Colour vision restriction & instructor rating
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As quite a few people have mentioned, in Australia we all owe an enormous debt to Dr Arthur Pape and his successes at the AAT in the '80s. Even today, these cases are still viewed as the most exhaustive and comprehensive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted - with the overwhelming conclusion of the tribunal being that colour vision defectives do not pose a risk to the safety of air navigation. Do a google search for 'Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association' which he has recently formed and you will be enlightened.
For those with CVD that have aviation careers in Australia and got there by virtue of passing the tower signal gun test - you have Arthur to thank for that. Previously we wern't even able to fly at night before these successful appeals cases. Having said that, there are still lots more CVD's that still need support though (both here in Australia and internationally) and Arthur's now in the process of coordinating further legal challenges to rid the discrimination once and for all. If you have any interest, I'd highly recommend getting in touch with him.
For those with CVD that have aviation careers in Australia and got there by virtue of passing the tower signal gun test - you have Arthur to thank for that. Previously we wern't even able to fly at night before these successful appeals cases. Having said that, there are still lots more CVD's that still need support though (both here in Australia and internationally) and Arthur's now in the process of coordinating further legal challenges to rid the discrimination once and for all. If you have any interest, I'd highly recommend getting in touch with him.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, is it really that complicated for us slightly special people? I have CPL, unrestricted CIR and instructor. I can fly any time anywhere, certainly in Australia and have never applied for any kind of dispensation. My medical certificate was originally endorsed with up to CPL and Australian airspace only but now says 'Holder does not fully meet requirements of ICAO Convention Chapter 8 of Annex 1' (whatever that means, presumably the same). Nobody at CASA has ever asked me for anything different or special tests or reports ever. That is just the way my Class 1 medical certificate arrived after a standard medical examination in 1987 and every renewal since. It has not restricted me from doing anything up to and including CPL ever.
I might add in a previous incarnation in the UK, the situation was totally different. Medical flight test, then VFR, PPL day only and no way around it.
Good luck to budding Aussie CPL's with slightly different eyesight!
I might add in a previous incarnation in the UK, the situation was totally different. Medical flight test, then VFR, PPL day only and no way around it.
Good luck to budding Aussie CPL's with slightly different eyesight!
<http://www.cvdpa.com/>
Folks,
The above is the web site you need to look at.
As is all too often the case, a number of posts here are inaccurate and misleading, for the whole UP TO DATE CVD situation, go to the above, where you will find the whole history, including the various AAT cases that resulted in the current Australia licensing situation.
Dr. Pape has represented a sensible position on CVD up to an including being the IAOPA representative at ICAO considerations of the subject.
All the changes to date, to the advantage of Australian pilots, are based on a very simple proposition ---- there is NO DEMONSTRATED LINK between the "traditional" colour vision standards and a pilot performing any flying task "safely" --- ie: CVD does not increase the risk levels, compared to a "normal" colour vision pilot ---- and if you disagree, all that proves is that you haven't examined the facts.
All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.
Indeed, this is true of much of the medical standards for pilots, the "standards" were never based on objective consideration of the level of medical fitness needed to perform pilot tasks, but were copied from military medical standards, that were designed to exclude all but a very small percentage of candidates from pilot training.
When I first did a CPL initial medical, you had to pass the vision standards uncorrected ---- no glasses!! But you could subsequently continue to fly, if glasses were eventually required ---- either it is safe to wear glasses and fly professionally --- or it is not, and the then DCA was finally forced to recognize that, and drop the uncorrected vision initial standard.
Nobody, today, would suggest that a professional pilot with glasses represented an increase in risk, let alone an unacceptable increase in risk ---- and that is where we have to go with CVD, for the great majority of pilots or potential pilots with CVD, it is the same as "glasses" --- there is simply no demonstrated increase in risk ----- as opposed to an assumed increase in risk.
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
The above is the web site you need to look at.
As is all too often the case, a number of posts here are inaccurate and misleading, for the whole UP TO DATE CVD situation, go to the above, where you will find the whole history, including the various AAT cases that resulted in the current Australia licensing situation.
