Colour Blindness (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fail your class 1 due to not being colour safe can you retake the test in the same country? If you pass and are issued with an unrestricted class 1, how often do you then have to take the colour tests?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fail your class 1 due to not being colour safe can you retake the test in the same country? If you pass and are issued with an unrestricted class 1, how often do you then have to take the colour tests?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you get to take the lantern tests in the UK only once. If you fail it then the CAA won't retest you without a very good reason, and evidence to back it up (for example, passing the test in the RAF)
I'm afraid I don't know how often you have to retake the tests, techincally the extended eye exam should include it but I am unsure if this includes lantern tests. You will need to check with the CAA.
I'm afraid I don't know how often you have to retake the tests, techincally the extended eye exam should include it but I am unsure if this includes lantern tests. You will need to check with the CAA.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you get to take the lantern tests in the UK only once. If you fail it then the CAA won't retest you without a very good reason, and evidence to back it up (for example, passing the test in the RAF)
I'm afraid I don't know how often you have to retake the tests, techincally the extended eye exam should include it but I am unsure if this includes lantern tests. You will need to check with the CAA.
I'm afraid I don't know how often you have to retake the tests, techincally the extended eye exam should include it but I am unsure if this includes lantern tests. You will need to check with the CAA.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If another JAA approved state issued a Class 1 you can convert it to a UK class 1 without any further examinations. Would the CAA accept this if you had already failed the lantern test?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If another JAA approved state issued a Class 1 you can convert it to a UK class 1 without any further examinations. Would the CAA accept this if you had already failed the lantern test?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes if you can get a JAA class 1 then the CAA will accept it, no matter what you have done with them, to my knowledge anyway. Its best to talk to them so as you can discuss your own situation.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes if you can get a JAA class 1 then the CAA will accept it, no matter what you have done with them, to my knowledge anyway. Its best to talk to them so as you can discuss your own situation.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread continues to provide a point of debate. In recent weeks I have taken legal advice that has proved to be very interesting and am considering my options.
The advice offered by Lawmaker on this thread has proved to be more than correct ( thanks Lawmaker) and the rules governing colour vision and flying in the UK are ripe for Judicial Review.
I expect to make a number of key decisions in the next few weeks considering my next steps and will let you all know how things go.
If you haven't signed up then drop me an email at
[email protected]
and I'll let you know what I plan.
G
The advice offered by Lawmaker on this thread has proved to be more than correct ( thanks Lawmaker) and the rules governing colour vision and flying in the UK are ripe for Judicial Review.
I expect to make a number of key decisions in the next few weeks considering my next steps and will let you all know how things go.
If you haven't signed up then drop me an email at
[email protected]
and I'll let you know what I plan.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread continues to provide a point of debate. In recent weeks I have taken legal advice that has proved to be very interesting and am considering my options.
The advice offered by Lawmaker on this thread has proved to be more than correct ( thanks Lawmaker) and the rules governing colour vision and flying in the UK are ripe for Judicial Review.
I expect to make a number of key decisions in the next few weeks considering my next steps and will let you all know how things go.
If you haven't signed up then drop me an email at
[email protected]
and I'll let you know what I plan.
G
The advice offered by Lawmaker on this thread has proved to be more than correct ( thanks Lawmaker) and the rules governing colour vision and flying in the UK are ripe for Judicial Review.
I expect to make a number of key decisions in the next few weeks considering my next steps and will let you all know how things go.
If you haven't signed up then drop me an email at
[email protected]
and I'll let you know what I plan.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I applied to UAS with the hopes of becoming an RAF pilot, but colour vision screwed me over. I don't necessarily hold too much against the RAF for wanting perfect pilots, but I hold everything against optometrists.
For starters, the book was held right up against my face so that I could barely focus on it. I read in a honkin' great big optometry book that on the 38 plate version of the Ishihara, up to seven errors is considered normal. I was barely shown seven plates, let alone got seven wrong. In fact, there was only two I got wrong. I know this because I did some research afterwards. Now, I'll note that the source for the test procedure in the textbook was American and so they probably have different standards. But to that, I say WTF?
How can the world's medical community disagree as to what constitutes colour normal? How can we have credibility in them if this debacle occurs? It's amazing how optometrists love to dwell on the plates you can't do while giving very little attention to the plates you get right. And their tone! They give the same disapproving "okay" for every answer, despite the ones you get right. I wanted to say, "Do you people practice being awkward? Is it so hard just to say yes or no to the answer I give?"
