The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[Arthur Pape]

I am compelled to clarify something that keeps on popping up in the various commentaries over recent months, and its source is the PMO, whose logic is questionable. The numbers he has given don't add up. The fact is about 10% of males and 1% of females have CVD. Secondly, if we accept that there are some 36000 licenced pilots, and we make a crude estimate that at least half will be males (the actual ratio is likely to be much higher for males to females), then 10% of 18000 is 1800. 1% of the 18000 females is 180. So the combined figure for a conservative estimate of the total pilot population that has a colour vision defect is around 1980, not "400" as quoted originally by the PMO. I have heard him try to explain the numbers of "400 CVD pilots in total, with 140 CVD commercial pilots" and it gives me a headache trying to fathom his logic. I doubt he really knows the real stats, but I am certain that his figures are wrong. It no doubt serves the PMO's objectives to understate the numbers of pilots victimised by his actions.
AP

[ausdoc]

As much as I wasn't going to add any more to this thread....I think you'll find that the numbers quoted are those who have waivers. There are a whole lot of pilots who don't have normal colour vision, who have been granted completely unrestricted licences.

Remember that if you can pass any one of the Ishihara, Farnsworth or Tower signal light tests (or potentially now the CAD, which passes more people than the lantern tests), you meet the standard. It is only those who can't pass any of those that are considered to be "CVD pilots", which is a far lower number than the prevalence of abnormal colour vision in the population.

[Kharon]

When Santa got stuck up the chimney.

Lies, damned lies and statistics is oft quoted; lots of wriggle room for the Shambollic system there. Add a dash of 'safety' fear, a veiled 'responsibility' threat one large dollop of 'vaunting ego' and you have an original Pony-pooh Shambollic pie. Thing is, without someone to pull the strings and give the CVD distraction event oxygen, the man from muddy river is left holding the baby and no bus fare.

It will be a great entertainment to watch as the PMO extricates his tits from the mangle, without being emasculated. Will we watch; of course we will....

Ho ho ho.

[Arthur Pape]

What is a waiver? The word doesn’t appear in the Regs. In the USA the FAA grants waivers against the colour vision standard if someone has demonstrated they can identify relevant lights in a practical test. They are issued with a “SODA” which stands for “Certificate of Demonstrated Ability”. The SODA is carried in the same wallet as the medical certificate, which still has a statement of not meeting the standard.
In contrast, in Australia, if a pilot has passed the control tower signal gun test or the “practical lantern test”, they are deemed to have met the standard, and the mention of CVD disappears from the medical certificate forever. Using my own case as an example, in spite of the fact I am severely colour vision defective, with a diagnosis of deuteranopia, I have passed the colour perception standard because I passed the signal gun test. I suspect that I would not be included in the PMO’s group of 400 CVD pilots. I have no mention of colour vison on my medical. The same goes for the many significantly CVD pilots who have passed one of the abovementioned tests and who are gainfully (and safely) employed in senior airline positions. They are not counted as CVD by the PMO.
So who are the 400 pilots and the 140 commercial pilots the PMO is quoting to us? Truth is, nobody knows, and likely, neither does the PMO. Does he mean that there are 260 private pilots, and 140 class 1 medical holders who have not met the standard? Do these numbers represent the pilots who have failed the CTSG and PLT? It seems unlikely, because there is absolutely no reason why a PPL would need to do either of the tests unless they had aspirations of going for the ATPL. In the PMO’s terminology, do these numbers refer to the CVD “unsafe” group?
My point is, the numbers are meaningless without definition.
Conservatively estimated, there should be at least 1980 pilots who have a clinical condition of colour vision defective (as defined by a “fail” on the Ishihara).The number is likely to be closer to 3000, depending on the ratio of male to female in the pilot population. What would be interesting would be the numbers who have done the Farnsworth Lantern Test and passed it. Of those who have failed the Farnsworth, how many have taken the CTSG and passed or failed, and likewise, how many have done the Practical Lantern Test and passed or failed. Then there is a group who have not taken either of these tests and who nevertheless have medical certificate enabling them to use their ATPL, and some have limitations while others don’t. What are the stats on this group?
These numbers should not be too complex for a computerised department like CASA to provide with clarity. Until that is done, we should treat the quoted numbers with great suspicion.
AP

[YPJT]

I am just wondering if the stats are skewed somewhat compared to the overall percentage of colour defective males because many who know of their condition do not try and pursue aviation activities in the first place on the misunderstanding that they would be excluded totally?

