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 8th Jun 2014, 23:23
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,676
There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Dr Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.

1. It is assumed that is something has a different colour it is for a safety reason. I think it is likely that some items are a different colour for convenience, tradition or aesthetics.

2. It is assumed that all things that are colour coded must be visible to the pilot, eg navigation lights. The pilot cannot see his own and in the current age, if you are close enough to distinguish red from green on another aircraft you're probably in a lot of trouble. We use radar and TCAS and even radio and strobe lights in the modern era, not little red & green lights. It would seem to me that red & green navigation lights are a non functional remnant from the past that regulators have not had the courage to discontinue.

3. It is assumed that colour is the only differentiator. knob / lever size, shape and texture is not discussed, neither is relative location.

4. It is assumed that the CVD pilot cannot tell the difference between colours. As I understand it, many CVD pilots can recognise shade, brightness or contrast differences between different colours. Therefore the CVD pilot will still have some "non colour" visual cues.

Unlike his predecessors, Dr Navathe does not seem to have the respect of his peers and he seems to be an academic who does not believe something exists until he can read a paper on it. Can you imagine this nonsense or the spectacle of Dr Navanthe lecturing the Senate in the era of Dr Robert Liddell?

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation
Old Akro is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 01:53
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Discuss.

CoftC #158- " Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim."
That is a notion troubling me; the lack of overt support evidence being provided. Perhaps, (call me paranoid) in the AAAT a claim of "my hands are tied" can be peddled. The UK and FAA certainly have got the 'supporting science' and if they make CAD the only acceptable norm, then all that remains is the ICAO defence and the 'no event' track record. That opens the door to the opposition. Anyone who can or has access the CAD research should have a chat with Doc. Pape: forewarned being forearmed and all that stuff.
"There are people flying in Australia who I know would not fly in other jurisdictions. And I think it is a worthwhile project to review colour vision deficiencies and to review the data we have. I just cannot fund it and it is not a high priority to me."
Ain't that a shame, when it just may be of some high priority and interest to a hundred odd pilots that depend on a license, to earn a living.

The quote follows directly after the part below: -
-

Frustrated now :- I'll try later to get the 'vision' splendid, where the body language and temper were on display; Hansard just doesn't quite catch the petulance of the later morsel.

Right then – back to my knitting.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Jun 2014 at 20:19. Reason: Add a bit
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 02:55
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YLIL
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
There are a number of common methodology mistakes made both by Professor Navanthe's condescending monolgue to the Senate committee and by researchers such as QinetiQ.
Fixed!

If the DAS tells the Senate he is a Professor, he must be one! Adjunct Associate Professor at that!

According to the ANU:

In the area of civil aviation medicine, Dr Navathe is one of a group of regulators with a passionate belief in evidence based risk management as the cornerstone of regulatory aeromedical decision making. He has been involved in setting up the paradigms for evidence based decision making in New Zealand, and leads a team that is working towards them in Australia.

Last edited by triton140; 9th Jun 2014 at 03:20.
triton140 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 05:50
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Oh did he say 'evidence-based'. He meant 'prejudice-based'. Tut spelling


Adjunct Professor as used in Australia is an honorary title bestowed upon a person to formally recognise that person's non-employment 'special relationship' with the university. Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

Nope - nowhere near the requirements of a true 'professor'. That requires a PHD with 3 years follow up specialization in the PHD subject. Perhaps he should declare that when he enters the room.

Last edited by outofwhack; 9th Jun 2014 at 05:55. Reason: spelling
outofwhack is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 06:48
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Clearedtoreenter
Could this be the 'new research' evidence we're looking for?
This is might be the "new research":

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200904.pdf

and pretty much the same research by the same authors in an FAA report:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/res...dia/200911.pdf

Unlike the Qinetiq study, these two reports actually includes the results of controlled tests. However, the main goal of these papers is to show that the CAD test is a better test than ishihara etc for diagnosing ability to read a simulated PAPI. What's missing is evidence that the CAD test (or any other colour vision test) has a correlation to *flight safety*.