To be fair to the optometrist at OASC, at least he gave me second chance at doing it under a lamp, supposedly to simulate daylight conditions, although I don't reallly know how accurate a simulation sticking it right under a desk lamp really is. It's one step above the AME that did my JAR Class II.
Then came the lantern test (HW I presume). The first few were easy; red and green unquestionably, although of course I wouldn't know even if I did get it wrong because they don't tell you anything. But then came a pair or two that looked different. There was this orangy-yellow light that featured. The thing is that in the demonstration pairs, while red was normally red, in one of them, red was more of a light orange, and so I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't say anything because I presume that he would attribute my confusion to my defect. Either way, I failed that too.
I might remind you that of the small number of plates he showed me, I only got two wrong. Wasn't he the least bit doubtful when, despite getting a number of plates right, I would get be CP4?
Later on, the head medical guy gave me the final statement. He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
That's exhaust fumes if I'd ever heard it. First, the red light is above green light defence of medical guys doesn't work at night, when from a distance, you can't see the traffic light assembly. Second, I know clearly the difference between red and green traffic lights and on the train of shame home that night, as it was firework season, we passed by a firework show and I knew clearly which fireworks were green and which were red, not to mention all the other pretty colours.
Third, there is an environment I encounter in my motoring that has greater similarities. I call it the M40 at night, the motorway that dominates most of my journey from my home in London to university in Birmingham. Through large stretches of it, there are no street lamps. The only source of illumination is the headlights of other cars and the marking on the road are signalled by the use of coloured reflectors. These reflectors have been trampled underfoot of a stampede of bad drivers that can't hold lane (including me sometimes). They are rained upon, soiled upon, they are left with tire marks all over them. They are outshined by the lights in my mirror, from the traffic going the other way, and from the glare on my absolutely filthy windscreen. Clearly, for colour recognition, these aren't ideal conditions. Yet, I know exactly where the hard shoulder is. I know exactly where the central reservation is. I know exactly when a sliproad approaches. I know all this just from looking at the reflectors.
I guess real life doesn't factor into the optometrists' testing parameters.
Being rated CP4 seemed unnatural to me since the only problem I'd ever had distinguishing between colours has been on those bloody colour vision tests.
Anyway, I've booked a lantern test at Gatwick in a short while, to see if, by some longshot, I can do better with the CAA. Any advice on what subversions to beware?
On my OASC medical form thing, I was declared permanently unfit for almost everything. However, in the temporarily unfit category, there was this entry. It said "Eng" and it was followed by something (the handwriting is terrible, the guy's a doctor alright) that I optimistically interpret as "need waver". And to add to that, in the book listing all the branches, through the Engineer branch tick box, there was the unfit line but with a 'w' over the top. Either way, Eng was certainly in the temporarily unfit category. I might investigate this further.
I've noticed that a lot of people here don't take the judgement of the optometry community well. And I understand the reason why. We all recognise that colour vision is important for a pilot, but what we don't recognise, is the judgement of the optometrists about how much colour vision.
Let me state it plainly. The issue is not how one person's colour vision compares to another. The issue is whether or not an individual's colour vision is sufficient to allow them fly safely.
Optometrists don't seem to understand this. They construct tests that are as nitpicky as possible and use it to conclude that our colour vision is inferior. That may be, but does that mean we are unsafe? They can't make an informed judgement about what is sufficient because they can't understand what we really see. You are unlikely to find many colour defective optometrists.
Consider! Visual acuity is judged with pinpoint precision (forgive the pun). They have all this numbers to categorise every facet of your eyeball. They have decimal points and negative signs. A whole host of quantification. Now, how to they judge colour vision? Colour normal, colour defective safe, colour defective unsafe. That's what passes for "quantitative" measurement of colour vision.
The reason is simple. Visual acuity is an issue of optics. It's all about focal lengths and other such detailed stuff. They can measure these things very precisely and form all these mathematical descriptions of it, and construct these accurate models of the eye.
But colour vision is an entirely different ball of wax. The only thing they have to go on is what we tell them we can and cannot see. They see the glyph on the Ishihara plate and conclude that because we can't, we must have a serious problem. I've never seen through the eyes of a colour normal and so chances are, what I think is fairly colourful would just look psychedelic through their eyes, but the point is that I know better than they do whether or not I can identify the lights on an airfield.
