Thanks Bill
Fixed!

If you pass one of the other tests what happens on renewal?

My guess is either you sit the CAD or accept the restrictions. That's a guess of course but we all know there are CVD pilots out there who had the restrictions lifted on tests that are no longer offered. The only other option is to get the cash together and run a class action in the federal court of course.

I would say they'll offer the CAD instead of the Farnsworth as well.

So you have to pass cad or farnsworth every year? sounds stupid considering cvd is or should be acknowledged that cvd does not change, it's not like your cones grow back. :p

Logansi
No I don't think thats where this is going, although there are other countries that do ishihara plates annually, but if they are getting everyone to do the ishihara plates there must be a reason for that.

The groups of CVD guys we have;
1. Guys who passed the plates years ago who for whatever reason can't pass them now, there could be a medical reason for this (rare) or perhaps they were just good mates with their doc.

2. The people who passed the PAPI simulation (no longer available) or, the TWR light gun test (i believe thats no longer available also).

3. The guys with restricted medicals who don't pass anything. I understand this group is around 400 pilots.

Add these three groups together (one big melting pot) and we get a bunch of guys who's CVD is not quantified by any minimum standard, and CASA like standards.

I think CASA may want to know exactly what their up against in terms of the numbers that are out there. With the new medical system its easy for them to run everyone through the Ishihara plates for their next renewal only, after that its back to normal. I think they will want to control who gets a medical based on standards.

The science around CVD and aviation supports the CVD pilots, but having no minimum standard fly's in the face of everything that CASA stands for and in fact everything that happens in aviation. I think that is the CVD pilots biggest issue in the coming years. One thing is for sure, this isn't going away anytime soon and I think its going to heat up before it cools down. I think CASA want this simplified probably into either the CAD only or plates followed by CAD. I think the Farnsworth's days are numbered.

"but having no minimum standard fly's in the face of everything that CASA stands for".

Exactly what do CAsA stand for???....other than the personal interests of a few bureaucrats.

NZ CAA started a move to mandatory retesting 10 years ago. They are still pursuing this.
Very hard to find answers on their website. I did submit to the original notice.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/medical/gd_colour_vision.pdf

Ralph

Didn't the head medical guy at CASA work at NZCAA about 10 years ago?

Might be a common link.

CASA / NZ CAA CVD link?
 

There might be indeed...

Dr Drane (current CASA PMO) & Dr Navathe (ex CASA PMO who introduced the 2014 CVD changes) both previously worked at the NZ CAA under the supervision of Dr Watson who still remains the current NZ CAA PMO.

See page 6:

CAA News July / August 04 - Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

In Dr Navathe's email to CASA DAME's explaining the 2014 changes, he refers to his old buddy's research:

"In the expectation you will be approached by pilot-patients with questions about this matter, I thought it would be useful to provide you with some information that can illuminate the issues and facilitate your discussions. Dougal Watson, Principal Medical Officer of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, has recently published an article in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine about the differences in medical certification with respect to colour vision deficiency worldwide."

The Watson CVD paper referred above has also been presented at several AvMed conferences and highlights some concerning behaviour and attitudes for somebody in that position of authority. :=

Concern for PMO Bias

It's ironic that under the rule of Watson, Navathe and Drane, both NZ and Australia now have the most severe CVD restrictions seen in our two countries in many decades.

Folks,
What is ironic about it?
Entirely predictable, a Messiah and his Disciples??
Tootle pip!!

I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find Pooshans credentials weren't all that they appeared.

Bill Smith,
Which particular ones, it was such a long list, you could have almost put it to music.
Tootle pip!!

Better late than never
 

Hi hope you read this..

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


Tread your own path..

Yes day IFR like I got issued in 1987 Class three day rating only
Not to fly at night must carry radio in control zone as fails iCal standards.
Or something akin to that.
Unless you get restriction lifted like I did in past and flew happy career of some thousands of hours day and night.
Soon to be restricted again I guess as I have not done an online medical renwal yet having just missed the start up date.
And they will shove that book in front again, and if lantern test is nil and void I will be right back where I started in 1986 day VFR with no night rating but thousands IFR hours, go figure. And good luck, get a lawyer...

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

A mate of mine had a good one on one conversation with Dr Liddell at a safety seminar back in about 1996 or 97 where he advised that his restriction to day pvt VFR would now be lifted. As he recalls at the time, the Dr said something like the main reason they were restricting colour defective pilots from gaining ATPL was the concern of becoming visual close to the MDA / DA and having to transition straight onto the PAPIs.
The pilot has no trouble picking up the PAPIs at 5NM by day or night and has even done so with an FOI on board who was unaware of his condition.

When transition from IMC to VMC at the the minimum, how many pilots look to the PAPI/VASIS for approach slope guidance?
In the case of at least one applicant this was pushed by the then PMO, and later successfully argued that it was not an issue at the MNM, as the established stabilised profile would be continued to the runway.

G'day Cogwheel, I guess they had to come up with something to keep the CFDs in their place and that was the best they could do.

