Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

Old 12th Jun 2016, 14:29
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In Front of My PC
Posts: 186
I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find Pooshans credentials weren't all that they appeared.
Bill Smith is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2016, 08:35
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Bill Smith,
Which particular ones, it was such a long list, you could have almost put it to music.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 06:25
  #683 (permalink)  
ZAZ
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 81
Better late than never

Originally Posted by gaunty View Post
Close friend had a brill career in the RANR.

Retired with a brass hat.

As a younger Lt, passed the Navy unrestricted navigators "license" which Authorised him to navigate an RN ship worldwide and enter berth and leave any port without pilot or tug assistance That is a very high level of skill.

Decided with my encouragement to get a Private Pilot license. Failed medical due to color blindness.

So he can operate an Australian Naval ship anywhere in the world but was proscribed from flying.

Didn't persist and gave up the idea as too hard.


Hi hope you read this..

In 1961 I flunked the Airforce Medical and lost a career in Aviation Electronics.
DIagnosis Red Green protanope.


IN 1970s onwards worked in Electronics and communications until 2015 wiring up 50 pair colour coded cables et al.
In 1980 passed pilots medical failed lantern test and was issued with Class Three DAY Rating only to fly IFR rules, by day in grey cloud but never at night.
Reason given may misidentifying green red Nav lights of an approaching aircraft.


In comes Arthur in 1984 or 85 and as a result of a million dollar law suit, CASA stamped my licence restrictions lifted and I was permitted to fly by night IFR only.
I don't have a night rating but I was required to do ten hours of circuits in 1980s to qualify for a SOLO NIGHT stamp in my logbook.
Previous to that it was not lawful for me to be instructed to fly at night, which was downgraded to allowed instruction for the minimum time necessary to become proficient at night landing.


Now in 2016. with 30 IFR renewals under my belt and 5000 hours of flight time in four owned aircraft still alive and kicking.
The only endorsement if fails ICAO standard can't fly internationally.

I hold US air men's and Canadian PPL. Limits are the OZ licence which is a misnomer as it says can't fly in those countries.

Now I see over past 3 years the colour issue has come out to bite our bums.

The only issue in modern flying that IMO effects night colour deficient pilots are the red/white PAPI approach lights which I can clearly see don't display as effectively to a protanope in that out at ten miles on an ARNAV straight in the white shows the red is dull and missing until you get inside 5 miles. But then so do mast lights this is the criteria described to me years ago, watch out for the obstacle clearance red lights you will see them closer in like a one eyed monacledpilot, true story...
It looks like as a Class 2 holder my dame may shove that book in front again along with phone book, so I will need to wear vision corrective rose coloured glasses to correct all my deficiencies, and along with my aircraft engine which goes into condition next year I might have to fly by day only again in IFR and attempt to provide for an alternate within day flying time on my destination, already need a radio alternate anyway as I am only RNP2 TSO129 equipped, ahhh postively gero plane gero radios and gero pilot...will go RA on a drivers licence..


Tread your own path..

Last edited by ZAZ; 2nd Jul 2016 at 06:46.
ZAZ is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 07:25
  #684 (permalink)  
ZAZ
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by northernlights1 View Post
hello all

I moved to Australia some time ago. never had a chance to fly previously because where i was from medical was extremely strict. having colour deficiency meant i had zero chance of being able to fly.

Presently I'm starting my PPL after finally saving enough money. I'm getting a class 1 medical to see how far i can go in Australia in regards to having a career in Aviation. Obviously i failed the Ishihara test and have been referred to a DAME for a farnsworth lantern test. Any tips and any idea where will i go from here if i fail the farnsworth lantern test?