To be blunt, they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be inaccurately describing me as a monochrome. And if they did, there wouldn't be this huge inconsistency across the international community about what constitutes different levels of colour vision.
As I've said, in the case of the RAF, I don't hold too much against them for wanting perfect pilots, but I think that all the horror stories I've been hearing on this thread show that the optometry community had better pull itself together, recognise their own "deficiency" and stop unfairly condemning so many of us on based on guesses.
For starters, the book was held right up against my face so that I could barely focus on it. I read in a honkin' great big optometry book that on the 38 plate version of the Ishihara, up to seven errors is considered normal. I was barely shown seven plates, let alone got seven wrong. In fact, there was only two I got wrong. I know this because I did some research afterwards. Now, I'll note that the source for the test procedure in the textbook was American and so they probably have different standards. But to that, I say WTF?
How can the world's medical community disagree as to what constitutes colour normal? How can we have credibility in them if this debacle occurs? It's amazing how optometrists love to dwell on the plates you can't do while giving very little attention to the plates you get right. And their tone! They give the same disapproving "okay" for every answer, despite the ones you get right. I wanted to say, "Do you people practice being awkward? Is it so hard just to say yes or no to the answer I give?"
To be fair to the optometrist at OASC, at least he gave me second chance at doing it under a lamp, supposedly to simulate daylight conditions, although I don't reallly know how accurate a simulation sticking it right under a desk lamp really is. It's one step above the AME that did my JAR Class II.
Then came the lantern test (HW I presume). The first few were easy; red and green unquestionably, although of course I wouldn't know even if I did get it wrong because they don't tell you anything. But then came a pair or two that looked different. There was this orangy-yellow light that featured. The thing is that in the demonstration pairs, while red was normally red, in one of them, red was more of a light orange, and so I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't say anything because I presume that he would attribute my confusion to my defect. Either way, I failed that too.
I might remind you that of the small number of plates he showed me, I only got two wrong. Wasn't he the least bit doubtful when, despite getting a number of plates right, I would get be CP4?
Later on, the head medical guy gave me the final statement. He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
That's exhaust fumes if I'd ever heard it. First, the red light is above green light defence of medical guys doesn't work at night, when from a distance, you can't see the traffic light assembly. Second, I know clearly the difference between red and green traffic lights and on the train of shame home that night, as it was firework season, we passed by a firework show and I knew clearly which fireworks were green and which were red, not to mention all the other pretty colours.
Third, there is an environment I encounter in my motoring that has greater similarities. I call it the M40 at night, the motorway that dominates most of my journey from my home in London to university in Birmingham. Through large stretches of it, there are no street lamps. The only source of illumination is the headlights of other cars and the marking on the road are signalled by the use of coloured reflectors. These reflectors have been trampled underfoot of a stampede of bad drivers that can't hold lane (including me sometimes). They are rained upon, soiled upon, they are left with tire marks all over them. They are outshined by the lights in my mirror, from the traffic going the other way, and from the glare on my absolutely filthy windscreen. Clearly, for colour recognition, these aren't ideal conditions. Yet, I know exactly where the hard shoulder is. I know exactly where the central reservation is. I know exactly when a sliproad approaches. I know all this just from looking at the reflectors.
I guess real life doesn't factor into the optometrists' testing parameters.
Being rated CP4 seemed unnatural to me since the only problem I'd ever had distinguishing between colours has been on those bloody colour vision tests.
Anyway, I've booked a lantern test at Gatwick in a short while, to see if, by some longshot, I can do better with the CAA. Any advice on what subversions to beware?
On my OASC medical form thing, I was declared permanently unfit for almost everything. However, in the temporarily unfit category, there was this entry. It said "Eng" and it was followed by something (the handwriting is terrible, the guy's a doctor alright) that I optimistically interpret as "need waver". And to add to that, in the book listing all the branches, through the Engineer branch tick box, there was the unfit line but with a 'w' over the top. Either way, Eng was certainly in the temporarily unfit category. I might investigate this further.
I've noticed that a lot of people here don't take the judgement of the optometry community well. And I understand the reason why. We all recognise that colour vision is important for a pilot, but what we don't recognise, is the judgement of the optometrists about how much colour vision.
