The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[Frank Arouet]

ausdoc, you say;


"QUOTE if you want to change the rules, you need good evidence QUOTE"


We had a suite of long running rules that permitted CVD pilots to fly and this was recently reversed. It would then seem that CAsA changed their own rules, but has refused to give the "good evidence" that the rules were flawed in the first place. Nothing I've seen cancels the historic work of Dr Pape.


Rather than blather on about what happens in NZ or anywhere else, we should perhaps acknowledge that Australians have some very good history in the fields of medical research that the rest of the World either already follow or should do.


This may be the exception to the "peculiar Australian" rules that besot us in regulatory matters. Some here would see your obstruction in deference of good medical evidence as seriously alarming, and tantamount to scaring little kids and adults, even bordering on alarming the poor bloody paying airline passengers that are subject to certain security concerns at the best of times.


On the balance of probabilities, I concur with Kharon.


Creampuff: It is well documented that 97.852% of aircraft accidents happen when the pilot has no CVD.
CONCLUSION: CVD pilots have only a 2.148% chance of ever having an accident. Again, on the balance of probabilities.

[dubbleyew eight]

altough I am a pilot (with no colour deficits) I come at this problem from the industrial control systems environment.
I cannot believe the utter stupidity of the protagonists who push the CVD barrow.

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS.

in the industrial control systems environment there is quite some history to colour perception problems.

the original instrumentation standard from back in the days of pneumatically controlled systems was that a running machine displayed a red indicator atop it to indicate that it was running and dangerous to approach. a stopped machine was safer and showed a green indicator to show that it was safe to approach.

then with the advent of computer based instrumentation like the Citect systems I worked on, the programmers were more attuned to traffic light logic and eventually most computer displays showed green as healthy and running and red as faulted or stopped.

so red and green can have totally the opposite meaning in a control system depending on whether the old instrumentation logic is used or the newer traffic lights logic is used.

there are colour blind operators on sites. in one notable instance the introduction of a new updated control system caused monumental problems on the site. it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind and the errors were because they couldn't work out what the colour symbology was on the new displays.
when the engineer twigged to this he had realised from talking to the guys that they had no mental deficits. the software was suave enough to allow dynamic recolouring of the display logic so he changed all the displays so that the colour sets for the logic could be switched by the operators at the press of a button.

the normal logic is red stopped, green running, blue out to maintenance, grey not in service, flashing indicating running faulted.
there are other colours and logic states used but I forget them.
what the operators decided on was a colour set that included yellow, brown, blue, white, grey among others.
they can change the display logic at the press of an on screen button.

the engineer who did the work professed that the screens looked like nothing on earth compared to a "normal" screen but the error rate dropped to nothing after the change.

also in an allied area of electrical work the red green black colours used in wiring changed to brown blue and striped yellow and green to make electrical wiring in houses safe with colour blind technicians.

the problems have been faced and solved in two areas of industry that I am familiar with.
why aviation regulators are so perennially stupid on this just beggars belief.

if there is a colour problem change the colours.

[Kharon]

To be or not to be.

Wayne Moore –"Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting."

The sentence quoted above is part of a nicely constructed paragraph, which pretty well sums up many of the 'issues' and highlights one of the 'real' problem areas. This catch cry of 'identified safety risk' or 'imminent danger to navigation'; however it's phrased, "what" is to be considered 'dangerous' is not clearly defined or qualified. Back a couple of pages, we see a letter written to Bill Smith where it is stated that he 'may present a danger'. The subjective nature of what may be perceived as a 'danger' allows the unscrupulous a mile of wriggle room and there are no checks and balances to prevent the arbitrary notion being translated into "show cause". (Abandon all hope, ye who enter here).

If we can ever just get one part of the 'regulations' changed, this would be it. No one should ever be allowed to arbitrarily declare a person is 'a danger'. Think of it this way – you are driving through the main drag, looking for a park; suddenly a kid runs out in front of the car: slam on brakes, bark at kid, recover cool and toddle off, no probs. Now that kids Mum decides you were dangerous and complains to that effect. The Coppers can't just decide to back Mum's hysterical reaction, they can't suspend your license and they most certainly cannot drag you to a court and expect you to prove that you are not dangerous, not in this scenario anyway. CASA not only can, but will and do, as, when and as often as pleases.