cheers
Yes day IFR like I got issued in 1987 Class three day rating only
Not to fly at night must carry radio in control zone as fails iCal standards.
Or something akin to that.
Unless you get restriction lifted like I did in past and flew happy career of some thousands of hours day and night.
Soon to be restricted again I guess as I have not done an online medical renwal yet having just missed the start up date.
And they will shove that book in front again, and if lantern test is nil and void I will be right back where I started in 1986 day VFR with no night rating but thousands IFR hours, go figure. And good luck, get a lawyer...
ZAZ is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 07:41
  #685 (permalink)  
ZAZ
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by dubbleyew eight View Post
I worked with two colour vision deficient electrical engineers.
I also taught in my controls systems engineering course about designing to overcome colour vision deficits. (i have history on this)

one day the managing director hauled me into his office for a please explain, this colour vision nonsense that you teach blah blah blah.
colour vision deficit was not permitted among electrical engineers he opined.
close your eyes and think a moment. name the two most inherently talented engineers we have on staff, I asked.
after some thinking he gave me two names.
I agreed and then told him that both were colour vision deficit.
there was a bit of an explosion after that but it got him nowhere.

colour vision deficit people are needlessly discriminated against.
none in my direct personal experience have ever had an intellectual deficit.

on my airfield I have noticed a number of better than average pilots.
of those better than average pilots 5 of them are red - green colour blind.

surely it is high time for the rusted on senility in ICAO, the FAA and CASA to really address the only problem ever identified for CVD pilots.
CHANGE THE PAPI LIGHT COLOURS.
white and amber colours would remove the problems (if indeed they exist) completely.

if you don't fix this CASA you definitely are totally incompetent.
PAPI yes it is an issue for some PROTANOPES
They may need to be aware on a ten mile straight in as used in ARNAV Runway approaches that to a red green protanope the RED / WHITE 2+2 lights don't look like that they look WHITE and NOTHING.
At five miles WHITE and ORANGY MIX
So so long as you know the configuration you can fly the slope.
The old VASIS were nevr an issue you flew 16 bright WHITES.
To guys like me in piston single don't need PAPI to land at night, in fact they are a bright nuisance.
The issue with a protanope flying night as described to me is their red desensitivity.
You get closer to the red before its bright enough to see.
Well known and accepted fact on people who have dispensation to fly at night.
And everyone will be different in sensitivity to some degree which can be assessed using the tests coming up in the medical school. I am told the test won't ground us but it will be on record as to how bad we are.
Because precedence has been set already in my case in the air NIGHT DAY since 1980 so I would win a VCAT hearing based in just producing my log book dated back 30 years of IFR renewals and 1000 night hours in three countries and 5000 hours flight time PIC. But this is not about me I fought the original battle way back with Arthur's help got night restriction lifted.. They might choose not to bother with me but newbies seem to have serious challenges ahead if they wish to fly commercially by night and are Color deficient.
ADSB roll out and turning off the na AIDS has also produced a back handed impediment right back to where it all started for me at least in 1987 With an IFR day rating, could never guarantee to provide for an alternate due bad weather within daylight flying time of planned destination unless you left really early in afternoon. Well my plane is TSO129 RNAV GNSS equipped so I require an alternate with a RADIO AID, and they are thin on the ground between Melbourne and Adelaide so if the rules revert the alternates for day IFR will be out of range.. Well into night so only way to fly is to drive a car...2 cents,