Let me state it plainly. The issue is not how one person's colour vision compares to another. The issue is whether or not an individual's colour vision is sufficient to allow them fly safely.
Optometrists don't seem to understand this. They construct tests that are as nitpicky as possible and use it to conclude that our colour vision is inferior. That may be, but does that mean we are unsafe? They can't make an informed judgement about what is sufficient because they can't understand what we really see. You are unlikely to find many colour defective optometrists.
Consider! Visual acuity is judged with pinpoint precision (forgive the pun). They have all this numbers to categorise every facet of your eyeball. They have decimal points and negative signs. A whole host of quantification. Now, how to they judge colour vision? Colour normal, colour defective safe, colour defective unsafe. That's what passes for "quantitative" measurement of colour vision.
The reason is simple. Visual acuity is an issue of optics. It's all about focal lengths and other such detailed stuff. They can measure these things very precisely and form all these mathematical descriptions of it, and construct these accurate models of the eye.
But colour vision is an entirely different ball of wax. The only thing they have to go on is what we tell them we can and cannot see. They see the glyph on the Ishihara plate and conclude that because we can't, we must have a serious problem. I've never seen through the eyes of a colour normal and so chances are, what I think is fairly colourful would just look psychedelic through their eyes, but the point is that I know better than they do whether or not I can identify the lights on an airfield.
To be blunt, they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be inaccurately describing me as a monochrome. And if they did, there wouldn't be this huge inconsistency across the international community about what constitutes different levels of colour vision.
As I've said, in the case of the RAF, I don't hold too much against them for wanting perfect pilots, but I think that all the horror stories I've been hearing on this thread show that the optometry community had better pull itself together, recognise their own "deficiency" and stop unfairly condemning so many of us on based on guesses.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I applied to UAS with the hopes of becoming an RAF pilot, but colour vision screwed me over. I don't necessarily hold too much against the RAF for wanting perfect pilots, but I hold everything against optometrists.
For starters, the book was held right up against my face so that I could barely focus on it. I read in a honkin' great big optometry book that on the 38 plate version of the Ishihara, up to seven errors is considered normal. I was barely shown seven plates, let alone got seven wrong. In fact, there was only two I got wrong. I know this because I did some research afterwards. Now, I'll note that the source for the test procedure in the textbook was American and so they probably have different standards. But to that, I say WTF?
How can the world's medical community disagree as to what constitutes colour normal? How can we have credibility in them if this debacle occurs? It's amazing how optometrists love to dwell on the plates you can't do while giving very little attention to the plates you get right. And their tone! They give the same disapproving "okay" for every answer, despite the ones you get right. I wanted to say, "Do you people practice being awkward? Is it so hard just to say yes or no to the answer I give?"
To be fair to the optometrist at OASC, at least he gave me second chance at doing it under a lamp, supposedly to simulate daylight conditions, although I don't reallly know how accurate a simulation sticking it right under a desk lamp really is. It's one step above the AME that did my JAR Class II.
Then came the lantern test (HW I presume). The first few were easy; red and green unquestionably, although of course I wouldn't know even if I did get it wrong because they don't tell you anything. But then came a pair or two that looked different. There was this orangy-yellow light that featured. The thing is that in the demonstration pairs, while red was normally red, in one of them, red was more of a light orange, and so I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't say anything because I presume that he would attribute my confusion to my defect. Either way, I failed that too.
I might remind you that of the small number of plates he showed me, I only got two wrong. Wasn't he the least bit doubtful when, despite getting a number of plates right, I would get be CP4?
Later on, the head medical guy gave me the final statement. He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
That's exhaust fumes if I'd ever heard it. First, the red light is above green light defence of medical guys doesn't work at night, when from a distance, you can't see the traffic light assembly. Second, I know clearly the difference between red and green traffic lights and on the train of shame home that night, as it was firework season, we passed by a firework show and I knew clearly which fireworks were green and which were red, not to mention all the other pretty colours.
Third, there is an environment I encounter in my motoring that has greater similarities. I call it the M40 at night, the motorway that dominates most of my journey from my home in London to university in Birmingham. Through large stretches of it, there are no street lamps. The only source of illumination is the headlights of other cars and the marking on the road are signalled by the use of coloured reflectors. These reflectors have been trampled underfoot of a stampede of bad drivers that can't hold lane (including me sometimes). They are rained upon, soiled upon, they are left with tire marks all over them. They are outshined by the lights in my mirror, from the traffic going the other way, and from the glare on my absolutely filthy windscreen. Clearly, for colour recognition, these aren't ideal conditions. Yet, I know exactly where the hard shoulder is. I know exactly where the central reservation is. I know exactly when a sliproad approaches. I know all this just from looking at the reflectors.