Judge. "Can you prove this?"

IOS. "Evidence M'lud, Oh yes, which one of the two dozen case files would you like to start with?, may we suggest Quadrio as a classic example of bastardry, or perhaps Hempel, for the reverse view".

Problem is getting the whole shooting match to a venue to be heard. The Minuscule and the WLR was a good start; but if the regulator (a serial offender) is to be 'truly' rehabilitated, the misuse of arbitrary declarations must be examined, in depth and charges brought against those that dabble in these atrocities; to ensure the lessons are learnt, good and proper.

There have been some true abominations created through this widespread practice. A 'declared a danger' should be only be issued through at least three independent assessments (one legal) and signed off at executive level; not just left to likes of Wodger and his two best mates. It is a serious charge and with the reverse onus, a tough one to beat.

This is the danger subtended through the CVD issue; it serves to reinforce the 'arbitrary' decision process into a normalised deviance. Bill Smith should not have to prove he is safe – CASA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt that he is, indeed a danger. It must be 'beyond reasonable doubt', because it's a career at stake; balance of probabilities ain't good enough for ending a mans ability to work in his chosen profession. Not by a long shot...There's more at stake here than a quibble over a few words, split infinitives and what colour your socks are (or are not).

Selah –.-

[ausdoc]

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS

That's a great solution, but a very long-term and expensive one. There are numerous standard colour codes used in all sorts of industries. Warning lights, navigation, electrical wiring, map colour codes. It would be great if they could be standardised to colours that are agnostic to an individual's perception of colour. Remember though that CVD is not a single entity. Some types are more common than others, but it is so much more than just red/green.

it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind

That must have been a very odd population, or there was something causing acquired deficiencies in colour vision. Acquired deficiencies are pretty common in fact. Eye disease, some medications, even prolonged solar damage can cause changes in colour vision.

[Sarcs]

What Kharon said!!

Nail on the head "K" and sort of runs in line with many of the comments on the CVDPA petition (sign HERE by the way..) e.g.

"...I have never understood why CASA or anyone else is allowed to arbitrarily discriminate against people with CVD without having to prove what it is that they supposedly can't do. Having dealt with CASA over many years, I find this type of arrogant behaviour typical of an outfit that does not deserve the term 'organisation'..."

Perhaps the next minority group to come under the (playing at God) PMO's scrutiny, is highlighted in his summary of the 85th Annual Aerospace Medical Association Conference held in sunny San Diego May 2014...



...which it seems he has already hand balled to Flying Fiend and his bloodnut mate...


Next potential victim(s): Then, as I earlier predicted, the next minority group to possibly cop a pineapple is highlighted in this PMO (PAG) boxed statement:



This joker has got to be stopped...

Moving on...

ausdoc don't bother chasing down that CAMI paper mate, cause I've found it.. (link HERE).

Now I can see with 20:20 hindsight where all this concern on CVD is coming from, the following almost perfectly replicates Creamy's ausdoc quote at post #334:

Given the increased usage of color in cockpit displays, it is highly likely that, for pilots, the LED PAPI task (although a critical task) is not the most demanding color discrimination task that pilots will face; and therefore, the usefulness of these screening tests for determining whether the pilot possesses the requisite color vision ability for other tasks, including tasks involving multi-colored LEDs, should not be based on the validity of the tests for predicting performance on this red vs. white LED task.

Hmm...well at least LED lights don't appear to exacerbate the problem...

MTF...

[ausdoc]

Sarcs, yes I've seen that study, but there are others as well. As I said, there needs to be more practical research using real-world tasks. Where possible, colour should not be used as a stand-alone indicator (like in the PAPI) because all sorts of things can disrupt the signal, even for colour "normals". I agree wholeheartedly with Arthur on this one, that the T-VASIS was a much better system, as it was not reliant on normal perception of colour, and was less likely to be corrupted by atmospheric conditions/dirty lenses etc. That doesn't mean that colour coding should be removed altogether, as it provides very useful additional information.

The aviation colour environment is far more complex than a tower signal lamp or a PAPI. Really difficult to design a single study, but there are big brains in a lot of the universities that could do it.

[thorn bird]

Doc,
there has already been 25 years of practical research in Australia and over 40 years in the USA. How many tens of thousands of hours, how many six monthly practical tests in that time.


