The Empire Strikes Back! on Colour Defective Pilots

[cockney steve]

There is hope yet, in the UK.
GA is Donald Ducked,here....The current incumbents of what is termed "the Belgrano" have realised that their organisation has spent so long biting the hand that feeds it,they were in danger of imploding as it withers and bleeds to death.

They have initiated a "Red Tape Challenge" Where all could grind their axes without retribution....results, for GA are coming through, slowly but surely.
The latest easement to be announced,-Gyrocopters will be allowed to overfly built-up areas. A small detail but an important one for a very small but growing sector.----Small, single seat microlights are fully deregulated. You need a microlight Pilot's licence and away you go.You are treated as a responsible individual capable of assessing the risk/reward ratio of anything you undertake.
Wanna fly an unsafe SSDR Microlight?- go ahead and try to eliminate yourself from the gene-pool!
How long this new Pro-Aviation ethos is going to take to reachthe commercial-sector, remains to be seen.
I am surprised, in view of the Judge asking "Why are we here then? " that Pooshan was not focibly told "Stop jabbering rubbish and answer truthfully and succinctly"....Perhaps it was said?
Hopefully his putative new employer will study this case and reconsider his job-offer.

[Bill Smith]

I'll bet my bottom dollar it's the UK CAA (and ICAO)

ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine Doc 8984 AN/895

"SAFETY MANAGEMENT AS A FOUNDATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED AEROMEDICAL STANDARDS AND REPORTING OF MEDICAL EVENTS"

Anthony D Evans, Dougal B Watson, Sally A Evans, John Hastings, Jarnail Singh, Claude Thibeault
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, June 2009; Vol. 80, pp. 511 – 15.

See any familiar names in this list?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Reads more like regulatory bullying and harassment from the extracts than a legitimate safety case. Something for the new DAS to look at. I'm sure there are other cases relating to industry and employees?

[Sarcs]

Witing the wongs & widding us of wabbits??

Either way you cut it the new PMO, much like Skates, has a hell of a job to do when you consider how much Avmed have micro-managed pilot medicals to a point where many pilots are simply giving up the industry in droves.

A good start would be for the new PMO (supported by Skates) to immediately adopt R35 from the ASRR report:

35. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.

Due consideration should also be given to Dr Liddell's clear, succinct overview of the current Avmed regime given in his ASRR submission #69...:

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

They should also refer to the following from about 04:50...

ABC 7.30 Report - Colour Blind Pilots - YouTube

While on the subject of media coverage the Poosham resignation is starting to attract some attention itself and AA online - CASA’s principal medical officer to step down - also references Dr Liddell plus his ASRR submission..

As CASA’s principal medical officer, Dr Navathe and his team were responsible for, among other things, the standards and policies regarding medical certification for pilots.

This included the recent move to change standards for colour vision deficiency (CVD), which has angered many pilots who have been flying with some form of CVD for many years but now faced the prospect of being grounded under new regulations.

In June, the Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) condemned the new rules relating to colour vision deficiency (CVD), saying they discriminated against pilots working in Australia’s major airlines and failed to deliver any better safety outcomes.

“Whilst VIPA always recognises that aviation safety remains paramount, we condemn CASA’s new procedures relating to CVD pilots,” VIPA executive director Simon O’Hara said on June 19.

“The fact is, there are hundreds of commercial pilots with CVD who have passed check and line training requirements and subsequently have thousands of hours flying without incident, who will be impacted by these restrictive practices.”

And on the broader question of CASA’s medical testing regulations, former CASA director of aviation medicine Robert Liddell said he regularly met pilots who were “totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine”.

“The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification,” Dr Liddell wrote in a submission to the Aviation Regulatory Safety Review.

MTF...

[Kharon]

Of gravamen and pressed questions.