Well in a single l don't , I look for runway markings or flare path. I mentioned the papi because it surprised me how they are not as good as the old twin Vasi,, and only four lights on hls not 32 across the bar, dramatic reduction in visual slope assistance from way out at ten miles on a straight in approach.

No doubt the old AT-VASIS were a much better system from a pilots perspective. A real bugger for the airports though. 10 concrete pads for each side at each end, 3 lights in each etc etc. The PAPIs are a much simpler system and if maintained and operating properly do a pretty good job. Some I've flown have been absolute ****e because they are full of dirt on the reflectors, lenses or have pitted lenses that have been sand blasted or lights not operating at correct intensity due to faulty cables or individual transformers.

Common Sense prevailing??
 

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

"There is no strong link between the office-based examination of CVD and real world realities. Under the proposed GD, the assessment of interferes with or likely to interfere with is ascertained from office-based assessments only. This assessment cannot be made from office-based tests only and can only be determined by an in-flight practical test. While both aviation medicine and flight operations specialists will need to be involved in the development of protocols for in-flight testing, only a flight examiner or flight instructor will be in a position to assess the ability of a pilot with a CVD condition to operate an aircraft safely. Thus the effect that a CVD condition will have on the ability of a pilot to safely exercise the privileges of a licence is a flight operations issue, not a medical issue."

Good news - however the report is just one part of the regulatory process:

The Recommendation at paras 134 and 135 seem quite reasonable (note that the CAD test remains, but with a further option, the flight test.)

Let's wait to see what the NZCAA PMO says about the report, before there's too much rejoicing. As we know, this is by no means the first independent panel to reach these kinds of conclusions, based on an objective assessment of the evidence and risks.

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

To me, the most appalling aspect of Mr Watson's presentation is not the intellectual dishonesty. Those who make their living out of mining the rich vein of busy work generated by leveraging the fear that can be created by the mystique of aviation are rarely troubled by an objective analysis of the evidence and the objective and comparative risks.

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

To me, the most appalling aspect is that the content is just plain infantile. It looks to me like a teenage high school boy's attempt to be 'funny'. And the author is, apparently, in a position in which he makes decisions that affect, profoundly, the lives of adult citizens. That's what appals me most.

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for any help.

Regards:)

The medical term for your condition is: You're stuffed.

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

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

Ummm.

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

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

Thanks.

I suggest you read the title of this thread then contact the CVDPA.

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

I'm a little suspicious of recent blow-ins who claim to know about the regulatory treatment of CVD but no knowledge of recent regulatory developments.

Men in Black: Why would ihavealotofquestions have been "asked to do the Ishihara test" if "pass[ing] the light gun test" was sufficient to meet the Class 1 standard?

The Ishihara test is now just part of the new online medical debacle! All renewals now require this for whatever reason.
As Ihavelotsofquestions holds an unrestricted ATPL and passed the 3rd stage testing he or she is not required to do further testing. He or she demonstrated the required standard required at that period for the ATPL.

Ihavelotsofquestions, please let us know when you receive your renewal.

I am well aware of the recent changes and discrimination placed on new applicants for class one medicals.

M.I.B

CASA want to have your Ishihara Score in the new system. If you have had your restrictions lifted they will remain so

Gosh.

So CASA has quietly retreated from culling existing Class 1 holders with CVD, and is now just picking off the new applicants?

No announcement from the CVDPA that CASA is not going to impose any conditions on existing Class 1 holders with CVD?

I'm not buying it.

What version of the Ishihara plates are they using?

SN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6QuYiY1EJg

Glasses that fix 80% of CVD people.

Are they are acceptable to CASA.

nomorecatering
No, unfortunately not. Lenses that correct a colour defect for red/ greed modify the perception for other colours. Thats the excuse and they're sticking to it. Having said that the argument doesn't stack up really when you consider that the wearing of corrective lenses for distance or reading comes at the expense of near vision or peripheral vision.

After nearly 30 years of flying I haven't once had reason to work out which way an aircraft is heading by reference to its wing lights. Its all about the PAPI, if there was no such beast we would be further down the track. It would be an interesting stat to find out how many PAPI related incidents have occurred worldwide and break them down into two groups, "colour normals" Vs "colour defectives".

We know the outcome of course they would say there are no colour defectives so therefore no colour defective stats. What we really need is funding for research into what that stat would look like if there were the same amount of colour defectives. At the end of the day it looks like the employers are taking the initiative of culling out the defectives and as such the future "difficult to see it is"!

SN

I did my class 1 renewal two weeks back and had four fails with the colour charts....

I still have a copy of my Farnsworth Lantern test from 25 years ago which I forwarded to CASA with my online renewal.

CASA issued class 1 renewal a week later with no restrictions!

Do I now have to complete the Ishihara tests with every renewal in the future??

That explains a lot.

The recent return to the dark ages by AVMED impacts on the people who fails both the Ishihara and Farnsworth Lantern tests.

But you're OK, Aileron Roll, so whatever you do, don't join or donate to the CVDPA or agitate for AVMED reform. AVMED will never come after you to confirm that your 25 year old FL test is valid.