The results show no safety case exists for CVD pilots as opposed to non CVD pilots, which is born out by accident statistics.

[ausdoc]

How many tens of thousands of hours, how many six monthly practical tests in that time

That's part of the problem - nobody really knows. As I said, a missed opportunity for data collection. Without proper data collection and analysis, it's not research. Are there enough to reach statistical significance? Because if it doesn't, it's just anecdote not evidence.

The data could be collected now, but it would rely on self reporting.

[Creampuff]

You’ve convinced me.

As of today, AVMED should write to all pilots and their employers, warning that alopecia could be dangerous.

It’s a fact that most aviation accidents and incidents involve pilots with alopecia. (I reckon it’s an hormonal thing.) Sure: They pass all those recurrent tests but – you know – there’s something wrong with them.

These people have been flying around for decades, but nobody really knows whether there’s a causal link between aviation safety and alopecia. It’s been a missed opportunity for data collection. Without proper data collection and analysis, it’s not research. It’s just anecdote, not evidence.

Therefore, in the interests of aviation safety, the danger to aviation that could be posed by pilots with alopecia should be notified to everyone, all pilots with alopecia should have restrictions on their medicals, unless and until the absence of a causal link is proved through valid data and proper analysis.

The only difference between the above twaddle and the logic that leads to the recent regulatory actions about CVD is an historical coincidence.

[thorn bird]

Careful Creamie, they'll be accusing you of having shares in Ashley & Martin next.

"That's part of the problem - nobody really knows."


Yes they do, the fact that CVD pilots have successfully passed proficiency checks for the past 25 years in Australia and the past 40 years in the USA confirms that there is no problem.

Added to that there are no accident statistics worldwide that support the hypothesis that CVD pilots are a greater danger to safety than anyone else.


Guys and girls we need signatures to the petition, please encourage as many of your colleges to take the time and sign it.
CAsa says there are 37,000 pilots in Australia, everyone of us should be signing before the next round of letters from CAsA avmed is sent out to everyones significant other, warning them that if you snore you could be a danger to Air navigation.

To all the union people.
Guys you were very supportive of GA with submissions to Truss inquiry and for that we are very grateful, could you send a newsletter to all your members and inform them of the petition, the fight for CVD pilots is everyones fight.

[brissypilot]

"That's part of the problem - nobody really knows."

Yes they do, the fact that CVD pilots have successfully passed proficiency checks for the past 25 years in Australia and the past 40 years in the USA confirms that there is no problem.

Exactly! CASA had no trouble sending letters to the supposedly 400 professional CVD pilots around Australia. Instead of writing to all these pilots and telling them that they're a threat to the safety of air navigation, it wouldn't have taken much more effort to instead pull up their CASA records of instrument rating passes etc to see what the statistics are of how successfully they pass these checks when compared to colour normal pilots.

They could've written to the AOC holders and instead requested feedback on how well their CVD pilots actually perform in a real world environment. All this information is readily available through detailed training records.

CASA could've actually consulted with the industry and the affected stakeholders to better understand the issues, rather than alienate them even further.

if the colours are a problem then CHANGE THE COLOURS

As AP explained a few pages back, the colours aren't the problem and don't need to be changed. CVD pilots perform equally as well as pilots with normal colour vision. His presentation to the International Congress of Aviation & Space Medicine conference in 2012 is worth reviewing. Yes, this is only a small sample of three pilots (with the most severe form of CVD there is), but it does unquestionably highlight how the CVD pilots are still required to pass all the regular and rigorous tests required for the "safe performance of duties" (to quote the ICAO standard). These guys might've failed the three levels of CVD testing as per the regs, but they each have passed literally dozens of flight and simulator checks over thousands of hours each.



In my employment, my performance is assessed in the sim four times a year. Despite my own CVD, I still pass all the required sequences with no discernible differences to my peers with normal colour vision. The comments over the last 18 pages of this thread highlight that colour on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary to safely perform duties. I don't believe CVD is a "medical" issue, rather it is a "perception" issue.