Last edited by ZAZ; 2nd Jul 2016 at 07:55.
ZAZ is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 13:57
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,291
A mate of mine had a good one on one conversation with Dr Liddell at a safety seminar back in about 1996 or 97 where he advised that his restriction to day pvt VFR would now be lifted. As he recalls at the time, the Dr said something like the main reason they were restricting colour defective pilots from gaining ATPL was the concern of becoming visual close to the MDA / DA and having to transition straight onto the PAPIs.
The pilot has no trouble picking up the PAPIs at 5NM by day or night and has even done so with an FOI on board who was unaware of his condition.
YPJT is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 23:00
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 352
When transition from IMC to VMC at the the minimum, how many pilots look to the PAPI/VASIS for approach slope guidance?
In the case of at least one applicant this was pushed by the then PMO, and later successfully argued that it was not an issue at the MNM, as the established stabilised profile would be continued to the runway.
cogwheel is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 04:47
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,291
G'day Cogwheel, I guess they had to come up with something to keep the CFDs in their place and that was the best they could do.
YPJT is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 08:27
  #689 (permalink)  
ZAZ
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by cogwheel View Post
When transition from IMC to VMC at the the minimum, how many pilots look to the PAPI/VASIS for approach slope guidance?
In the case of at least one applicant this was pushed by the then PMO, and later successfully argued that it was not an issue at the MNM, as the established stabilised profile would be continued to the runway.
Well in a single l don't , I look for runway markings or flare path. I mentioned the papi because it surprised me how they are not as good as the old twin Vasi,, and only four lights on hls not 32 across the bar, dramatic reduction in visual slope assistance from way out at ten miles on a straight in approach.
ZAZ is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 10:49
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,291
No doubt the old AT-VASIS were a much better system from a pilots perspective. A real bugger for the airports though. 10 concrete pads for each side at each end, 3 lights in each etc etc. The PAPIs are a much simpler system and if maintained and operating properly do a pretty good job. Some I've flown have been absolute shite because they are full of dirt on the reflectors, lenses or have pitted lenses that have been sand blasted or lights not operating at correct intensity due to faulty cables or individual transformers.
YPJT is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 12:47
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In Front of My PC
Posts: 186
Common Sense prevailing??

https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/colour_vision_report.html

"There is no strong link between the office-based examination of CVD and real world realities. Under the proposed GD, the assessment of interferes with or likely to interfere with is ascertained from office-based assessments only. This assessment cannot be made from office-based tests only and can only be determined by an in-flight practical test. While both aviation medicine and flight operations specialists will need to be involved in the development of protocols for in-flight testing, only a flight examiner or flight instructor will be in a position to assess the ability of a pilot with a CVD condition to operate an aircraft safely. Thus the effect that a CVD condition will have on the ability of a pilot to safely exercise the privileges of a licence is a flight operations issue, not a medical issue."
Bill Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 22:32
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 93
Good news - however the report is just one part of the regulatory process:

The report will be provided to the CAA Principal Medical Officer who will be offered the opportunity to review it and provide advice to the Director on its content. Given existing commitments, it is likely that no decisions will be made regarding the report or the associated proposed General Direction until late November 2016.
The Recommendation at paras 134 and 135 seem quite reasonable (note that the CAD test remains, but with a further option, the flight test.)

Last edited by Allan L; 23rd Jul 2016 at 22:37. Reason: Additional reference to recommendations of the report
Allan L is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 22:38
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,135
Let's wait to see what the NZCAA PMO says about the report, before there's too much rejoicing. As we know, this is by no means the first independent panel to reach these kinds of conclusions, based on an objective assessment of the evidence and risks.

Trifles like objective evidence and objective risk do not divert those who make their living out of the busy work of mining the rich vein of fear that can be created by perceived risks to aviation safety. These kinds of people know that the only reason pilots with CVD can perform safety-critical aviation activities in the real world as efficiently as pilots without CVD is through practise and experience. And that's cheating. Pilots with CVD should be able to perform real world tasks that require the identification of the meaning of colours as effectively as pilots without CVD, without practice. That's because having concluded that pilots with CVD are an unacceptable risk, evidence to the contrary must be ignored.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 23rd Jul 2016 at 23:07.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 23:13
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
It's worth noting that although this was an 'independent' panel, there were significant concerns raised at the outset about the actual independence of the panel, which consisted of:
  • CAA General Manager General Aviation (Panel Chair)
  • External senior industry Flight Examiner with experience in airline and general aviation operations
  • External Medical Examiner
  • External optometry and vision science specialist with experience in colour vision matters
  • CAA Chief Legal Counsel
The external optometry expert holds the only CAD test which is currently available in NZ, which was of significance because the proposed GD recommended the introduction of this test into the NZ system.

Under the terms of reference, the role of the panel was to reach a consensus and provide the CAA Director with recommendations on the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed directions.

