Colour Blindness (merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I didn't even know I was "colour deficient" until the nice CAA Doctor told me so, and a bit of a shock it was.
When I explained that I really can see if I'm about to fly into something, the Doctor (no names) just told me "some cockpits have red lights in them, you know."
If it hadn't been for my career tumbling past me out of the window, I would have realised then that it was the most stupid, ill-informed palm-off that I have ever heard. Actually, colour defectives can see MORE in a monochromatic situation than colour normals and they also, generally, have more acute night vision
If you've got the time, it is worth following the wonderful Dr Pape's link to the Austrlian Appeals Tribunal Case, Re Denison. This shows the depth of science which was investigated to reach their decision, and included (for instance) test-pilots "flying" simulators with the colour turned off. It is, as far as I can find out, the only time the issue has been examined in a neutral forum, and the result speaks for itself. The Australian CAA were as intransigent as ours (UK) and they lost.
I also found a paper from the 1940s in the library at uni a few years ago, from the time when the RAF were investigating colour vision in their applicants, and before attitudes had hardened. They discovered that about 8% of their pilots then (about the percentage of males who are colour defective) were in fact colour defective, with no difference in performance. This was at a time when the now archaic coloured airfield signals and recognition lights were regularly relied upon. (I also recently heard of a then-current Tornado pilot who was totally blue-green colour blind. Still today, none of the tests the RAF use pick up on that.)
The old article also pointed to the real problem in this matter: that nobody (including non-flying doctors)can actually know what another person is seeing, and so cannot tell whether they are safe or not. As is unfortunately usual with this type of issue and regulatory bodies, the result is a totally exclusive system which, in the face of all logic and with self-sustaining prejudice, excludes all but those in the middle of a statistical curve.
There, that's off my chest. Did someone further up mention the lifting of eyesight regs next year? Anyone know any more?
(edited for cock-up)
[This message has been edited by Hang On, I'm Busy (edited 05 July 2000).]
When I explained that I really can see if I'm about to fly into something, the Doctor (no names) just told me "some cockpits have red lights in them, you know."
If it hadn't been for my career tumbling past me out of the window, I would have realised then that it was the most stupid, ill-informed palm-off that I have ever heard. Actually, colour defectives can see MORE in a monochromatic situation than colour normals and they also, generally, have more acute night vision
If you've got the time, it is worth following the wonderful Dr Pape's link to the Austrlian Appeals Tribunal Case, Re Denison. This shows the depth of science which was investigated to reach their decision, and included (for instance) test-pilots "flying" simulators with the colour turned off. It is, as far as I can find out, the only time the issue has been examined in a neutral forum, and the result speaks for itself. The Australian CAA were as intransigent as ours (UK) and they lost.
I also found a paper from the 1940s in the library at uni a few years ago, from the time when the RAF were investigating colour vision in their applicants, and before attitudes had hardened. They discovered that about 8% of their pilots then (about the percentage of males who are colour defective) were in fact colour defective, with no difference in performance. This was at a time when the now archaic coloured airfield signals and recognition lights were regularly relied upon. (I also recently heard of a then-current Tornado pilot who was totally blue-green colour blind. Still today, none of the tests the RAF use pick up on that.)
The old article also pointed to the real problem in this matter: that nobody (including non-flying doctors)can actually know what another person is seeing, and so cannot tell whether they are safe or not. As is unfortunately usual with this type of issue and regulatory bodies, the result is a totally exclusive system which, in the face of all logic and with self-sustaining prejudice, excludes all but those in the middle of a statistical curve.
There, that's off my chest. Did someone further up mention the lifting of eyesight regs next year? Anyone know any more?
(edited for cock-up)
[This message has been edited by Hang On, I'm Busy (edited 05 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good one ! I've read in several books that during the Second World War colour blind RAF guys were employed to spot the camoflagued and hidden vehicles of the Germans. This was because the colour defective individuals were aware of their 'disability' and were extra keen to look for changes in shape and outline rather than colour - the 'normal' guys were often fooled !
As for the eye-doc, his comment about red lights in the cockpit sums up his understanding and level of ignorance about flying. Does he believe that you would try and land if the only two of the landing gear lights in front of you were green rather than red ? Does he think that you would ignore the red master warning caption that would be flashing to get your attention for another reason ? Does he think that the ringing bell, klaxxon etc would not grab your attention in event of something else happening ? Are you not able to see the white, green, yellow and red bits on the ASi of soemthing like a C172 ? After all, these things are all about three feet from your nose and not outside your cockpit, or not 7m away in a darkened room and about 3mm in diameter as per the Lantern business.
I feel that it may be worth contacting Dr Pape in Australia. I emailed him a few years back when I first read about his research and he said that someone needed to take up the reins in the UK. Opinions ?