Dr. Pape has represented a sensible position on CVD up to an including being the IAOPA representative at ICAO considerations of the subject.
All the changes to date, to the advantage of Australian pilots, are based on a very simple proposition ---- there is NO DEMONSTRATED LINK between the "traditional" colour vision standards and a pilot performing any flying task "safely" --- ie: CVD does not increase the risk levels, compared to a "normal" colour vision pilot ---- and if you disagree, all that proves is that you haven't examined the facts.
All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.
Indeed, this is true of much of the medical standards for pilots, the "standards" were never based on objective consideration of the level of medical fitness needed to perform pilot tasks, but were copied from military medical standards, that were designed to exclude all but a very small percentage of candidates from pilot training.
When I first did a CPL initial medical, you had to pass the vision standards uncorrected ---- no glasses!! But you could subsequently continue to fly, if glasses were eventually required ---- either it is safe to wear glasses and fly professionally --- or it is not, and the then DCA was finally forced to recognize that, and drop the uncorrected vision initial standard.
Nobody, today, would suggest that a professional pilot with glasses represented an increase in risk, let alone an unacceptable increase in risk ---- and that is where we have to go with CVD, for the great majority of pilots or potential pilots with CVD, it is the same as "glasses" --- there is simply no demonstrated increase in risk ----- as opposed to an assumed increase in risk.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearedtoreenter,
You're certainly correct - in Australia all CVD's have the ability to fly up to CPL level with no problems - the problem is at ATPL level. There are still quite a number of pilots (myself included) who hold a full ATPL, yet our medicals are still restricted up to & including CPL due to failure to pass the signal gun test. I've done this test myself & scored 7/8 lights correct - yet this was still classed as a fail and so the restriction remains.
Personally, I've now been flying for over 14 years with over 5000 hrs & have never seen a signal gun in real life. I currently fly as a regional airline FO and have no problems using PAPI or flying at night and pass regular simulator checks to the same standard as colour normals. However, due to the CPL restriction, I am prevented from obtaining a command despite the fact I hold an ATPL. There are a quite number of other very experienced pilots here in Oz too, all in similar situations and all with exemplary safety records who face the same dilemma. These are the ones Arthur Pape is again passionately working with to assist this time around, as well as our friends overseas too.
You're certainly correct - in Australia all CVD's have the ability to fly up to CPL level with no problems - the problem is at ATPL level. There are still quite a number of pilots (myself included) who hold a full ATPL, yet our medicals are still restricted up to & including CPL due to failure to pass the signal gun test. I've done this test myself & scored 7/8 lights correct - yet this was still classed as a fail and so the restriction remains.
Personally, I've now been flying for over 14 years with over 5000 hrs & have never seen a signal gun in real life. I currently fly as a regional airline FO and have no problems using PAPI or flying at night and pass regular simulator checks to the same standard as colour normals. However, due to the CPL restriction, I am prevented from obtaining a command despite the fact I hold an ATPL. There are a quite number of other very experienced pilots here in Oz too, all in similar situations and all with exemplary safety records who face the same dilemma. These are the ones Arthur Pape is again passionately working with to assist this time around, as well as our friends overseas too.
brissypilot,
You need to go to the CVDPA site, address in my last post,<Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)> join and get behind the moves that are intended to address your exact situation.
Folks,
Any of you are CVD, have a really close look at the CVDAP site, if you know anybody who is CVD, tell them about the CVD Pilots Association, it can only be to their advantage.
Tootle pip!!
You need to go to the CVDPA site, address in my last post,<Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)> join and get behind the moves that are intended to address your exact situation.
Folks,
Any of you are CVD, have a really close look at the CVDAP site, if you know anybody who is CVD, tell them about the CVD Pilots Association, it can only be to their advantage.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled - I already joined CVDPA a few weeks ago and have been working closely with Arthur for some time.
Everyone else who has a CVD has most likely benefited from his hard work and success at the AAT 23 years ago and should support him too. As mentioned, there are further legal challenges in the pipeline and the preparation is well advanced with all advice being that our chances of success are high. Unfortunately, lawyers are not free though and that is why all of us with an interest in the cause should join up and take the time to have a thorough look at the website. That way we can collectively work together to bring about further change.