Visual perception and how we perceive things and make correct decisions is far more complex and relies on many more cues than the simplistic views adopted by those who promote colour vision research and testing. They also forget that people with a CVD have never known anything different their entire lives. I didn't even know I was colour "blind" until I went for my first aviation medical at age 15. In my 16 years of flying since it has never once come up as an issue. As humans we learn to adapt. Perception is a private experience and no one else can claim to "see" what another person sees and therefore they can't assume to know how we individually process and react to information. If flying was dependent on the ability to be able to reliably name and distinguish colours, then I'd be the first to admit that I shouldn't be doing this for a job. But it doesn't!

As Creamy highlighted a few pages back, the premise of the argument of those who set the standards is false. Colour is undoubtedly used lots in the aviation environment, but the assumption that the ability to rapidly and accurately identify colours is essential to the safe performance of duties is completely wrong!

With the PAPI for example, it has long been argued that that this is colour "critical" and that without the ability to perceive it's colours, that CVD's will pose a safety risk when using it. You would think from the way some of these researchers write, that it is impossible to land an aircraft without it!

Forget for a moment that the evidence shows that CVD pilots continue to use PAPI on a daily basis without issue and that even colour normal pilots cannot reliably interpret it under certain atmospheric conditions.

The claim that PAPI is "critical" to be able to land an aircraft is false. All pilots are trained from day 1 to land an aircraft based on the visual "perspective" out the window. We fly into airports that aren't even equipped with it including at night in black holes. We can program VNAV guidance into the FMS. We do mental calculations of altitude vs distance to run to confirm the correct profile. Approach plates also have this information published on it. CASA even issue exemptions for jet operators to fly into airports without it subject to conditions. Colour is not critical!

A few more comments from the petition. Over 800 signatures and still rising

I see no logical reason to limit pilots with colour deficiencies considering flying with the use of NVG's is done with a 40 degree field of view and a monochromatic image.

I have flown with colour deficient pilots as part of an airline crew. They are more than capable of carrying out the responsibilities of the job, some better than their colleagues whose colour vision is not impaired.

Im a colour vision defective pilot. I have 17,000 hrs in command and have been safely flying commercially for 30 years.

Retired now, but looking back on 44yrs flying finding it hard to remember when colors were that important.

I operated as a pilot for 45 years(including 25 years as a B747 Captain) with Qantas. I failed the standard colour blindness Ishihara plates continually. I passed the "Lantern Test" in 1968. Never in my whole career did my colour blindness?interfere in any way with my ability to operate as required.

Colour vision may have been important when signals to aircraft were ONLY by means of RED & GREEN or white lights, but we now have RADIO & Telephone/Texting available so why take this backward and unnecessary step? I am a professional pilot not afflicted in this way but CASA has to start thinking of cost to innocent lives not their own to control i.e. the families of those disadvantaged by the stupidity of many within the CASA

I am a now retired CVD pilot after a 46 year career and 25077 flying hours. The majority as captain on DHC8 a/c. My so called CVD was of no effect on my operating of these a/c. Further I held check and training approvals on DHC6,EMB110,DO228,B1900Dall being turbine powered plus numerous piston multi engine a/c. Also I held initial & renewal approval for Class1 instrument ratings. All in RPT operations. Dr Pape is well aware of my qualifications. PS I have 584 hrs night hrs again on RPT operations.

Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm.

As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.

[Sunfish]

Ausdoc, you are applying absolutely fallacious logic, as is CASA.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof here with your "nobody really knows" bull****.

The facts of the matter are that CVD pilots have been flying legally for Forty years.

It is therefore up to you to prove the hypothesis: "CVD pilots are at a statistically significant greater risk of causing an incident or accident as a direct result of their CVD condition".

You do NOT get to take away licences without rigorous statistical data analysis to prove that the above hypothesis is correct, and judging from the comments expressed here there is no industry experience of events or accidents to date that would even remotely support your theory.

To put that another way, you and your pals are attempting to advance a negative hypothesis for which there is only negative evidence : "It cannot be proved that CVD pilots are NOT at greater risk of causing an incident or accident" and then glibly saying that the lack of statistically significant data proves your hypothesis.


This is not logic and you would be howled out of any University experimental design class for suggesting it.

Why the hell is CASA tilting at windmills all the time????????????????

[Frank Arouet]

There's probably heaps of unemployed "climate scientists" that can give a hand at proving something exists because someone thought it "should" be a political imperitive. By this reasoning ausdoc is on a payroll.