Keep 'em coming - the file on the thread on the home page is burning up
As for the eye-doc, his comment about red lights in the cockpit sums up his understanding and level of ignorance about flying. Does he believe that you would try and land if the only two of the landing gear lights in front of you were green rather than red ? Does he think that you would ignore the red master warning caption that would be flashing to get your attention for another reason ? Does he think that the ringing bell, klaxxon etc would not grab your attention in event of something else happening ? Are you not able to see the white, green, yellow and red bits on the ASi of soemthing like a C172 ? After all, these things are all about three feet from your nose and not outside your cockpit, or not 7m away in a darkened room and about 3mm in diameter as per the Lantern business.
I feel that it may be worth contacting Dr Pape in Australia. I emailed him a few years back when I first read about his research and he said that someone needed to take up the reins in the UK. Opinions ?
Keep 'em coming - the file on the thread on the home page is burning up
Guest
Posts: n/a
Try their website at http://www.aeromed.nl/
This gives phone numbers, location and prices. At 985 guilders for an initial JAR Class One it is cheaper to go there than Handbrake House at £387.
Try Easyjet out of Liverpool for cheap flights, it is only 10/15 minutes by train from Schipol.
Good hunting..............
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 12 July 2000).]
This gives phone numbers, location and prices. At 985 guilders for an initial JAR Class One it is cheaper to go there than Handbrake House at £387.
Try Easyjet out of Liverpool for cheap flights, it is only 10/15 minutes by train from Schipol.
Good hunting..............
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 12 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I recently undertook the Holmes Right Lantern Test at Heathrow airport. I passed, despite being colour blind. Is there an explanation for this? Before my test I was made to take an Ishihara test, which I failed. Does anyone know why I was able to pass my lantern test (ie. specific requirement for colour vision)and most importantly-WILL I HAVE TO TAKE IT AGAIN?
Guest
Posts: n/a
gemmie you are not colour blind. the reason that you failed the ishihara test is straight forward. I am in the same position as you are (I passed the FALANT farnsworth lantern test) but fail the ishihara test. When I was initially misdiagnosed as being colour blind I did quite a bit of research into it as it was bit of a shock considering that I never had any trouble with colours. The problem is actually with the ishihara test itself, it works just fine if you pass it but if you fail it does not mean that you are colourblind. one out of every three failures is able to reliably distinguish between red and green which is what the test is supposed to be checking for. Basically ishihara is the defacto standard because it has been around for so long however it is based on bad science. It uses blue, yellow and shades of purple to confuse your brain. When people that pass the ishihara test are tested using an analmascope the results vary from person to person suggesting that everybody sees colours a bit differently the 30-40% who fail the ishihara test (but can still distinguish all the colours) are among this group, they just don't pass ishihara's standard which is from all the evidence an abritrary one. Only a very few people are really colour blind. Almost all of the people who fail ishihara can tell the difference between red and green however it comes down to the intesity of the colour, and some people can not do it reliably.
The US military recognised this problem years ago and instituted a policy of using ishihara's test only as a screening tool. the actual standard is determined by the farnsworth lantern (FALANT). This test is also acceptable to the FAA. The Holmes Wright lantern is supposedly harder to pass than the FALANT but I have no first hand experience of Holmes wright.
The US military recognised this problem years ago and instituted a policy of using ishihara's test only as a screening tool. the actual standard is determined by the farnsworth lantern (FALANT). This test is also acceptable to the FAA. The Holmes Wright lantern is supposedly harder to pass than the FALANT but I have no first hand experience of Holmes wright.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yosser - mine is [email protected]
I'd be very interested to hear about it all away from this BB.
Cheers
I'd be very interested to hear about it all away from this BB.
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
here is some good news for all concerned with this topic. I spoke to a professor of optometry just last week and he told me that there may well be a treatment in the not too distant future. The Human genome project was just finished recently (a year ahead of schedule) and this guy tells me that colour vision deficiency is a prime candidate for gene therapy. The technique used would be to use a suitable vector virus which would be used to infect the subject and in so doing a repair gene would piggyback along into the subjects cells. The cells in the retina would then begin producing normal colour pigments and all the evidence suggests that this would lead to normal colour vision. The guy that told me stressed that it was all theoretical but that once again ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IT WILL WORK. Apparently the difficult bit is finding a suitable vector virus, some thing with no side effects.
This professor told me that in the last year he has changed his estimate of when there would be a treatment down from within 50 years to within 5 years or even sooner.
To all PPRUNERS interested in this topic please keep a careful eye out for any advertisments regarding clinical trials in the next few years.
Lets hope it works and we can all kiss this problem goodbye.
This professor told me that in the last year he has changed his estimate of when there would be a treatment down from within 50 years to within 5 years or even sooner.
To all PPRUNERS interested in this topic please keep a careful eye out for any advertisments regarding clinical trials in the next few years.