- S
mnehpets is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 07:35
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,442
Just listening to that man...sorry person..
What a cowardly assh..le he is!!
thorn bird is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 08:32
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Unlike the Qinetiq study, these two reports actually includes the results of controlled tests. However, the main goal of these papers is to show that the CAD test is a better test than ishihara etc for diagnosing ability to read a simulated PAPI. What's missing is evidence that the CAD test (or any other colour vision test) has a correlation to *flight safety*.



Folks,
That's the whole point, CAD is a just new testing method, and a small group of people, so I am told by a colleague in the UK, a now retired UK CAA FOI ( or whatever they call them now), stand to make a lot of money if it is adopted as the ICAO recommended test.

Nobody has yet come come up with anything that invalidates the Denison finding, and, I am informally advised, Denison stands, CASA cannot simply walk away from it. But that hasn't stopped CASA, who probably feel that, with limitless cash, they will be able to see off any challengers, through to the High Court if necessary, having convinced the Minister it is a vital matter of air safety.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 21:59
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
On a whim, without a prayer.

SN # 29 – "The big issue here is that CASA are fighting with public money and the pilots have to fund this from there own wallet. Years ago an AAT case qualified for legal aid, what the hell happened to that? Its just not cricket, we need AIPA and the AFAP to come to step up and earn their keep, this is why we pay our fees."
I believe there is a case here for the full involvement of all the unions and operators. As I hear it, there are some 'silly' decisions, translating into additional 'testing', requiring thousands of personal dollars being invested in un required 'specialist' testing and advice, this affecting all tribes. If rumour is true, even with un-required testing, it is often a lottery as to whether or not 'official' medical approval is granted. This must create some havoc for scheduling, long term.

On the research side – (AAT cases and ATSB reports only) there is a noted increase (trend if you will) in aircrew (all flavours) becoming reluctant to admit there is anything medically wrong – at all. Add that to a natural reluctance to visit the 'vet' and you have some very real potential for self inflicted holes being made in that famous (non Beakerised) cheese.

Then, there is the invasive questionnaire, you know the one: fill in your name (multiple times), fill in your ARN (multiple times) address (multiple times), DOB (multiple times) etc. etc. etc. Then the signed confession. For example – dozing off in the afternoon. FFS we work shifts; early call out; back of the clock; late starts and late finishes. Fatigue is an acknowledged risk factor and as humans it's not always an easy matter to knock off, get to a hotel and drift off to sleep, especially after a 'rough' trip. So does the occasional nanny nap surprise anyone – of course not. To admit it puts you in a potential 'high risk' medical group; to deny it – the potential for prosecution exists. Same-same the odd beer or three; I am sure you have heard the cautionary tales. While I'm at it, why FFS, does anyone need to know who my bloody dentist is (don't give me that crispy critter identification BS).

Not 'politically' savvy enough to know, for sure, if capital 'U' union involvement and even company ('C') is a good idea or not: but, it's worth a thought. VIPA (bless 'em) have weighed in. So how about it boys. I hear the AFAP has made contribution to the CVD battle and applaud that; but I just wonder if 'all' the big hitters (engineers and all) made a show of solidarity how much it would help to redress a system which is now overtly seeking to lay aside 25 years of safe flight and engineering operations; on a whim, without a prayer.

Discuss -

Oh, BTW, I found the bit of the colour vision splendid I wanted – HERE – the first 90 seconds give it to you.

Last edited by Kharon; 9th Jun 2014 at 22:10. Reason: Found it - happy now. Big smile...
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 22:02
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 547
CAA EASA direction

Performance Based Regulation.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201...R%20online.pdf

Under this framework of managing risk looks like the CVD issue could be managed. Australian evidence certainly supports there not being an issue.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 01:00
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Fantastic .... With performance based regulation the UK Cvd pilots should have unrestricted medicals from tomorrow by virtue of the Australian data.
... And pigs get honorary PPLs.

I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.
outofwhack is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 03:18
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 12
Example of a letter for colleague support??

I thought I might provide a suggestion/example of a letter that could be passed onto work colleagues who might be willing to support CVD pilots in this matter by lobbying the Senators and local MPs also?
I would encourage if you use to modify and ad lib as desired.


What do you think? Feedback welcome...