Seems we are not able to use the hearing transcript to illustrate a point, but thankfully the PM system works and I snagged the link for the PAIN download. The transcript is an interesting read for many reasons, hopefully the CVD crew will get off their arses and seek the necessary permissions so the MaM can discuss some of the twists and turns, without having to rely on independent, free hand translation. Until then you'll just have to put up with my twiddles for some of the highlights (no whinging, puleese).

Before we go any further, the President, His Honour (HH) should be congratulated; no matter the decision handed down, he ran a tight ship, was IMO fair, even handed and all together sane, safe, sound and reasonable. Nicely played Sir.... (Can you give a HH a choc frog?)

One of the more fascinating parts of the hearing came on day three, when the May 26 appearance before the Senate inquiry was raised and one Fawcett Esq. was mentioned along with the CAD test. The reaction from Hardly Normal was an instant – "Well, I object"; - you'd think his seat had goosed him, he was up off it so fast. All flustered and angry. HH, cool as a cucumber asks Lawson does he want to press the question; "Oh yes please" chirps young Lawson (for the CVD) with a big smile...

Well, Hardly drags in a big one and starts banging on about the Parliamentary Privileges Act, from memory mind you, and bemoaning the fact that while he doesn't have the Act itself about his person; he's bloody sure that drawing context, particularly judicial imperial context is a big no-no. Then he drops Joey Norules in it and expects him to produce that Act, wabbit like, out of his hat (Norules ain't got a hat), while bleating on about working from memory. The HH visage must have been a study – here's a QC, barking about a point of law, without a reference or even a hope of finding one for HH before tea time.

HH displayed his tact and reasonable attitude again and suggested that they move away from that minefield until later, when both sides know what they are talking about. It's fair to say young Lawson didn't have the PP Act in his briefcase either; but then, he didn't expect such a big reaction from Hardly at the mention of Senate or Senator. (Or did he?).

Now you'd expect Hardly to let that go through to the keeper and get his reference about parliamentary stuff then. But no; there is no way he is going to have the Senate dragged into play and he launches into one of those seemingly innocuous, well rehearsed, trusted, venomous soliloquies which have caused the 'other side' so much consternation in the past; he's good at it.

He starts off, looking reasonable and caring only for 'justice' to suggest that perhaps young Lawson could 'work around' mentioning the Senate; then 'sulkily' asks why he has to refer to the Senator at all, seems he can't understand that (wonderful theatre); the last part of the routine ends with a loaded question – imagine Hardly posed one hand on chest, the other extended forward, his ala Lincoln pose, and in a performance worthy of Portia cries (paraphrased) "Oh M'lud, what gravamen it has to quote the words of a political figure, can we not dispense with this foul calumny"; pause, sip, big breath, "I have not; not for four and forty years looked at the PP Act; but I am certain that it's very wrong to refer to any parliamentary doings, very naughty indeed". Pause for effect, sits dramatically to the gentle applause noise (some say wind) emanating from Norules.

Well children, young Lawson just smiled quietly and bowled around the wicket, the point had been made and the whole thing fizzled out; neither side dragged out the PP Act and argued the points of law.

Two things were shown, clear and bright through the murk: CASA don't much like not being able to lead a Senate committee around by the foreskin and they remember that one D. Fawcett Esq. kicked seven bells out them on Night Vision and is lining them up for round two on Colour Vision. Not true you howl; well, he nailed Pooh Shambollocks and provided young Lawson some superior ammunition, which was used wisely.

The CVD issue provides such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the current CASA system and makes the case worthy of the time and effort taken to study it. Best of all, Pooh-Shambollocks will not be there for the return bout; and, perhaps Hardly Normal will take the hint that if CASA want to make a case, the 'evidence' must be beyond reasonable doubt, lest the AAT make another legally unsafe ruling. I think the AAT wise owls have tumbled to the fact that CASA can, does and will continue to rely on their name rather than 'facts and circumstances' to win at any cost; Jones being a prime example. Maybe, those days are over. We can only hope.

Toot toot - NEXT !.