[Creampuff]

New research about Colour vision testing carried out by the Civil Aviation Medical Institute (FAA) indicates that people with colour vision deficiency have difficulty in perform intra-cockpit tests.

How was this research carried out, and where are the results? Does it constitute ‘high-level evidence’?

If it is research that has been taken into consideration by AVMED in its regulatory decision-making, it should be made public.

It couldn’t possibly be a reference to this, because it is not high level evidence of anything about CVD and difficulty in performing intra-cockpit tests: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/res...dia/201406.pdf

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Wider issue than CVD

If anybody is reading this and thinks it's just CVD pilots and doesn't affect me please read some of the posts. Are there any conditions that any of us could develop that could be tret in the same manner? Suddenly you could be faced with having to prove you are safe as this CVD issue has left left a dangerous precedent.

As Sunfish and Creampuff keep asking where is the evidence? Why not make this an open debate? We might be in a better position to understand and manage CVD better if they were more collaborative rather than adversarial in their stance.

[Creampuff]

These extracts from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them, by David H. Freedman, are still my favourites:

“Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them.”

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,”

“Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. But while coming up with eye-catching theories is relatively easy, getting reality to bear them out is another matter. The great majority collapse under the weight of contradictory data when studied rigorously.”

“[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science ...”

“[A]ssuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time.”

“Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.”

[Bill Smith]

What brissy said

[dubbleyew eight]

it was discovered that about 68% of the workers on the site were colour blind

That must have been a very odd population, or there was something causing acquired deficiencies in colour vision. Acquired deficiencies are pretty common in fact.
Eye disease, some medications, even prolonged solar damage can cause changes in colour vision.

honestly ausdoc you're a grade a certified ******.
have you ever thought that the word might have gone around that the site didn't give them a hard time, the pay was good, and on the recommendations of existing employees they were short listed for the jobs?

prove your statements regarding acquired deficiencies. if kumar and clark list only one clinical item in the entire 'clinical medicine' you and CAsA might just be bull****ting us. show us the evidence.

Why the hell is CASA tilting at windmills all the time????????????????

I've been telling you the reason for ages now. CAsA are incompetent.

[gerry111]

A long while back, CAA (later CASA) and their AVMED were progressive.

(My thinking is the early 1980's as that also applied to me, then.)

I believe that the then attitudes were simply these:

Unless you present with reasons that are clearly unsafe, then go flying!

Bob Hoover was denied his FAA flying licence, all those years ago, in the 1990's. But the then progressive Australian authority were prepared to allow him to do a proper medical and grant him an Australian licence. And he subsequently flew here as safely as he had always done.

I seem to remember that the FAA may have removed his entitlement (Freedom) to fly simply because he may have been deemed to be "Too Old".

Bob's now a highly experienced, retired aviator but clearly he's still alive!

Please pardon my thread drift. But the CVD thingy may be just the start...

As you all know?

[LeadSled]

What should have happened at the very beginning, when pilots with CVD were first permitted to fly, was a proper prospective study regarding the way that these individuals operated aircraft in all conditions. Unfortunately, it was not done.

Ausdoc,
I very strongly recommend that you reread and seriously consider the reasoning supporting the Denison AAT decision.

Core to that decision was that CVD "normal" had never been established by any scientifically conducted studies as an aviation requirement ie ; the "standard" has been carried over from military screening standards.

I would further point out that, last time I looked, use of colour in "glass" instruments was restricted to the four standard printing colours, plus black and white.

I believe it is quite incorrect to say that there is increasingly "sophisticated' use of colour in aviation operations.

Indeed, one might read the derivation of "sophisticated", and who were the Sophists, quite appropriate, really.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Hoover's FAA medical was withdrawn because two FOIs "thought he looked frail" --- when he objected (as bureaucracies do) the "FAA" lined up against him, en mass, to support "their own". I got to know Hoover in latter years, he was eternally grateful for what Australia did for him, not only the enlightened medical section, but Flying Operations in the form of Barry Diamond and the RVAC, who tutored him to pass the exams he had to do. Never again are we likely to see a CPL flight test, multi rating, initial issue of an instrument rating, aerobatic rating and an unlimited low level waiver --- all in the one flight.