----------------------------

The Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
[email protected]


Senator David Fawcett
[email protected]


Senator Nick Xenophon
[email protected]


Senator Bill Heffernan
Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected]


Senator Glenn Sterle
Deputy Chair - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Legislation Committee
[email protected]


Your Local MP
Members and Senators - Parliament of Australia




______________________________


Re: CASA vs CVD Pilots

Dear__________ ,

As a professional colleague of Colour Vision Defective, yet capable pilots, I wish to show my support for CVD pilots and their ability to continue to safely operate aircraft within Australia and beyond.
I have personally flown with CVD pilots, and can attest that, from my experience, they have shown in practice to be equally safe and proficient in operating aircraft as colour normal pilots. They also undergo the same training & checking requirements as colour normal pilots, and have proven themselves in many operational situations which I have witnessed.

It is for this reason I write to you, asking that you would support the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, and Senator David Fawcett in their efforts to ensure fair and safe outcomes for pilots and the aviation industry as a whole.


It caused great concern to me, and many of my professional colleagues and their families, when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed their policies and procedures last week – without any industry consultation or notification - affecting the treatment of Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots.

It should be noted:
• CVD pilots have been operating safely in all levels of aviation in Australia for the past 25 years
• there has never been an accident attributed to Colour Vision Deficiency worldwide


However, CASA announced policy changes last week that will prevent many CVD pilots from having a career in Australia. This not only will affect a considerable number of current Airline pilots, but will also negatively affect many pilots serving regional and remote communities, including those providing valuable passenger and freight charter services, as well as life-saving aeromedical operations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service.


CASA have announced they are changing from operational testing to laboratory-derived Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) testing for pilots. The rationale for CASA’s change has not been explained, nor any supporting evidence provided. However, this new policy will deny new CVD pilots who cannot pass CAD testing, as CASA will not grant them a Class 1 Medical, unnecessarily precluding them from employment as a pilot in any form, regardless of the nature of the operation.

If this change in standard is extended to current pilots, many will lose their entire career, despite an impeccable safety record.


Australia has led the rest of the world in giving CVD pilots a fair go since the landmark “Denison” case in the AAT in 1989, allowing CVD pilots to conduct commercial operations and earn a living in aviation. The tireless work of colour vision expert, Dr Arthur Pape, has paved the way for Australian pilots to have fulfilling and safe careers in the industry. Dr Pape is also supporting the rights of CVD pilots in another upcoming AAT hearing in July of this year.

Over the last 25 years and tens of thousands of hours, CVD pilots have proven themselves to be equally safe in operating aircraft to colour normal pilots. Many competent and safe pilots fail the CAD test, but have proven by experience that they can accomplish the safe performance of duties and safely operate an aircraft. In fact, it is debatable if the new CAD test that CASA has suddenly introduced is sufficiently of an “operational nature” for the final level of testing as required by current law. Only 35% of CVD's pass the CAD test, eliminating many proven safe pilots.

The recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), released by Minister of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon. Warren Truss, found that major changes to were required to CASA in order to meet the future prosperity and sustainability of the aviation industry, and suggested that the industry had lost confidence in the regulator.

Consistent with these findings relating to the conduct of CASA, just last week CASA sent a letter to all Air Operators in Australia asking them to “consider whether it is safe to allow these (CVD) pilots to continue to exercise the privileges of their license”. Although citing “recent medical research”, it gave no evidence for substantiating such a claim. This letter is extremely disappointing and distressing as it could jeopardize the employment of many long-serving and dedicated pilots and is completely unjustified.

Senator David Fawcett has been an outstanding and faithful ambassador for the rights of CVD pilots in Australia to continue to fly safely. I urge you to support him in bringing a fair outcome for the CVD pilots who have dedicated their lives to safe flying operations in Australia.

I also encourage you to support the Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP, to ensure the appropriate changes are implemented within the regulator to ensure the continuing safety and prosperity of the aviation industry in Australia.

Yours faithfully,
CoftC is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 04:12
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
It’s not a change in the standard.

It’s a change in CASA’s position on the safety efficacy of the standard.

The fundamental points that have to be made, over and over again, are that:

- The CV standard itself is based on ignorance and prejudice – it’s just a hangover from 19th century maritime navigation rules and infrastructure that have no practical application to 21st century aviation operations.