I wonder if the term CVD is appropriate when having discussions in a medical sense? Many doctors I have spoke to, when they see these letters think it is referring to cardio vascular disease.

[Creampuff]

Remember that if you can pass any one of the Ishihara, Farnsworth or Tower signal light tests (or potentially now the CAD, which passes more people than the lantern tests), you meet the standard. It is only those who can't pass any of those that are considered to be "CVD pilots", which is a far lower number than the prevalence of abnormal colour vision in the population.

Not quite, but you’ll get there eventually, ausdoc.

It is correct to say that a person who passes any one of the tests mentioned in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. One of those tests is a test that simulates an operational situation.

The CAD test does not simulate an operational situation. Once the zealots on a medical crusade in Avmed are dragged into compliance with the law and determine tests for the purposes of CASR 67.150(6)(c) that do, in fact, simulate an operational situation, all of the pilots who’ve been unnecessarily stuffed around will be able to get on with their lives and careers.

As to the numbers of pilots with CVD, I have to say that I was appalled by the implications of Mr McCormick’s statement that there are “only” X of “them”.

What difference does the number make?

If CASA decided that pilots with black skin may, as a consequence of the colour of their skin, be a danger to the safety of air navigation, would the fact that there are “only” 3 or 30 or 300 of “them” make any difference to the validity of a medical crusade to save the world from potential dangers of pilots with black skin?

It’s appalling.

[Creampuff]

Next time you apply for a certificate, you should insist that CASA apply and comply with the provisions of 67.150(6). If you pass any one of the 3 tests listed in 67.150(6) you have demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. Provided you meet the other aspects of the medical standard, you are entitled to a ‘clean’ certificate.

Any note on your certificate in those circumstances is as relevant and valid as a note that says “The holder is left handed”.

[Creampuff]

Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research.

[brissypilot]

PMO's Inconsistency

It is correct to say that a person who passes any one of the tests mentioned in CASR 67.150(6) has demonstrated compliance with the colour perception standard. One of those tests is a test that simulates an operation situation.

It's a shame this PMO can't understand how simple the matter actually is and just comply with the law like some of his predecessors once did. It seems that passing an "operational" flight test once satisfied AvMed that a person met the requirements of 67.150 (6)(c).

Bill Smith's experience is a case in point.

No not grounding but CASA have taken my ATPL from me. I did a "Real Life" night IFR renewal in 1997. I was assessed as being colour safe which gave me the condition "11" that has been accepted by CASA ever since. The testing officer was and still is an approved CASA ATO.
In 2009 Pooshan tried to take my ATPL but when challenged they reversed the decision immediately. Make no mistake they are aiming to remove all privileges. Don't be fooled by the spin doctors. There is a definite agenda here by CASA.

I fly with guys that have 150 hours and still don't have a car licence and yet they want to take my 12000+ hours LHS Jet out of the industry. Sorry, I forgot I am the "Safety Issue" here.

So in 2014, Pooshan tries the same trick again on this pilot revoking his ATPL privileges. See here.

A few months later, Pooshan once again reverses his decision and reinstates his ATPL after being challenged and publicly exposed.

...a certificate is being reissued without the ATPL limitation.

As you know, your class 1 medical is being issued despite your failure to meet the applicable medical standard for colour perception…

I'd say the problem is not that this pilot, nor any of the other CVD pilots fail to meet the applicable medical standard, but rather that the PMO doesn't understand what the definition of an "operational situation" is.

For the PMO to re-issue Bill's ATPL privileges (for the second time) must mean that he is obviously satisfied that he doesn't pose any safety risk. After 17 years experience, 12000 hrs and not just one test (as required by (6)(c)), but numerous flight and simulator test passes "simulating operational situations", it is fairly obvious to most ordinary people that he meets the standard required.

Why then is the PMO being inconsistent and failing to apply this same logic to the other CVD pilots who have not been given this same opportunity?

My guess is because he and the promoters of more stringent CVD standards are afraid of what the results will be. It might just prove that their prejudices are unfounded and that CVD pilots can perform just as safely as colour "normals" when it comes to operating in the real world. I wonder where that would leave those (particularly some in the optometry profession) who've staked their entire careers on promoting the myth that CVD's can't fly safely?

