can only be achieved though through us all uniting and showing our support.

In a nut shell

You cant pass enough Ishishara Plates to qualify for a JAA unrestricted medical, the lanterns are ok, but they should be testing at high brightness and not at low brightness, third if you cant pass these, then a practice test, ie flight test, light gun signals.

CAA have spend how much on the CAD, and for what...... an arcade test,

by the way, they are saying that there are two types of cad testing a short screening test, and a long 15 minute test, does anyone have any info on this.

I believe the CAD test duration is variable depending on how bad your colour vision is.

.e. if you are not colour normal it presents further sequences to determine your type and severity.

I tried a CAD test when I was in the UK 2 years ago and it went for at least 40minutes and my eyes were extremely tired by the end of it - it was a marathon and no fun at all. Its just another colour vision test - nothing to do with the task of piloting an aircraft.

my god, 40 min, to me that's not fair, they should have a set program for it, the longer you are exposed to that screen the faster the fatigue. but i still laugh that the promote it as 100% accurate and they tell you to guess a direction if unsure lol..

Ishihara plates
 

hi guys,

Two years ago I did an Ishihara 24 test and passed this test.
Now last week I took this Ishihara 24 test again (but at another AME) and I failed!

My question is: are there different Ishihare 24 tests, or are all Ishihara test identical?

Thanks!

what happened, how many did you get wrong, was a light used??

Monty,

All Ishihara 24 plate tests are the same.

The pass/fail all depends on the pass criteria
i.e. how many mistakes are allowed.

I believe the makers of the test specify something like up to 5 mistakes as 'colour normal' and award a pass. Someone correct me.

However, the aviation authorities, in their wisdom, usually reduce that number.
UK CAA - zero mistakes = pass, otherwise fail.
AUS CASA - zero mistakes = pass, otherwise fail.
USA - I think a few mistakes are allowed. Someone correct me.

I suspect the truth is that 'colour normal' is not a specific thing but means 'within a tolerance'. I also suspect that the Ishihara plates can weed people out within that normal tolerance if the allowed number of passes is less than the makers allowed number of mistakes.

Its all bull**** - join the CVDPA.

uk, nill errors
faa 7 errors or more fail,

the ishihara pass, in the normal world for 24 plates allows 13/15 for considered normal, as per instructions, there is a shorter version 14 plates, but from the same book, the person testing should present them in a random order to prevent memorizing

monty, did you have the plates presented in the box with a light source, or was it through a view finder, that is sometimes what the faa use, it only has 7-8 plates and no erros..

I would like to correct OOW on previous comments.

In the UK, we DID go down the legal route a few years back.

I managed to get enough of us together to contribute some cash each to consult with legal counsel in London who specialises in cases of this nature.

Our solicitor arranged a telephone conference and myself and one other member of our group attended the London office in person and met with the Barrister.

The conclusion of our one hour meeting was a decision that we had a case for Judicial Review, and that there was justification for claims for damages against the UK CAA based on several areas including Disability Discrimination, Sex Discrimination and even Genetic Discrimination. The advice was that a Class Action should be brought by several plaintiffs, using one case as the lead and the others as joined actionees (that may not be the correct legal jargonese but you know what I mean).

We were also advised that the case was likely to cost anywhere between £60,000 - £ 100,000, maybe more, depending on the degree to which the action was contested, and that there was no guarantee of success.

This was a major stumbling block.

Added to this was the fact that the impending change from JAA to EASA was in the wind and no-one knew what was going to happen.

What we did know was that, if we had the financial resources and took on the UK CAA and won, which was highly unlikely in the time frame before EASA became the regulatory authority, that victory could be very short lived as EASA could simply introduce new legislation which would negate any prior decision of the UK Courts. This would mean starting again.

Also, in a letter received from a very senior person at the CAA, it was stated in no uncertain terms that they would defend their position vigorously and throw every available resource at it. In my opinion, this was nothing less than a muted bully-boy tactic, with the thinly veiled 'threat' of "We've got far more money than you so you can't beat us".

Therefore, even if we had the resources it made far more sense to wait until EASA took over, to avoid repetition of effort, and the project was shelved temporarily.

So, we have tried to take on the powers that be, head on. Some have even gone to the point of applying and gaining legal review under UK CAA legislation, which proved to be nothing less than an absolute whitewash with the case being heard by CAA Executive Directors, who can hardly be classed as impartial. The only argument that the UK CAA put forward against the Appellant in that case was the safety issue of landing large transport aircraft, using PAPI as landing guidance - citing the US FEDEX Tallahassee case as evidence. The Appellant's previous military history (RAF and Army CP3 - Colour Safe), Night Qualification and Night Instructor rating (from an unrestricted Class 2 medical), safe flight (Day & Night) record and the accident statistics obtained from the USA, Canada, Australia and UK were all dismissed out of hand. The CAA doctor present even went so far as to state that the accident statistics were incorrect, even though these were obtained directly from each relevant aviation authority or investigation branch and were presented without adjustment. That is the level of arrogance that you deal with over here.

The next step after that was the UK Courts with once again the costs involved.

Unfortunately, taking on these big players in the UK or EU Courts is hopeless unless you have very deep pockets.

Apart from that, they will not listen to any arguments, however reasonable. They are only interested in the sound of their own voices, however irrational.

So you see, we have tried to negotiate, we have tried appeals and we have consulted legal advice; unfortunately, with no positive results.

What is the next step?

Personally, I have no idea but I am open to serious, credible suggestions.

2close,

You are quite correct - this fight is almost impossible to win without very deep pockets. Personally, myself and three other very experienced Aussie pilots in the last six months have spent over $40,000 on legal costs. We are all protanopes working in airlines as First Officers, however are unable to obtain commands as our medicals are restricted only allowing us to exercise priveleges up to CPL level (and not to ATPL level). Apparently we're safe to fly from the RHS, but not from the LHS, despite the fact that we all pass exactly the same aircraft and simulator checks as Captains.