Lets hope it works and we can all kiss this problem goodbye.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry for replying so late!!
inverted flatspin:
I don't really know, if the FALANT is acceptable to the
JAA.
Maybe you should ask the JAA by eMail. http://www.jaa.nl
actionman:
We are about to start a "campeign" in our new association here
in Germany. We will build up a new Internet-Site and soon
we will sue the German LBA.
We also try to get telecasted. And one of the Flight Schools in
Germany informs applicants about the colour vision standard after
we informed the school about the bad situation today and nearly anyone
who has a colour vision deficiency is visiting our site and getting subscribed
to our Listbot-Email-List.
actionman:
<< FCL3 - who was it that said that the tests were all 'about lights in the cockpit' and not outside ?
It was a JAA-Doc, actually it was the Assistant to Licensing Director.
The JAA once planned to make a new Sim-Test with common cockpit-displays but
as he/she/it told me they do not have enough money and engineers to develop
such a test.
actionman:
Soesterberg is about 15 km to the east of Utrecht and about 60 km southeastwards
to Amsterdam. But isn't the Utrecht-Airport just 2 km away??
You can get good information here: http://www.aeromed.nl
gemmie:
It is quite possible that you have a colour vision *deficiency*.
That means that you are not able to distinguish e.g. white from
green at certain conditions (mostly it's the distance).
The Ishihara is very sensitive. Even if you have an extrem "light
version" of a colour vision defect you will not be able to see
every plate.
The Holmes-Wright can be passed even when you have a deuteranomaly or
a protanomaly.
Have you ever been tested at the anomaloscope?
inverted flatspin:
I don't really know, if the FALANT is acceptable to the
JAA.
Maybe you should ask the JAA by eMail. http://www.jaa.nl
actionman:
We are about to start a "campeign" in our new association here
in Germany. We will build up a new Internet-Site and soon
we will sue the German LBA.
We also try to get telecasted. And one of the Flight Schools in
Germany informs applicants about the colour vision standard after
we informed the school about the bad situation today and nearly anyone
who has a colour vision deficiency is visiting our site and getting subscribed
to our Listbot-Email-List.
actionman:
<< FCL3 - who was it that said that the tests were all 'about lights in the cockpit' and not outside ?
It was a JAA-Doc, actually it was the Assistant to Licensing Director.
The JAA once planned to make a new Sim-Test with common cockpit-displays but
as he/she/it told me they do not have enough money and engineers to develop
such a test.
actionman:
Soesterberg is about 15 km to the east of Utrecht and about 60 km southeastwards
to Amsterdam. But isn't the Utrecht-Airport just 2 km away??
You can get good information here: http://www.aeromed.nl
gemmie:
It is quite possible that you have a colour vision *deficiency*.
That means that you are not able to distinguish e.g. white from
green at certain conditions (mostly it's the distance).
The Ishihara is very sensitive. Even if you have an extrem "light
version" of a colour vision defect you will not be able to see
every plate.
The Holmes-Wright can be passed even when you have a deuteranomaly or
a protanomaly.
Have you ever been tested at the anomaloscope?
Guest
Posts: n/a
gemmie:
I'm sorry, but as I know we have to do the Holmes-Wright test again. And that's why I'm still studying and fighting against the Colour Perception Standard.
I passed the HW and I have to do it again 5-yearly at the "extended opthalmological examinitaion".
The funny thing: The Aeromedical Institute wasn't able to give me any information about repeating the test. It was the JAA who told me.
I'm sorry, but as I know we have to do the Holmes-Wright test again. And that's why I'm still studying and fighting against the Colour Perception Standard.
I passed the HW and I have to do it again 5-yearly at the "extended opthalmological examinitaion".
The funny thing: The Aeromedical Institute wasn't able to give me any information about repeating the test. It was the JAA who told me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FCL3 - thanks for your notes.
Don't know about all of you dudes but I don't know whether I like the idea of a white-coated professer messing around with the genes in my eyes ! The question is...is it worth messing with what is otherwise perfectly good sight to pass a medical?
By going down this road the likes of the CAA/JAA etc win because the likes of us lot end up seeking corrective treatment for an ailment that makes no difference in the air.
My thoughts: get rid of the stupid limitations and needless standards rather than trying to get colour vision genetically altered.
BTW...my wife's a clinical research nurse so I know what these profs are like !
Don't know about all of you dudes but I don't know whether I like the idea of a white-coated professer messing around with the genes in my eyes ! The question is...is it worth messing with what is otherwise perfectly good sight to pass a medical?
By going down this road the likes of the CAA/JAA etc win because the likes of us lot end up seeking corrective treatment for an ailment that makes no difference in the air.
My thoughts: get rid of the stupid limitations and needless standards rather than trying to get colour vision genetically altered.
BTW...my wife's a clinical research nurse so I know what these profs are like !
Guest
Posts: n/a
FCL3
What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.
What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FCL3
What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.
What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.