- The only evidence with probative value supports the conclusion that there is no difference in the competence or safety of pilots with colour vision defects compared with pilots without colour vision defects. There is no evidence with probative value to support any other conclusion.

- CASA should regulate on the basis of evidence rather than ignorance and prejudice.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 15:12
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.
outofwack,
Wonder no more, just a look at some of the other AAT cases in the last few years, CASA Avmed is quite capable of wold leading nonsense, without any outside pressure.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 02:15
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Spot On AFAP.

Well done the Federation – they have sent a very nicely worded, if pointed –letter- to the powers that be.

Great to see support from industry groups, that's VIPA and AFAP standing behind, holding the jackets of those who will, with any luck deflate some ego's and pin some ears back.

One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 03:56
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Debate: Dear Watson (BASR) v 25 years plus NVG SOPs

Yes three cheers for the AFAP..

AFAP letter quote: "...The AFAP believes it is unreasonable and inappropriate that CASA is asking companies or the affected pilots to make assessments about their ability to hold a medical certificate. CASA issued the medical certificates in question and the affected pilots have been operating under these certificates in good faith.

AOC holders and the pilots themselves are not privy to the "recent medical research" to which CASA refers in its letter nor are they medically qualified to make the assessment requested. If CASA wish to change the regulations regarding colour vision then CASA should follow the correct and established processes. CASA’s letter of 5 June 2014 is in our view an abuse of process.

We request that CASA formally retract the letter of 5 June 2014.
Please also be aware that we will be supporting any of our members who are unfairly discriminated against as a result of CASA’s letter..."


Wonder if they'll be sending further correspondence to the DAS after this letter sent to CVD pilots...:



Oh well I guess they're at least consistent...

Kharon:
One of the most compelling arguments for doing away with CV restrictions and impositions comes from FM – just about says it all.

Quote:

Military pilots have been navigating safely on night vision goggles for many years now without incidence. Night vision goggles do not display colour.


It is my understanding that NVG helo ops require two pilots, one with the NVGs on (PF) and the other monitoring (i.e. PNF). Much like in a multi-crew (IFR and at night) environment, except you effectively have one CVD pilot who is coupled with a non-CVD pilot.


Hmm...who was instrumental in Oz for getting NVGs approved for civil aviation use......oh yes that's right Senator David Fawcett...


Bet you DF has many tomes of factual & statistical information of safe military NVG helo ops that could be quite useful in the upcoming AAT hearing...

...vs the PMO and his former colleague from the CAA NZ, where their main weapon of choice will be Dear Watson's research paper, here is a short appraisal of what that paper discovers:
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 2014, 85 (2): 148-59

Lack of international uniformity in assessing color vision deficiency in professional pilots.

Dougal B Watson

PMID: 24597159

INTRODUCTION: Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors. The medical standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) require that pilots have "the ability to perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties." The general wording of that color vision (CV) standard, coupled with the associated flexibility provisions, allows for different approaches to the assessment of color vision deficient (CVD) pilots.

METHODS: Data was gathered and analyzed regarding medical assessment practices applied by different countries to CVD pilots.

RESULTS: Data was obtained from 78 countries, representing 78% of the population and 92% of the aviation activity of the world. That data indicates wide variation in the medical assessment of CVD pilots. Countries use different tools and procedures for the testing of pilots, and also apply different result criteria to those tests. At one extreme an applicant making one error upon Ishihara 24-plate pseudoisochromatic plate (PIP) testing is declined a class 1 medical assessment, while at another extreme an applicant failing every color vision test required by the regulatory authority may be issued a medical assessment allowing commercial and airline copilot privileges.

CONCLUSIONS: The medical assessment of CVD applicants is not performed consistently across the world. Factors that favor uniformity have been inadequate to encourage countries toward consistent medical assessment outcomes. This data is not consistent with the highest practicable degree of uniformity in medical assessment outcomes, and encourages aeromedical tourism.
For a summary of what is included in Watto's research paper refer to a recent FSF article Colour Vision GAP (pg 33 here).