The authorities love putting forward arguments like the PAPI & the Tallahassee accident. They fail to recognise though that in this instance there were two other colour normal pilots on board who also were unaware that the aircraft was below the approach path. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the PAPI itself was a contributing factor, rather than the fault of any of the pilots. As a protanope, I fly PAPI's every day (& night...) without any issue whatsoever.

The good news is that our legal advice is very positive about our chances of winning, the bad news is that the costs are expected to be another $100,000!

Monty1977, Scottish.CPL,

Tests like the Isihara plate test or the CAD prove absolutely nothing aside from the fact that we suffer from CVD.... which we already know anyway! I don't know about you, but I've never opened up an Isihara booklet while I've been flying, nor have I ever seen anything that resembles a CAD. They are simply colour vision tests which have no relevance on our ability to fly an aircraft safely. While ever we continue to debate tests such as these, we are not dealing with the root issue...

Battling any authority, whether it's CASA, the FAA or the European authorities is not going to be an easy task. That's exactly why CVDPA was formed though so that we can all unite and face this monumental challenge together. With between 8-10% of all males suffering from CVD, there must be many thousands of pilots worldwide who are being discriminated against in some form or another. If just 500 hundred of those pilots contributed $1000 each, then we'd have raised $500k! Certainly enough to fund some significant legal challenges...

Let's start all working together through CVDPA so that we can begin this long journey and see these changes through!

2close - thanks for the info. I knew there had been some challenge but hadnt heard any detail of it - is Arthur pape familiar with your case? I know he would be very interested to hear the details (as would I).

brissy pilot - I donated $1000 a few weeks back (signed up for life) but frankly we dont need everyone to do donate that much. 5000 pilots at $120 (1 yr membership) each would generate $600k which would be sufficient. Everyone should join up for as long as they can.

The difficulty is in reaching all persons concerned. I think many of us cancel our plans and try to forget about the restrictions. I did. I am inspired by people like BrissyPilot who has got all the way to first officer on turbo props knowing the regulatory trouble that lies ahead. Its only because of Arthurs wins in court that BrissyPilot is allowed to fly at night. In every other country we cant fly at night so nobody would employ us.

Dr. Arthur Pape has launched this association to help unite us. With his reputation, medical standing and track record he's the best person to trust with the funds. I have met with Arthur and know that he is ready to support international challenges but they have to be done in the right way.

There is heaps of free information on the CVDPA website and everyone should take a read and subscribe (all subscriptions are added to the fighting fund). Once you are subscribed there are mountains of privileged information to be viewed as well as a private forum. The forum is getting busy. We have ozzy airline captains with CVD who cant get into foreign airlines and wannabees all contributing.

I got sick of reading these threads, thank god people have stopped telling each other how they've failed this test and will be driving to Hungary to take that test. As we know, the tests are nonsense. This is the first time I've been back in probably 18 months - 2 years. I'm glad to see a more organised approach to things!

I took the CAA CAD back in November, and it's utter horse sh*t. It's more relevant to playing Pac-Man than it is to flying an aircraft.

I've just written a letter to the CAA CMO asking them to explain exactly what duties I cannot safely perform in a cockpit environment. I closed the letter by saying that any failure to answer this question would amount to the CAA not actually having a clue. This failure would in turn lead me to question the Authorities right to pass judgement on my fitness.

2close, what was your basis for legal action? The fact that the rules are "unfair"?

Anyway, I'm back, so I'll try to keep abreast of whats going on here. I will be donating to the CVDPA as it's a brilliant resource. :D

hey, well i hear you, and to contribute this, when i failed the plates at gatwick, i was told that my failure was based on a standard and not on practicle use, the medical officer was at that time the head of medical dept, i scored 13/15 on their plates which were faded, because i retook the test a university eye clinic and passed 15/15, but caa would not even concider this, the lantern was done and according to jaa med manual needs to be done at high brightness, and optometrist tested at low??? i found this out later, but when i tried to argue the case the new CMO, the idiot said that he contested this, OMG....

as you say , CAD is packman pimped up, again they say 100% accurace, my ars*

its just a matter of time
 

The only thing they have at the moment is money. It has been more that proved that they're applying an unfair policy. Let's get more people to subscribe and support cvdpa so that we raise enough money to bring this down.
Thank you all for your comments, we'll manage it together!

Has everyone seen the new advert banner for the CVDPA on pprune?

Looks great! For those that haven't seen the ad, it appears at the bottom of the screen periodically every few minutes. If it's not there, refresh your screen a few times and you should eventually see it.

Welcome back Ww/W! I definitely agree that it's great to see a more organised approach. Lets all do the same and throw our support behind CVDPA. Having personally spoken with Arthur Pape and seeing how hard he's working behind the scenes on a number of CVD issues, I know how extremely dedicated and committed he is to helping us all out, but he still needs more support to make it a reality!

Hi guys, i was researching on internet and randomly found this forum.I would like to ask you something about ishihara's versions.Because a very short span of time ago i went to doctor for a routine eye check and made few mistakes (4 or 5) but i know i m not colour blind or deficient because 2 years ago i did ishihara too and made only 1 mistake.I told that to doctor this situation and asked for the type of test.As I heard from doctor it was ishihara 38 plate.And I know that I was tested on 24 plate 2 years ago and made only 1 mistake. I was really suprised that why it had happened?Can anyone tell me what is the difference between 2 version?Arent the plates same in both 24 and 38?I mean arent the plates of 24 choosen from 38? By the way I m not a pilot or not trying to become.Thanks for the interests:)