Everyone else who has a CVD has most likely benefited from his hard work and success at the AAT 23 years ago and should support him too. As mentioned, there are further legal challenges in the pipeline and the preparation is well advanced with all advice being that our chances of success are high. Unfortunately, lawyers are not free though and that is why all of us with an interest in the cause should join up and take the time to have a thorough look at the website. That way we can collectively work together to bring about further change.
Thanks Leadie,
I too am one who has benefited from Dr Pape's hard work. My original medical said Day VFR, pvt only.
Now it is as Clearedtorenter mentioned above which is fine but a bit of a bBummer if I ever wanted to fly overseas.
I too am one who has benefited from Dr Pape's hard work. My original medical said Day VFR, pvt only.
Now it is as Clearedtorenter mentioned above which is fine but a bit of a bBummer if I ever wanted to fly overseas.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I've now been flying for over 14 years with over 5000 hrs & have never seen a signal gun in real life. I currently fly as a regional airline FO and have no problems using PAPI or flying at night and pass regular simulator checks to the same standard as colour normals. However, due to the CPL restriction, I am prevented from obtaining a command despite the fact I hold an ATPL. There are a quite number of other very experienced pilots here in Oz too, all in similar situations and all with exemplary safety records who face the same dilemma. These are the ones Arthur Pape is again passionately working with to assist this time around, as well as our friends overseas too.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's really a bit rough.
He's the most talented pilot I've ever come across and a damn nice bloke too. Would make a top captain - pitty this is standing in his way.
I do get worried about some folk I fly with who supposedly have normal night vision, having had to offer advice more than once to avoid them making a big hole about half a mile short of a runway.
Any chance you can be a bit more specific? e.g. colour vision related? or faulty depth perception? or some other aspect of defection night vision?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I duuno... just seem to be able to judge too high or too low better than some... But then have been doing for a bit longer than some 'normally sighted' folk. gps distance helps too. 
I very much doubt it's colour vision related. Everything's black and white at night anyway isn't it? 
I think it's a learned thing - I guess us 'disabled' pilots (thats what ICAO call us) just learn to do things by better means.
I very much doubt it's colour vision related. Everything's black and white at night anyway isn't it? I think it's a learned thing - I guess us 'disabled' pilots (thats what ICAO call us) just learn to do things by better means.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys join the CVDPA.
I joined for life because this CVD thing has been the bane of my life [and my loved ones] and I mean to stop it ruining other peoples lives and careers.
These guys mean business and their membership is increasing rapidly!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!
OOW
I joined for life because this CVD thing has been the bane of my life [and my loved ones] and I mean to stop it ruining other peoples lives and careers.
These guys mean business and their membership is increasing rapidly!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!
OOW
Last edited by outofwhack; 22nd May 2012 at 12:52.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's the most talented pilot I've ever come across and a damn nice bloke too. Would make a top captain - pitty this is standing in his way.
A few examples - we have guys that have worked for many years flying Metro's single pilot IFR at night, yet that same person now also works as an airline FO and is unable to obtain a command. Another fella currently works flying modern full glass cockpit equipped King-Airs single pilot IFR. CASA deem us all safe to fly any single pilot aircraft as PIC using CPL privileges, but suddenly due to our CVD we're deemed unsafe to use our ATPL's in the support of multi-crew environments. There's also the example of another pilot who currently flys B737's as an FO. His restrictions were lifted a number of years ago due to providing impeccable references to the regulator, yet on his latest medical they were placed back on with the explanation of it being an 'oversight' - thereby now precluding him from obtaining a command also. There would have to be many other pilots in Australia also in similar predicaments.
All of us are able to (and have...) provided the regulator with many references, simulator check reports etc which demonstrate that our CVD does not pose any safety risk and that we pass these checks to exactly the same standard as our colour normal friends. Yet the discrimination remains without any proper justifiable answer and in many instances, their explanations are contrary to the case law and the findings/recommendations of the AAT cases in the '80's.