IMO probably the most relevant paragraphs from that article, in regards to this sheer bloody minded attitude from the PMO/Fort Fumble, is this:
Failure and Inconsistency
In five of the 78 states surveyed, applicants who fail all phases of tests offered still are granted medical certification with restrictions, usually in the form of prohibitions on airline flying or night operations, the report said.

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

Among the inconsistencies noted in the report were that some states did not comply with their own published assessment processes, either using a more liberal pass-fail threshold or applying different requirements for new applicants versus experienced pilots.

Some states evaluated color vision only as part of the first application for medical certification, some tested annually, and others conducted the test every few years.

In addition, the report said, “some also accepted the [color vision] assessment of another state in lieu of their own, even when that other state’s CVD assessment protocols and outcomes were different to their own requirements.”
The battle lines are well and truly being drawn up...definitely MTF on this one..

Last edited by Sarcs; 13th Jun 2014 at 14:30.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 04:46
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
It’s not often a paper fails by the second sentence:
INTRODUCTION: Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors. …
Horsesh*t.

But at least we have an insight into the intellectual rigour applied by the zealots on this frolic. Watson has committed cardinal sin #1: Begging the question. (In other words, he assumes that which is to be proved. In fact, and worse, he assumes that which has been disproved. )

Last edited by Creampuff; 13th Jun 2014 at 05:41.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 06:34
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
For those interested...

Copied version of the FSF article 'Colour vision GAP'...

Color Vision GAP

By Linda Werfelman

A lack of uniformity in assessing pilots with color vision deficiency (CVD) is encouraging “aeromedical tourism,” with pilots seeking out aeromedical examiners in countries most likely to accept their particular deficiencies and issue medical certificates, according to a new study.1

The study was conducted by Dougal B. Watson, principal medical officer of the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority, and a report on its findings was published in the February issue of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.

The report concluded that “the medical assessment of CVD applicants is not performed consistently across the world. Factors that favor uniformity have been inadequate to encourage countries toward consistent medical assessment outcomes.”

This inconsistency does not conform to “the highest practicable degree of uniformity in medical assessment outcomes,” the report said.

Setting Standards CVD is an inability to see some shades of color — or, in some severe cases, an inability to see colors at all — that are seen by people with normal color vision (see “Explaining Color Vision Deficiency,” p. 36). Noting that, in aviation, color has an important role in cockpit instruments and displays, on charts “and throughout the external airborne and terrestrial environment,” the report added, “The ubiquity of color-coded information … has [led] to the importance of pilots and air traffic controllers being able to rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors.”

The report traced aviation standards for color vision to World War I, when the British Royal Flying Corps tested applicants’ color vision. “Great emphasis was laid upon perfect color vision because of the importance of picking out the color or markings of hostile machines, recognizing signal lights and judging the nature of landing grounds,” the report said, quoting from a history of aviation medicine in the Royal Air Force.2

Similar Requirements

Today, color vision standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specify that pilots must have “the ability to perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessaryfor the safe performance of duties.”3

However, the report said that the wording of the ICAO standard, as well as the flexibility given to ICAO member states in determining exactly how they will evaluate pilots’ color vision and how they will interpret the results, leads to “wide scope for variation in the examination and the assessment of applicants’ [color vision].”

The report added, “Wherever there is variation between countries in the interpretation and implementation of medical standards, there is also the potential for aeromedical tourism. Aeromedical tourism occurs when an applicant, faced with an unattractive medical assessment from one regulatory authority, seeks a more accommodating medical assessment from a different regulatory authority.”

The study examined information about 78 countries — all but one of them ICAO member states — representing 92 percent of world aviation activity and found that their national medical standards contained similar color vision requirements.

For example, in Canada, India, Pakistan, Singapore and South Africa, the requirement is for professional pilots to “perceive readily those colors the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties,” while in New Zealand, pilots must “have no deficit of colour vision to an extent that is of aeromedical significance.” European Joint Aviation Requirements call for pilots to “have normal perception of colours or be colour safe,” and U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations specify that pilots must “perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties.”

Different Methods

The study found that, in all jurisdictions, the color vision assessment process begins with a primary screening, and pilots who pass are not subject to further color vision assessment (Figure 1).