[Kharon]

Ahem,

PS> It's a long transcript and, as we still may not use 'it', it's pointless to draw inference, gauge or speculate on the outcome. But I am concerned that some very persuasive argument has been omitted from the CVD construct. It is to be hoped that this will be included in the final submission, for it would be mistake to leave an important stone unturned.

There is no reference made to manufacturers MEL for Cathode Ray (CRT) screens, these made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale. It is significant that insofar as Airbus and Boeing are concerned there are no operating restrictions related to the lack of 'colour'. This stands as direct evidence of how much weight manufacturers and certifying authorities place on the 'luxury' of colour display as opposed to symbols and annunciators.

One other, IMO important omission was the Night Vision (NVG) display, where not only is 'colour' sacrificed to monochrome green, but 'perspective' is diminished.

Both very sound argument against restricting CVD pilots from operating in a (nice to have) coloured world. Creampuff has nailed down the legal argument very nicely but the 'operational' considerations could have been reinforced, beyond the existing 'proof' to make absolutely certain that the dinosaurs remain extinct.

[20driver]

colormax.org

I got an email from a Dr Thomas Azman who runs the above site.
He has a process where he can fit you special lens or contacts and guarantees you will pass the Ishihara test.

Anyone have any experience with this?

[YPJT]

DAMEs and Opthalmologists are aware to look for these lenses

[Arthur Pape]

Re Colormax lenses:
There are many variations of lenses that will "help you pass the Ishihara" but they ARE ALL IRRELEVANT. Passing the Ishihara or any other colour vision test, has no bearing or relevance to whether or not you can fly an (any) aircraft competently and safely. To get drawn into discussing these lenses only reinforces the false theory that colour matters in the task of flying safely. I have tried several such lenses out of curiosity, and they are fun to try but useless in normal daily activities.

[gerry111]

Dr Arthur Pape wrote:


"To get drawn into discussing these lenses only reinforces the false theory that colour matters in the task of flying safely."


IMHO: I completely agree!

[brissypilot]

Kharon:

There is no reference made to manufacturers MEL for Cathode Ray (CRT) screens, these made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale. It is significant that insofar as Airbus and Boeing are concerned there are no operating restrictions related to the lack of 'colour'. This stands as direct evidence of how much weight manufacturers and certifying authorities place on the 'luxury' of colour display as opposed to symbols and annunciators.

Let's not forget that items such as EFIS displays, reaction times and much more were already covered in enormous detail during the Denison v CAA case 25 years ago. A quick refresher:

8. ...We understand that there are a considerable number of other pilots with defective colour vision who have requested the granting of licences which do not contain a condition prohibiting their piloting aircraft at night. For that reason the respondent indicated that it wished to conduct this case as a test case. Mr Rose, therefore, informed the Tribunal that the respondent intended to present its case in a manner which would encompass not only the applicant's situation but also broader issues relating generally to defective colour vision. At the request of the respondent the Attorney-General granted legal aid to the applicant to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by the respondent presenting his case in that manner. The matters which we have to consider in these proceedings have consequently been extended well beyond those which the applicant originally sought to raise, that is to say whether his defective colour vision made it unsafe for him personally to pilot an aircraft at night. The proceedings have taken 28 hearing days. In order to reach conclusions on those matters raised it is necessary for us to address a number of questions. Because of the amount of evidence given we cannot set all of it out in detail; however, we have taken the whole of it into account in making our decision and in expressing conclusions on the various matters raised for our consideration.

Remember, the O'Brien case only had 3 hearing days and essentially picked up where Denison left off. There shouldn't have been any need to re-examine all the issues such as EFIS as these were already found to be a non-issue. No doubt this will be re-emphasised in the written submissions.

59. The respondent arranged for the Tribunal to see the reproduction of the cockpit of a Boeing 767 aircraft in a flight simulator and to have the use of the instruments demonstrated to us in simulated flight by Captain J. R. Rhind. Characteristics of modern aircraft instrumentation were described to us by Mr Chatfield. He showed a number of photographic slides which demonstrated the general lack of colour in the cockpits of older aircraft and the increasing use of colour, and the greater sophistication of that use, in more modern aircraft. He said that, although initially the new instrumentation had been used principally in larger passenger transport aircraft, lighter aircraft were now being equipped with sophisticated Electronic Flight Instrument Systems ("EFIS").