All the safety links have just been assumed, and we now have years of experience in Australia to show that the "traditional" medical standard is not justified.
These guys mean business and their membership is increasing rapidly!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!
They have a killer legal team and just require the addition of a little bit of commitment from every one of us to make a large class action. They have a few things to tidy up in Australia first but then watch out UK and Europe!
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brissypilot
I am a protanope defective. Back in the mid 90's I did a modified lantern test at the Vic school of optometry after being refered to them by the CASA, this test is still available. To my surprise I passed and as such was issued an unrestricted class one and an ATPL. AP sure made a big difference and I plan on providing support for the cause going forward. Anyway I couldn't find in your posts that you have done that modified lantern test. If you havent I would certainly recommend you give it a go.
SN
I am a protanope defective. Back in the mid 90's I did a modified lantern test at the Vic school of optometry after being refered to them by the CASA, this test is still available. To my surprise I passed and as such was issued an unrestricted class one and an ATPL. AP sure made a big difference and I plan on providing support for the cause going forward. Anyway I couldn't find in your posts that you have done that modified lantern test. If you havent I would certainly recommend you give it a go.
SN
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Soup Nazi, thanks for your support. I too have been diagnosed as being a protanope and unfortunately have tried and failed the same practical lantern test in Melbourne. The problem with a lot of these tests is that there is a certain amount of luck involved in passing them. For example, I personally know a few guys who have passed the signal gun test and now have unrestricted medicals - most of these guys readily admit they only did so due to sheer luck. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I did this test and scored 7/8 lights correct yet and so the restriction remains...
The real problem with these tests (and Arthur Pape agrees with this) is that they are contrary to the recommendations from the Denision AAT case. These AAT cases from the 80's are still the most exhaustive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted in the entire world. As many would be aware, the overwhelming conclusion from this case was that CVD's do not pose an aviation safety risk. They did however recommend the introduction of a 'practical' test for protanopes such as yourself and I.
This is why CASR 67.150 (6) (c) now enables a CVD affected person to meet the requirements of the regulations by passing a test which 'simulates an operational situation'. The two tests that CASA devised to simulate this operational situation are the tower signal gun test & the 'practical' lantern test in Melbourne. I've never seen a signal gun in real life (nor have I met anyone who has). Similarly, I don't fly an aircraft in a laboratory like with the test in Melbourne. So how is it possible then to say that these two tests reflect an 'operational situation'?
I'm more than happy to demonstrate to my competency in the aircraft or simulator for example by flying a PAPI approach or by interpreting glass cockpit display screens. (As we do anyway by virtue of the fact that we pass regular CIR renewals, proficiency checks & line checks...) That would be a far better way of ensuring that we meet the regulatory requirements and would then also be in line with the AAT's recommendation of a practical test. Unfortunately this has been suggested to CASA and the answer is always an emphatic 'no'.
The ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine also provides for a certain amount of flexibility when making aviation medicine decisions and recommends that an individual's 'abilities, skills and experience' be considered. It can definitely be argued that the CASA approach so far has been far from flexible and continues to discriminate against very capable and competent pilots such as some of the other guys I mentioned in my last post.
As such, this is the reason why another appeal case is being coordinated so that we can get this issue resolved and we can continue to progress our careers. Hopefully with more support and membership through CVDPA we can make this a reality and eventually take the fight to assist the guys in the rest of the world too!
The real problem with these tests (and Arthur Pape agrees with this) is that they are contrary to the recommendations from the Denision AAT case. These AAT cases from the 80's are still the most exhaustive examination of the aviation colour perception standard that has ever been conducted in the entire world. As many would be aware, the overwhelming conclusion from this case was that CVD's do not pose an aviation safety risk. They did however recommend the introduction of a 'practical' test for protanopes such as yourself and I.
This is why CASR 67.150 (6) (c) now enables a CVD affected person to meet the requirements of the regulations by passing a test which 'simulates an operational situation'. The two tests that CASA devised to simulate this operational situation are the tower signal gun test & the 'practical' lantern test in Melbourne. I've never seen a signal gun in real life (nor have I met anyone who has). Similarly, I don't fly an aircraft in a laboratory like with the test in Melbourne. So how is it possible then to say that these two tests reflect an 'operational situation'?