Those who fail the primary screening, however, follow different paths, depending on the requirements of the civil aviation authority in the country where they are seeking medical certification. In some countries, they are denied medical certification at that point, but in others, they undergo a secondary screening before completing the medical assessment process.

The secondary screening practices end in similarly divergent paths —those applicants who pass are issued a medical certificate, and those who fail are either denied certification, granted certification with specific conditions such as no night flight, or subjected to further investigation in the continuing assessment process.

Applicants who pass during the further-investigation phase are issued medical certification with conditions.

Those who fail either receive a medical certification with more restrictive conditions or their certification is denied.

The examination of the assessment processes found that, for pilots seeking a Class 1 medical certificate, all states began with a primary color vision screening. In 66 of the 78 member states, the primary screening consists of a single test; the remainder use two tests or more.

The report said that all but one of the states include at least one type of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plate test (Figure 2) in their primary screenings; for 88 percent, an Ishihara test was the only one in use.

The most commonly used Ishihara test involves the use of a set of 24 plates designed to assess color vision. The study found that, in 65 of the 75 states using that set, a single error on the first 15 plates results in failure.

Overall, in 74 of the 78 states, applicants who fail the primary screening are permitted to move on to a secondary screening or further investigation, the report said. In the other four states, failure on a primary screening results in denial of a medical certificate. (In one of these four states, however, the denial applies only to first-time applicants.)

The secondary screenings typically involve the use of optical lanterns and other devices designed to test color vision by asking applicants to identify the colors, but they may also involve flight tests. Sixty of the 74 states allow only one level of secondary screening, but 14 provide two or more levels, so that applicants who fail on their first attempt may undergo alternative tests.

The “further investigation” phase is used in two states, and in both, applicants who pass are restricted to daytime flights while those who fail are denied medical certification, the report said.

Failure and Inconsistency

In five of the 78 states surveyed, applicants who fail all phases of tests offered still are granted medical certification with restrictions, usually in the form of prohibitions on airline flying or night operations, the report said.

“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”

Among the inconsistencies noted in the report were that some states did not comply with their own published assessment processes, either using a more liberal pass-fail threshold or applying different requirements for new applicants versus experienced pilots.

Some states evaluated color vision only as part of the first application for medical certification, some tested annually, and others conducted the test every few years.

In addition, the report said, “some also accepted the [color vision] assessment of another state in lieu of their own, even when that other state’s CVD assessment protocols and outcomes were different to their own requirements.”

‘Conceptually Sound’

The report said that, although the ICAO standard is “conceptually sound and relatively concise … [it] is not readily interpreted for practical use. It does not indicate which colors need to be perceived readily for safe aviation, or what degrees of measurable CVD [fail] to comply.”

The document noted that ICAO has acknowledged the difficulties of clarifying the international color vision standard and of providing more specific criteria for assessing CVD, stating in its Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine, “The question is where to draw the line.”4

While a single-step assessment would be easier to administer and less expensive, the report said, a two-step process with a second assessment for those who fail the first step would help reduce the number of false-positives. In this way, the report said, the structure of the CVD assessment system influences the outcome of assessments.

Earlier research found that it is not unusual for people with normal color vision to misread some plates in the 24-plate Ishihara test, the most common tool for assessing color vision.

Nevertheless, errors on three or more plates almost always indicate that the person being tested has CVD.

Instructions accompanying the 1985 version of the 24-plate CVD test say that the first 15 plates are used to determine whether color vision is either normal or defective, and, if 13 of the 15 plates are read correctly, color vision should be considered normal.

The report said that the states that set a higher threshold for passing (those requiring a perfect reading of all plates, or allowing only one error) were allowing more false-positive results — in which people with normal vision are identified as having CVD.

These states may hold “fundamentally different views of the purpose of… testing,” the report said.

The same conclusion applies to states with a lower threshold for errors (six or more incorrectly read plates), the report said, noting that their goal presumably is to ensure that no one with normal vision is incorrectly identified as having CVD.