I guess real life doesn't factor into the optometrists' testing parameters.
Being rated CP4 seemed unnatural to me since the only problem I'd ever had distinguishing between colours has been on those bloody colour vision tests.
Anyway, I've booked a lantern test at Gatwick in a short while, to see if, by some longshot, I can do better with the CAA. Any advice on what subversions to beware?
On my OASC medical form thing, I was declared permanently unfit for almost everything. However, in the temporarily unfit category, there was this entry. It said "Eng" and it was followed by something (the handwriting is terrible, the guy's a doctor alright) that I optimistically interpret as "need waver". And to add to that, in the book listing all the branches, through the Engineer branch tick box, there was the unfit line but with a 'w' over the top. Either way, Eng was certainly in the temporarily unfit category. I might investigate this further.
I've noticed that a lot of people here don't take the judgement of the optometry community well. And I understand the reason why. We all recognise that colour vision is important for a pilot, but what we don't recognise, is the judgement of the optometrists about how much colour vision.
Let me state it plainly. The issue is not how one person's colour vision compares to another. The issue is whether or not an individual's colour vision is sufficient to allow them fly safely.
Optometrists don't seem to understand this. They construct tests that are as nitpicky as possible and use it to conclude that our colour vision is inferior. That may be, but does that mean we are unsafe? They can't make an informed judgement about what is sufficient because they can't understand what we really see. You are unlikely to find many colour defective optometrists.
Consider! Visual acuity is judged with pinpoint precision (forgive the pun). They have all this numbers to categorise every facet of your eyeball. They have decimal points and negative signs. A whole host of quantification. Now, how to they judge colour vision? Colour normal, colour defective safe, colour defective unsafe. That's what passes for "quantitative" measurement of colour vision.
The reason is simple. Visual acuity is an issue of optics. It's all about focal lengths and other such detailed stuff. They can measure these things very precisely and form all these mathematical descriptions of it, and construct these accurate models of the eye.
But colour vision is an entirely different ball of wax. The only thing they have to go on is what we tell them we can and cannot see. They see the glyph on the Ishihara plate and conclude that because we can't, we must have a serious problem. I've never seen through the eyes of a colour normal and so chances are, what I think is fairly colourful would just look psychedelic through their eyes, but the point is that I know better than they do whether or not I can identify the lights on an airfield.
To be blunt, they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be inaccurately describing me as a monochrome. And if they did, there wouldn't be this huge inconsistency across the international community about what constitutes different levels of colour vision.
As I've said, in the case of the RAF, I don't hold too much against them for wanting perfect pilots, but I think that all the horror stories I've been hearing on this thread show that the optometry community had better pull itself together, recognise their own "deficiency" and stop unfairly condemning so many of us on based on guesses.
For starters, the book was held right up against my face so that I could barely focus on it. I read in a honkin' great big optometry book that on the 38 plate version of the Ishihara, up to seven errors is considered normal. I was barely shown seven plates, let alone got seven wrong. In fact, there was only two I got wrong. I know this because I did some research afterwards. Now, I'll note that the source for the test procedure in the textbook was American and so they probably have different standards. But to that, I say WTF?
How can the world's medical community disagree as to what constitutes colour normal? How can we have credibility in them if this debacle occurs? It's amazing how optometrists love to dwell on the plates you can't do while giving very little attention to the plates you get right. And their tone! They give the same disapproving "okay" for every answer, despite the ones you get right. I wanted to say, "Do you people practice being awkward? Is it so hard just to say yes or no to the answer I give?"
To be fair to the optometrist at OASC, at least he gave me second chance at doing it under a lamp, supposedly to simulate daylight conditions, although I don't reallly know how accurate a simulation sticking it right under a desk lamp really is. It's one step above the AME that did my JAR Class II.
Then came the lantern test (HW I presume). The first few were easy; red and green unquestionably, although of course I wouldn't know even if I did get it wrong because they don't tell you anything. But then came a pair or two that looked different. There was this orangy-yellow light that featured. The thing is that in the demonstration pairs, while red was normally red, in one of them, red was more of a light orange, and so I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't say anything because I presume that he would attribute my confusion to my defect. Either way, I failed that too.