I'm more than happy to demonstrate to my competency in the aircraft or simulator for example by flying a PAPI approach or by interpreting glass cockpit display screens. (As we do anyway by virtue of the fact that we pass regular CIR renewals, proficiency checks & line checks...) That would be a far better way of ensuring that we meet the regulatory requirements and would then also be in line with the AAT's recommendation of a practical test. Unfortunately this has been suggested to CASA and the answer is always an emphatic 'no'.
The ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine also provides for a certain amount of flexibility when making aviation medicine decisions and recommends that an individual's 'abilities, skills and experience' be considered. It can definitely be argued that the CASA approach so far has been far from flexible and continues to discriminate against very capable and competent pilots such as some of the other guys I mentioned in my last post.
As such, this is the reason why another appeal case is being coordinated so that we can get this issue resolved and we can continue to progress our careers. Hopefully with more support and membership through CVDPA we can make this a reality and eventually take the fight to assist the guys in the rest of the world too!
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FG central
Age: 53
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been an interesting thread. I wish all you guys with colour vision problems the best of luck.
Unfortunately, I am "functionally monocular" according to CASA, so I can never get past the PPL stage, so I know how disheartening this all can be.
Unfortunately, I am "functionally monocular" according to CASA, so I can never get past the PPL stage, so I know how disheartening this all can be.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: GPS Signal Lost
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, I am "functionally monocular" according to CASA, so I can never get past the PPL stage, so I know how disheartening this all can be.
and you feel disheartened? Isn't their a pair of special glasses or contact lenses that can help with depth perception? Brissypilot can I please ask you have you or have you not conducted the tower signal gun test? And can you or can you not tell the difference between the rotating beacon at YMML tower?
I'm also colour blind, green deficient actually and according to my optometry exam I conducted at the Australian college of optometry my green cones in the back of my retina are poorly dysfunctional
! Yet I do not have any restriction on my Class 1 medical.I took both lantern test, one which shows a series of 3 colours; red, green, and white. The second test only shows two; red and white. Not surprisingly I failed both. I assumed my career as an airline pilot was over due to the restriction I had on my class 1 medical.
However despite all the bad news, I took the chance of contacting CASA and arranging a signal gun test which was conducted at Moorabbin. What they do is they arrange for an ATO to come out onto the tarmac and from 250-300 meters they point a laser signal gun consisting of the three colours. You do this by 3-4 sets x 3 flashes and then again at 500-600 meters! Once you've completed the test the ATO will send you home, which you then anxiously wait for a week bitting your nails for the results to come back!
In the end I received the results and a new Class 1 medical certificate stating my restrictions have been removed! I highly recommend you too take this test. Best of Luck! 
P.s This doesn't come at a cheap price
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FG central
Age: 53
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch and go:
No, my eyesight in my right eye is uncorrectable. No amount of lenses helps, the opthamologist first put the strongest lens he had, then the second strongest, in tandem and I still couldn't pass the test!
However, it's not as if I have no eyesight in that eye, it just doesn't focus clearly. reading is impossible, but I can easily recognise shapes, fairly fine details and movement. The eye just doesn't focus.
As for depth perception, I guess my eye has been as it is for so long, I've never had an issue. It was certainly good enough to obtain a PPL with CSU/retract endorsements, which means at least I can get up there and fly, even if it is never for financial reward.
No, my eyesight in my right eye is uncorrectable. No amount of lenses helps, the opthamologist first put the strongest lens he had, then the second strongest, in tandem and I still couldn't pass the test!
However, it's not as if I have no eyesight in that eye, it just doesn't focus clearly. reading is impossible, but I can easily recognise shapes, fairly fine details and movement. The eye just doesn't focus.
As for depth perception, I guess my eye has been as it is for so long, I've never had an issue. It was certainly good enough to obtain a PPL with CSU/retract endorsements, which means at least I can get up there and fly, even if it is never for financial reward.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch-And-Go, as mentioned in previous posts, I have conducted the tower signal gun test and scored 7/8 lights correct. I got the very last light wrong and so the test was a fail. 