61. The research conducted by Professor Cole and Dr Macdonald was designed to ascertain whether the response time taken by a person with defective colour vision to obtain information from EFIS displays was longer than that taken by persons with normal colour vision. In order to carry out that research they took photographs of part of the EFIS instrumentation in a simulator, namely the Horizontal Situation Indicator ("HSI"); different photographs were taken of the HSI as it was at various stages of a simulated flight

I see that CASA have once again trotted Cole out to give evidence this time despite having his research severely discredited in the Denison case:

64. There is one major reason for querying generally whether the research justified any conclusion being drawn in respect of the task of piloting an aircraft. That is that the subjects were not experienced pilots and were shown still photographs not sequentially related to one another. During the flight of an aircraft the pilot is constantly scanning his instruments; he does not suddenly come upon an instrument displaying certain information. He has been seeing that instrument at frequent intervals for however long the flight has lasted. Consequently, whenever he sees it, he does so in the context of the flight. He knows what has gone before and if, as is usual, the flight is being conducted in accordance with a flight plan, what he can reasonably expect to come next. The greater his experience as a pilot using such instrumentation, the greater will be his understanding of its display and consequently his ability to derive from it in the context of the flight the information which he requires in order to fly the aircraft safely.

65. ...In the course of the hearing we heard a considerable amount of evidence about the colour coding of that instrumentation, about the other ways in which it conveys information and also about aural warnings which accompany instrumentation displays indicating equipment malfunctions which may be serious. We also heard a good deal of evidence about the weather radar part of the EFIS.

74. It was suggested to us that, while we might find that no single difficulty which pilots with defective colour vision might encounter in acquiring information from colour-coded displays would result on its own in a significant risk to the safety of air navigation, the combination of several difficulties experienced together would have that result, as it reduced their ability to take appropriate action sufficiently quickly in a situation of emergency. The delay in acquiring any one piece of information and, therefore, in responding to the situation to which it relates might itself be insignificant. But, if a number of pieces of information had to be acquired and responded to at the same time, the total delay might be significant. Having regard to the nature of emergencies which may arise during the flight of an aircraft, we have come to the conclusion that in practical terms the total delay, if any, will itself be insignificant and that the risk to the safety of air navigation will still not be significant or unacceptable.

The above quotes are just a small snapshot of how extensively the tribunal in Denison considered all these sorts of issues and much more (there are actually 15 paragraphs in the decision which discuss EFIS alone).

No doubt the current tribunal will be carefully reading through Denison in the lead up to making a judgement this time around.

Essentially, the only thing that has changed since then is that we now have 25 years of demonstrated safe flying experience by CVD pilots at all levels of the industry who continue to perform no differently to colour normals. There is also of course the backwards thinking soon to be ex-PMO

[gerry111]

"...when the colour gun fails and the screen goes to monochrome grey scale."


Whoever came up with that, certainly has no understanding of how colour CRT's actually work.

[LeadSled]

Whoever came up with that, certainly has no understanding of how colour CRT's actually work.

Gerry111,
I have a lot of hours on aircraft where that was a regular occurrence, I do not really care how CRTs work, only that the defect (EADI/EHSI going to grayscales) was covered in the MELs.

Does it occure to you that it might be the signal generators in a (early) glass cockpit, that feed the CRT.

The writer of that post also has many hours on a similar type from the same OEM, same problem and same MEL.

Don't be so quick to jump in and tell people they do not know what they are talking about.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Oh dear;

Well, I'll leave it up to you Gerry old chap – pick one from the list below, one as suits you best.

"[these} made for when the colour gun fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale."

Or:

"[these} made for when the colour 'gun' fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale."