I might remind you that of the small number of plates he showed me, I only got two wrong. Wasn't he the least bit doubtful when, despite getting a number of plates right, I would get be CP4?
Later on, the head medical guy gave me the final statement. He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
That's exhaust fumes if I'd ever heard it. First, the red light is above green light defence of medical guys doesn't work at night, when from a distance, you can't see the traffic light assembly. Second, I know clearly the difference between red and green traffic lights and on the train of shame home that night, as it was firework season, we passed by a firework show and I knew clearly which fireworks were green and which were red, not to mention all the other pretty colours.
Third, there is an environment I encounter in my motoring that has greater similarities. I call it the M40 at night, the motorway that dominates most of my journey from my home in London to university in Birmingham. Through large stretches of it, there are no street lamps. The only source of illumination is the headlights of other cars and the marking on the road are signalled by the use of coloured reflectors. These reflectors have been trampled underfoot of a stampede of bad drivers that can't hold lane (including me sometimes). They are rained upon, soiled upon, they are left with tire marks all over them. They are outshined by the lights in my mirror, from the traffic going the other way, and from the glare on my absolutely filthy windscreen. Clearly, for colour recognition, these aren't ideal conditions. Yet, I know exactly where the hard shoulder is. I know exactly where the central reservation is. I know exactly when a sliproad approaches. I know all this just from looking at the reflectors.
I guess real life doesn't factor into the optometrists' testing parameters.
Being rated CP4 seemed unnatural to me since the only problem I'd ever had distinguishing between colours has been on those bloody colour vision tests.
Anyway, I've booked a lantern test at Gatwick in a short while, to see if, by some longshot, I can do better with the CAA. Any advice on what subversions to beware?
On my OASC medical form thing, I was declared permanently unfit for almost everything. However, in the temporarily unfit category, there was this entry. It said "Eng" and it was followed by something (the handwriting is terrible, the guy's a doctor alright) that I optimistically interpret as "need waver". And to add to that, in the book listing all the branches, through the Engineer branch tick box, there was the unfit line but with a 'w' over the top. Either way, Eng was certainly in the temporarily unfit category. I might investigate this further.
I've noticed that a lot of people here don't take the judgement of the optometry community well. And I understand the reason why. We all recognise that colour vision is important for a pilot, but what we don't recognise, is the judgement of the optometrists about how much colour vision.
Let me state it plainly. The issue is not how one person's colour vision compares to another. The issue is whether or not an individual's colour vision is sufficient to allow them fly safely.
Optometrists don't seem to understand this. They construct tests that are as nitpicky as possible and use it to conclude that our colour vision is inferior. That may be, but does that mean we are unsafe? They can't make an informed judgement about what is sufficient because they can't understand what we really see. You are unlikely to find many colour defective optometrists.
Consider! Visual acuity is judged with pinpoint precision (forgive the pun). They have all this numbers to categorise every facet of your eyeball. They have decimal points and negative signs. A whole host of quantification. Now, how to they judge colour vision? Colour normal, colour defective safe, colour defective unsafe. That's what passes for "quantitative" measurement of colour vision.
The reason is simple. Visual acuity is an issue of optics. It's all about focal lengths and other such detailed stuff. They can measure these things very precisely and form all these mathematical descriptions of it, and construct these accurate models of the eye.
But colour vision is an entirely different ball of wax. The only thing they have to go on is what we tell them we can and cannot see. They see the glyph on the Ishihara plate and conclude that because we can't, we must have a serious problem. I've never seen through the eyes of a colour normal and so chances are, what I think is fairly colourful would just look psychedelic through their eyes, but the point is that I know better than they do whether or not I can identify the lights on an airfield.
To be blunt, they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be inaccurately describing me as a monochrome. And if they did, there wouldn't be this huge inconsistency across the international community about what constitutes different levels of colour vision.
As I've said, in the case of the RAF, I don't hold too much against them for wanting perfect pilots, but I think that all the horror stories I've been hearing on this thread show that the optometry community had better pull itself together, recognise their own "deficiency" and stop unfairly condemning so many of us on based on guesses.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Glom,
I feel sorry for you buddy! You've clearly been through the mil on this one, and you've probably just sounded out what a lot of us 'colour defective' types have been thinking for years. I've got two bits of good news for you, however.