“An argument that the different systems produce similar outcomes cannot be reasonably embraced,” the report said. “Two regulatory systems will not have remotely similar medical assessment outcomes when one declines an applicant who makes one error … and another allows unrestricted commercial and limited airline pilot privileges to an applicant unable to pass any CV test.”

ICAO provides no specific guidance on how member states should determine the pass-fail threshold, the report said. 

PS Disappointed that Australia doesn't get a mention...wonder why that is??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 08:23
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In Front of My PC
Posts: 186
25 years of incident free flying by CVD's negates their whole argument!
They could do a whole new study working out how they got it so wrong!
Bill Smith is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 22:28
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sarcs. PS Disappointed that Australia doesn't get a mention...wonder why that is?
“In one state, an applicant who fails all of the testing offered may be issued a Class 1 medical assessment that allows all professional aviation operations except left-seat (captain) airline operations,” the report said. “In this state, a profoundly CVD applicant is able to operate as an airline copilot.”
In one state, one with a 25 year track record. What a twisted, self serving, mealy mouthed small comment. How dismissive, how denigrating; it may go some way to explaining the despicable 'Faraway' letters; which join the 'wish I'd never wrote it' hall of fame along with the Wodger report, came to be.

I hope AIPA get wind of this and join VIPA and AFAP in calling for an immediate retraction and apology.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 22:31
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Friday 13 th. Darts and a funeral.

For some reason (don't ask), it's a BRB tradition to host any darts challenge match on a 13 th, preferably a Friday. Anyway, the latest challenge to BRB supremacy came from a team of Englishmen, visiting firemen – (you know who you are).....One of their 'lads' is reputedly colour deficient, didn't seem to affect his ability to separate the green doubles from red trebles at will though and with some precision; mutterings of bollocks and 'ring-in' were heard often, at least during the first few rubbers.

Anyway, so much for the darts match, now to the mock funeral, held in the pubs' back yard. We buried, in effigy, with gravitas and solemnity the Australian reputation for courage, leadership, integrity and a fair go. We even borrowed a mouth organ for the last post...

Eulogy : After the commonwealth funded Dennison hearing, Australia led the world with a new benchmark for CVD pilots, courageously the medical guru's adopted the findings and a new era of hope for CVD pilots and wannabe's dawned. After 25 years we have stopped holding our collective breath and can, backed with empirical evidence support the Dennison findings. We could with a little courage, take the 'exercise' to the next logical level. But, instead of presenting the argument to the ICAO, instead of gathering the data, research and evidence and taking it to the grown ups for consideration, we regress. Australia was known as 'first rate' and could have won concessions, on credibility alone. A new star could have been born. Headline – "Australia clears the way for CVD pilots citing a 25 year safety study".

There was real, international kudos in that option. Do we take it, no; alas, what 'we' do try through very murky, devious, cowardly, unpalatable methods is to strip away those hard won concessions. Australia could have breathed hope for countless CVD, around the world by persuading ICAO that these CVD pilots have proven not to be a safety liability, but an asset.

The data is there, for example, deterioration or improvement over time could have been measured, new benchmarks set from refined analysis (for or against), hell there was probably a PhD in it for someone if done properly. The data may have proved or disproved the case: who knows. A quarter century worth of research important data left laying in the mud, alongside regulatory reform – makes you wonder don't it; just a bit.

ICAO could, (with suitable rump protection devices installed) have sanctioned an easement (for those who had the balls to try it) of CVD discrimination. Now that boys and girls, would be an achievement to be proud of.

The incontinent antics of the CASA in this latest embarrassing, cowardly, despicable actions make me ashamed. It's to be hoped our troops, sportsmen and business folks don't catch the same disease, be a hell of a mess. Can you imagine a – "Wallabies chicken out of match – competition too tough", - headline. Nah, it's too unnatural, for the true blue, ridgy didge to even think about.

Gold for Australia ?– NO. The cup of Dross and Shame is the prize for Australia in the Shambollic stakes. A.K.A. The race to the bottom.....

Flags at half mast on the houseboat, 'til morning tea. Muffins this morning I'm informed, must be, the elephants are lining up at the galley window.

Heigh ho.

Last edited by Kharon; 14th Jun 2014 at 20:32. Reason: Late arrivals
Kharon 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.