Or:

"[these} made for when the colour fails and the screens go to monochrome grey scale."

Not that it would have any relevance to the CVD issue, but it may amuse the odd pedant or two; those with a penchant for semantics.

Fire away -

[gerry111]

LeadSled wrote:


"Don't be so quick to jump in and tell people that they do not know what they are talking about."


I'd only ever do that LeadSled, if I had a pretty good reason to do so.


Gentlemen, no offence was meant! Surely, you all do realise that I'm a firm supporter of Dr Arthur Pape and the whole issue regarding CVD?


But as Clinton McKenzie (thankfully) notes, Colour Cathode Ray Tubes are something with which I've had a fair bit of professional experience over a rather long period of time. That's 39 years.


So LeadSled and Kharon, I wasn't picking a fight with you nor any others. I simply believe that in order to have a credible argument, facts are rather important.


I'm quite happy to explain to you all the technical theory about colour CRT's. But I can absolutely promise you one thing. If your colour CRT suddenly goes to monochrome, the fault is definitely NOT THE CRT!


A colour CRT has three colour guns. Red Green and Blue.


Good fault finding, LeadSled! The problem would sure be within the electronics driving the colour CRT.


But as previously mentioned, this is irrelevant to where we are at.

[Fueldrum]

what is a CRT?

A CRT is a cathode ray tube. These were the first coloured screens used in glass cockpits. Most glass cockpits nowadays use LCD displays but the principle is the same.

I would draw attention to this fact; if an aeroplane's instruments cannot be safely interpreted by a pilot whose colour vision just meets current standards, then that aircraft is unairworthy.

The pilots who won the second world war, won it on black and white instruments.

[cockney steve]

The pilots who won the second world war, won it on black and white instruments.

But they didn't have a load of lawyers and beaurocrats to keep a gravy-train rolling for.

Agree, re-" colour gun" Use a crap, ill-founded term and you destroy your argument and your credibility.

The issue is, "if colour-generation fails, the display becomes greyscale."

(which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.)
OTOH, CASA seemed to have blundered into another farce,with Jabiru.

They really know how to turn the searchlight on their owni ncompetence!

[F.Nose]

CVD people do not see everything in grey scale.

[LeadSled]

CVD people do not see everything in grey scale.

F.Nose,
I was not implying they do, the point was that the Type Certificate holders of the aircraft, and the FAA do not regard the colour EFIS of such importance that loss of colour should restrict the operation of the aircraft.
Hence, it cannot be said that standard colour vision is required to operate the aircraft "safely", whatever "safely" means.
More accurately, loss of colour (or non-standard colour perception) does not materially inject any additional risk into the operation of the aircraft.

Gerry 111,
As a matter of fact, the CRTs referred to were, in domestic use, called Sony Trinitron tubes. Our tecs. reckoned that the very expensive Approved Replacement Parts differed from the commercially available tubes only in having a part number and a serial number on a sticker on the tube, plus associated 8130.3 or equivalent paperwork.

Tootle pip!!


PS 1:

re-" colour gun" Use a crap, ill-founded term and you destroy your argument and your credibility.

C.Steve,
Absolute rubbish.

which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.

Absolute rubbish, I guess that destroys your argument and your credibility.

PS2:

Many moons ago, BOAC ( predecessor to BA) bought some second hand B707-320, that were fitted with Collins FD-108 FDS. Said instruments had pretty colours, like the blue of the sky and the brown of the land, and sundry red warning flags, each of which also said what the flag was, in black. BOAC pulled all these instruments out, and replaced them with "proper" black and white Smiths equivalents.

[F.Nose]

I understand your point LeadSled and totally agree. Most operators also have exemptions to operate into aerodromes with unserviceable slope guidance so the same argument could be applied to the influence of CVD on PAPI.

My comment however was in relation to that of cockney steve's.

The issue is, "if colour-generation fails, the display becomes greyscale."

(which, apparently,is exactly what CVD people see, anyway.)

We don't need to create wrong impressions here.