Despite the obvious concerns about perceived bias from the panel, they still managed to come up with a consensus which thoroughly rejected the current NZ CVD restrictions (of which CASA has been attempting to re-align with) and recommended practical flight testing be introduced.
In that respect, they are to be congratulated on taking an objective look at the available evidence.

The panel's comments about the NZ PMO Dr Dougal Watson are also worth mentioning:

15. Central to the proposed GD is the concept of aeromedical significance. Civil Aviation Rule (CAR) Part 67 defines aeromedical significance as: a medical condition is of aeromedical significance if, having regard to any relevant general direction, it interferes or is likely to interfere with the safe exercise of the privileges or the safe performance of the duties to which the relevant medical certificate relates. While there is no issue with aeromedical significance being used as a standard, it would appear that there is little in the way of guidance for determining what exactly, in terms of a flight operation, is significant in relation to CVD. In answer to a question regarding the reasoning behind the flight restrictions for a pilot who is CVD, the PMO answered that the “restrictions are historical”. This is a key issue for the Panel’s deliberations particularly in relation to the risk posed by a pilot with CVD, the different operational environments pilots operate in, and who should be determining restrictions to which a pilot is to operate.

16. The PMO also commented that he thought practical flight tests are unreliable. In the Panel’s opinion a flight examination has the same status as a medical examination in ensuring that a pilot is not a threat to the public and renewing their privilege to fly.
Given Dr Watson's past unethical and fraudulent presentations on the topic of CVD, the CAA Director has a fairly clear choice to make over the next few months...
brissypilot is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 22:01
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,135
To me, the most appalling aspect of Mr Watson's presentation is not the intellectual dishonesty. Those who make their living out of mining the rich vein of busy work generated by leveraging the fear that can be created by the mystique of aviation are rarely troubled by an objective analysis of the evidence and the objective and comparative risks.

And it's not the patent prejudice. I'm guessing that those who don't like or fail to empathise with people of a particular race or sexual preference or other characteristic don't comprehend the irrationality of their position. If they did, they probably wouldn't think that way in the first place.

To me, the most appalling aspect is that the content is just plain infantile. It looks to me like a teenage high school boy's attempt to be 'funny'. And the author is, apparently, in a position in which he makes decisions that affect, profoundly, the lives of adult citizens. That's what appals me most.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 01:11
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NT
Posts: 16
Hi everyone,

Sorry if this has been asked before but have searched through the thread and could nt find an anwer. Although Im sure it will be a common scenario.

I just conducted my Class 1 medical renewal yesterday. I am a Colour Deficient ATPL holder. I had my restrictions removed in my original Class 1 medical when I did the signal gun test 10 years ago.

With the new medical system in place, I was asked to do the ishihara test. -

Have any of you completed your Class 1 renewal and had any issues of restrictions placed back on your licence? or has your medical been renewed as always?

Thanks for any help.

Regards
ihavelotsofquestions is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 05:59
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,135
The medical term for your condition is: You're stuffed.

Presumably you had to do the signal gun test because you failed the Ishihara and Farnsworth lantern tests. The signal gun test has been replaced by the CAD test, which merely confirms what is already known. You have CVD.

That's why you've left a trail of death and destruction in your wake since gaining your ATPL.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th Sep 2016 at 06:29.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 07:43
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NT
Posts: 16
Ummm.

I guess what I am asking is, Are they leaving pilots who are in the system alone. (surely someone here has been through the new system with this condition who is flying commercially)

Being that I and others hold unrestricted medicals. I have been flying commercially for years and this is my livelihood etc?

Thanks.
ihavelotsofquestions is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 09:08
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,135
I suggest you read the title of this thread then contact the CVDPA.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 01:09
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: SINGAPORE
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by ihavelotsofquestions View Post
Ummm.

I guess what I am asking is, Are they leaving pilots who are in the system alone. (surely someone here has been through the new system with this condition who is flying commercially)

Being that I and others hold unrestricted medicals. I have been flying commercially for years and this is my livelihood etc?

Thanks.
check out the CVDPA MEMBERS area for further info on this topic. you will not have any issues with your class 1 as you have passed the light gun test.
Men in Black is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.