First, you'll find no subversions at Gatwick - quite the opposite. True they held me back on colour for several years, but my borderline condition has finally been recognised by CAA Medical thanks to its introduction of the Beyne's Lantern test.
And that's the second piece of good news. The Beyne's test is roundly considered to be the easiest colour vision test to pass. I've described it at length earlier in this thread. It sounds like 'red-green' is your problem area, and while the Beyne's test will examine this common condition it leaves out brown, which cab be a tricky mix of red and green.
My sense is that CAA and the rest of the medical community is coming around to a better understanding of colour perception and its affect on flight safety. You only have to pass one of the three tests at Gatwick - Ishihara, Holmes-Wright, and Beyne's - to be passed fit as colour safe, as I belatedly was. So, go to Gatwick with an open mind. You might pass on Beyne's too. If not, at least you will know your colour vision probably is too defective for today's standards. Beyne's is truly the easiest test...at least my eyes thought so.
Good luck
Dan
I feel sorry for you buddy! You've clearly been through the mil on this one, and you've probably just sounded out what a lot of us 'colour defective' types have been thinking for years. I've got two bits of good news for you, however.
First, you'll find no subversions at Gatwick - quite the opposite. True they held me back on colour for several years, but my borderline condition has finally been recognised by CAA Medical thanks to its introduction of the Beyne's Lantern test.
And that's the second piece of good news. The Beyne's test is roundly considered to be the easiest colour vision test to pass. I've described it at length earlier in this thread. It sounds like 'red-green' is your problem area, and while the Beyne's test will examine this common condition it leaves out brown, which cab be a tricky mix of red and green.
My sense is that CAA and the rest of the medical community is coming around to a better understanding of colour perception and its affect on flight safety. You only have to pass one of the three tests at Gatwick - Ishihara, Holmes-Wright, and Beyne's - to be passed fit as colour safe, as I belatedly was. So, go to Gatwick with an open mind. You might pass on Beyne's too. If not, at least you will know your colour vision probably is too defective for today's standards. Beyne's is truly the easiest test...at least my eyes thought so.
Good luck
Dan
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Glom,
I feel sorry for you buddy! You've clearly been through the mil on this one, and you've probably just sounded out what a lot of us 'colour defective' types have been thinking for years. I've got two bits of good news for you, however.
First, you'll find no subversions at Gatwick - quite the opposite. True they held me back on colour for several years, but my borderline condition has finally been recognised by CAA Medical thanks to its introduction of the Beyne's Lantern test.
And that's the second piece of good news. The Beyne's test is roundly considered to be the easiest colour vision test to pass. I've described it at length earlier in this thread. It sounds like 'red-green' is your problem area, and while the Beyne's test will examine this common condition it leaves out brown, which cab be a tricky mix of red and green.
My sense is that CAA and the rest of the medical community is coming around to a better understanding of colour perception and its affect on flight safety. You only have to pass one of the three tests at Gatwick - Ishihara, Holmes-Wright, and Beyne's - to be passed fit as colour safe, as I belatedly was. So, go to Gatwick with an open mind. You might pass on Beyne's too. If not, at least you will know your colour vision probably is too defective for today's standards. Beyne's is truly the easiest test...at least my eyes thought so.
Good luck
Dan
I feel sorry for you buddy! You've clearly been through the mil on this one, and you've probably just sounded out what a lot of us 'colour defective' types have been thinking for years. I've got two bits of good news for you, however.
First, you'll find no subversions at Gatwick - quite the opposite. True they held me back on colour for several years, but my borderline condition has finally been recognised by CAA Medical thanks to its introduction of the Beyne's Lantern test.
And that's the second piece of good news. The Beyne's test is roundly considered to be the easiest colour vision test to pass. I've described it at length earlier in this thread. It sounds like 'red-green' is your problem area, and while the Beyne's test will examine this common condition it leaves out brown, which cab be a tricky mix of red and green.
My sense is that CAA and the rest of the medical community is coming around to a better understanding of colour perception and its affect on flight safety. You only have to pass one of the three tests at Gatwick - Ishihara, Holmes-Wright, and Beyne's - to be passed fit as colour safe, as I belatedly was. So, go to Gatwick with an open mind. You might pass on Beyne's too. If not, at least you will know your colour vision probably is too defective for today's standards. Beyne's is truly the easiest test...at least my eyes thought so.