[ausdoc]

What is a waiver? The word doesn’t appear in the Regs.

You're right Arthur, but it is a commonly used term to describe when someone is issued a certificate with restrictions when they don't meet the standards. Perhaps you could ask Clearedtoreenter who said, not that long ago,

When my waiver was issued years ago,

.

[ausdoc]

Hey ausdoc: What is the "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be."?

Please cite the precise source and quote the methodology and findings of the research.

Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could.

[Kharon]

Bravo AA and Gisick.

Michael Gisik is to be thanked and congratulated, twice. Once for taking the time to 'investigate' and 'journalate'. It's one of the very few aviation related articles which provides a balanced offering allowing the reader to form an opinion or, interest piqued, dig a little deeper....

The second for a nicely crafted article which shames the MSM spin doctors mouthpieces, rehash jokers and press release trolls. Gisik stands alongside Phelan and Sandilands on my 'always read' list.....

The magazine deserves a thank you for not only having the courage and commitment to publish but for the editorial commitment to 'reporting' rather than promoting. Kudos for an independent report rather than just publishing the spoon fed slop dished out. ...

It's a rare treat to have something good to say about Australian aviation media. Well done all and thank you.

[Frank Arouet]

QUOTE Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA QUOTE.


I've been trying to ring "my mates" in CAsA for months now, but nobody's answering the phone.


(we're from CAsA and we're here to help).

[Creampuff]

Creampuff - perhaps you should direct that question to one of your mates at CASA. I'm sure they can give you a far more comprehensive answer than I could.

But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.

Surely if there is "recent medical research" that "indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual’s CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be", the research would be published and a person with your expertise would be aware of it and be able to cite and quote from it.

Given the profound consequences for the careers of pilots and aspiring pilots, and the disruption caused by the correspondence with AOC holders, CASA would not merely invent or exaggerate the implications of some "recent medical research". That would not only be intellectually dishonest: it would be unlawful.

It is passing strange that CASA has yet to quote one syllable from the recent medical research to which CASA refers, to support the assertions made by CASA about the implications of that research.

[ausdoc]

But I thought you had expertise in this area, ausdoc.

Not me. That's a pretty big (and incorrect) assumption to make. There are a number of colour vision experts in this country, and I'm not one of them.

[Creampuff]

That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area.

... 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.

And still not a syllable quoted from the "recent medical research".

[ausdoc]

That's passing strange. You do sometimes talk like you think you have expertise in this area.

Indeed.....although there is quite a difference between having a degree of background knowledge and an opinion, and having expertise.

There are quite a lot of posters on PPruNe who post like they think they have expertise.

You may recall that I simply suggested a possible explanation to Arthur's question over pilot numbers, and you again try to make it personal. If you think the explanation was wrong, how about explaining why you think that. The repetitive "what is the recent medical research" thing is just getting a bit boring.

[Creampuff]

The "recent medical research thing" that is "getting a bit boring" for you is the basis on which the regulator has purported to cast doubt on the safety of pilots who fly to feed their families. The fact that the focus of your concern is the affront to you, personally, of being asked perfectly reasonable questions, while appearing oblivious to the fact that this matter is intensely personal for the people whose careers the zealots on a medical crusade treat as playthings, says much about what is going on in your head.

[ausdoc]

And again the twisting of words, selective quoting, and personal attacks. Nothing substantive to offer then.

What I said was that your persistently asking the same question, when I have over and over again told you I don't have any more information than you, is getting a bit boring. Perhaps you think that if you ask enough times you'll get a different answer.

A large part of my professional life is devoted to keeping pilots flying with all sorts of medical conditions. It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you could turn your keen legal mind (probably better than your amateur psychiatry) to getting the regulations changed, as you are obviously very passionate about it. You appear to have expertise in aviation law. That would be of far greater use to the CVD pilots than calling names and playing word games on here.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

It's done by demonstrating to CASA, within the framework of their regulations, that the risk is acceptable to them. Badgering people on web forums doesn't cut it.

That appears to be the key issue. Based on evidence casa accepted that CVD pilots were not unsafe and therefore an acceptable risk. Yet, it appears that based on the same evidence they or individuals within the organization have now changed their mind. As Creampuff and others keep asking show us this new evidence that supports casa change of position. Still waiting! It is the fundamental point. Support your case with empirical evidence. If they can't it smacks of bullying, harassment and victimization of CVD pilots.