This one mistake has now had my career on hold for the past seven years since I achieved my full ATPL. It's a crazy situation where I hold the actual licence required to obtain a multi-crew command and fly that aircraft everyday without issue, but my medical only allows me to operate up to CPL level.
I still maintain that the signal gun test does not simulate an "operational situation" as required by the regulations, just like the practical lantern test in Melbourne doesn't either. I wonder how many people out there have seen a tower signal gun used in real life? Especially in an ATPL environment which is where the issue is at the moment.
Could you imagine you're on finals into a busy international airport flying an approach to the mimima and have suffered a radio failure - the possibility of seeing anything other than a green light is almost zero. Tower are hardly going to give you a red light indicating to go-around! Just like if you suffer a radio failure approaching a holding point, they're not going to give you a green light issuing a take-off clearance either. The signal gun is simply old outdated technology and does not at all reflect today's modern aviation envionment. In the type of aircraft requiring an ATPL, we are equipped with not only dual VHF radios, but also HF and sat phones in addition to carrying mobiles. Even many approach plates these days list phone numbers for ATC as part of their loss of comm procedures - they don't make mention of looking for the tower signal gun...
Having said all that, for all those that have had their medical restrictions waived by virtue of passing the signal gun test then count yourself very lucky indeed! Prior to Arthur Pape's AAT cases you were never even able to do that test and were restricted from flying at night (as is still the case in a lot of countries around the world). This is why he still needs the support of not only the pilots still battling the discrimination, but also guys like Touch-And-Go who have benefited from the previous AAT decision.
Touch-And-Go, If you haven't already looked at it, I highly encourage you to check out the CVDPA website for a full run down on the history. Join up as a CVDPA member so that we can start working to bring change to others who are desprately fighting around the world to have the same opportunites as us in Australia.
If you reckon the signal gun test was expensive, you should see the expected legal fees we're facing! You've only got to look at some of the other threads going on PPruNe to see that there is much unhappiness about the avmed section at CASA. Here's one opportunity we've all got to start to bring them to account and to test their unfounded and irrational bureauocratic processes. We need your support through CVDPA to make this happen though.
This one mistake has now had my career on hold for the past seven years since I achieved my full ATPL. It's a crazy situation where I hold the actual licence required to obtain a multi-crew command and fly that aircraft everyday without issue, but my medical only allows me to operate up to CPL level.I still maintain that the signal gun test does not simulate an "operational situation" as required by the regulations, just like the practical lantern test in Melbourne doesn't either. I wonder how many people out there have seen a tower signal gun used in real life? Especially in an ATPL environment which is where the issue is at the moment.
Could you imagine you're on finals into a busy international airport flying an approach to the mimima and have suffered a radio failure - the possibility of seeing anything other than a green light is almost zero. Tower are hardly going to give you a red light indicating to go-around! Just like if you suffer a radio failure approaching a holding point, they're not going to give you a green light issuing a take-off clearance either. The signal gun is simply old outdated technology and does not at all reflect today's modern aviation envionment. In the type of aircraft requiring an ATPL, we are equipped with not only dual VHF radios, but also HF and sat phones in addition to carrying mobiles. Even many approach plates these days list phone numbers for ATC as part of their loss of comm procedures - they don't make mention of looking for the tower signal gun...
Having said all that, for all those that have had their medical restrictions waived by virtue of passing the signal gun test then count yourself very lucky indeed! Prior to Arthur Pape's AAT cases you were never even able to do that test and were restricted from flying at night (as is still the case in a lot of countries around the world). This is why he still needs the support of not only the pilots still battling the discrimination, but also guys like Touch-And-Go who have benefited from the previous AAT decision.
Touch-And-Go, If you haven't already looked at it, I highly encourage you to check out the CVDPA website for a full run down on the history. Join up as a CVDPA member so that we can start working to bring change to others who are desprately fighting around the world to have the same opportunites as us in Australia.
P.s This doesn't come at a cheap price 
Last edited by brissypilot; 31st May 2012 at 06:57.