Good luck
Dan
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that worries me is failing the lantern test at OASC. I didn't think for a moment that my colour vision was that bad. I've never had any problems whatsoever in daily life. I thought I had a good chance of passing the Ishihara.
But, there was a red light that looked totally different from all the rest. It looked orangy white and that threw me off.
But, there was a red light that looked totally different from all the rest. It looked orangy white and that threw me off.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that worries me is failing the lantern test at OASC. I didn't think for a moment that my colour vision was that bad. I've never had any problems whatsoever in daily life. I thought I had a good chance of passing the Ishihara.
But, there was a red light that looked totally different from all the rest. It looked orangy white and that threw me off.
But, there was a red light that looked totally different from all the rest. It looked orangy white and that threw me off.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Glom,
I always had to chuckle at that analogy too. How then do they explain the fact that at night from lets say 500m or even greater distances that we can still tell the red from the green light without the visual cue of the light pole to see whether the light is eminating from the top, middle or bottom apature.
I too was very restriced in the Army (Australian) on what I could and couldn't do. Fortunately for me during the 80s and 90s you could get waivers for quite a number of activities but now they have clamped right down to the point where I would not even be allowed to perform my primary trade which I did for 20 years without incident.
In fact, now I cannot even hold a military licence to drive a Landrover but I can jump into a Baron and exercies my MECIR priviledges... What a joke. However, to be fair to the military CASA explained to me that at least in aviation, in many cases there are redundancies built into many colour dependant systems whereas in the military there is not.
If you haven't already done so, read the article by Dr Arthur Pape who all us colour defectives in Oz have to thank for being able to fly beyond day pvt VFR ops.
Good luck with your endeavours.
He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
I too was very restriced in the Army (Australian) on what I could and couldn't do. Fortunately for me during the 80s and 90s you could get waivers for quite a number of activities but now they have clamped right down to the point where I would not even be allowed to perform my primary trade which I did for 20 years without incident.
In fact, now I cannot even hold a military licence to drive a Landrover but I can jump into a Baron and exercies my MECIR priviledges... What a joke. However, to be fair to the military CASA explained to me that at least in aviation, in many cases there are redundancies built into many colour dependant systems whereas in the military there is not.
If you haven't already done so, read the article by Dr Arthur Pape who all us colour defectives in Oz have to thank for being able to fly beyond day pvt VFR ops.
Good luck with your endeavours.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Glom,
I always had to chuckle at that analogy too. How then do they explain the fact that at night from lets say 500m or even greater distances that we can still tell the red from the green light without the visual cue of the light pole to see whether the light is eminating from the top, middle or bottom apature.
I too was very restriced in the Army (Australian) on what I could and couldn't do. Fortunately for me during the 80s and 90s you could get waivers for quite a number of activities but now they have clamped right down to the point where I would not even be allowed to perform my primary trade which I did for 20 years without incident.
In fact, now I cannot even hold a military licence to drive a Landrover but I can jump into a Baron and exercies my MECIR priviledges... What a joke. However, to be fair to the military CASA explained to me that at least in aviation, in many cases there are redundancies built into many colour dependant systems whereas in the military there is not.
If you haven't already done so, read the article by Dr Arthur Pape who all us colour defectives in Oz have to thank for being able to fly beyond day pvt VFR ops.
Good luck with your endeavours.
He said that I'd adapted to my condition in everyday life because I know that a red light is above a green light, but I'd be in trouble on an airfield if I couldn't recognise the difference between a red and a green flare.
I too was very restriced in the Army (Australian) on what I could and couldn't do. Fortunately for me during the 80s and 90s you could get waivers for quite a number of activities but now they have clamped right down to the point where I would not even be allowed to perform my primary trade which I did for 20 years without incident.
In fact, now I cannot even hold a military licence to drive a Landrover but I can jump into a Baron and exercies my MECIR priviledges... What a joke. However, to be fair to the military CASA explained to me that at least in aviation, in many cases there are redundancies built into many colour dependant systems whereas in the military there is not.
If you haven't already done so, read the article by Dr Arthur Pape who all us colour defectives in Oz have to thank for being able to fly beyond day pvt VFR ops.
Good luck with your endeavours.