Colour Blindness (merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear folks!
I was just advised by a friend to check the ongoing discussion about color vision here and some answers are quite interesting.
Correcting a color vision defect with 'Viruses' and 'Vector-DNA' is surely a way to solve the medical problem in itself, but wouldn't it make more sense to find out, if a color vision defect poses any threat to the safety of air navigation?
This is a quite complicated question and it has allready been answered by three major court appeals in Australia. The Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard became totaly reassessed, and the conducted research projects, to justify the standard, were declared as flawed.
So, what I'm asking me again and again is: why is Europe still laboring for the highest color vision standards in aviation, and why do they tolerate foreign pilots from countries with remarkable lower color vision standards (Australia, USA, Canada...) to fly their airplanes into and out of the european airspace? Those possibly color vision defective pilots pose the same air safety risk then a color vision defective european would. But europeans are simply not allowed and the accepted color vision tests are nothing more then defacto color vision tests. Those tests just have one purpose: to show, that you ARE color vision defective.
"(...)colour discrimination is irrelevant to the multitude of tasks demanded of pilots. All the stuff about colour vision testing becomes irrelevant when that one truth is grasped. Does a pass or a fail on the Holmes-Wright lantern, the Ishihara, the anomaloscope and all the rest predict performance on actual flying tasks? No, without reservation, it does not." (Dr. Arthur Pape; some of you will know him.)
For my personal opinion: I think, that a color vision defect poses absolutely NO RISK to the safety of air naviagtion. My desire, to become a professional pilot in Germany, was not fulfilled in 1998 due too defective color vision. I would like to bring my matter for me - and all the others - to a german court room. Unfortunately it's very hard to find professional support.
-CVD Nils.
I was just advised by a friend to check the ongoing discussion about color vision here and some answers are quite interesting.
Correcting a color vision defect with 'Viruses' and 'Vector-DNA' is surely a way to solve the medical problem in itself, but wouldn't it make more sense to find out, if a color vision defect poses any threat to the safety of air navigation?
This is a quite complicated question and it has allready been answered by three major court appeals in Australia. The Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard became totaly reassessed, and the conducted research projects, to justify the standard, were declared as flawed.
So, what I'm asking me again and again is: why is Europe still laboring for the highest color vision standards in aviation, and why do they tolerate foreign pilots from countries with remarkable lower color vision standards (Australia, USA, Canada...) to fly their airplanes into and out of the european airspace? Those possibly color vision defective pilots pose the same air safety risk then a color vision defective european would. But europeans are simply not allowed and the accepted color vision tests are nothing more then defacto color vision tests. Those tests just have one purpose: to show, that you ARE color vision defective.
"(...)colour discrimination is irrelevant to the multitude of tasks demanded of pilots. All the stuff about colour vision testing becomes irrelevant when that one truth is grasped. Does a pass or a fail on the Holmes-Wright lantern, the Ishihara, the anomaloscope and all the rest predict performance on actual flying tasks? No, without reservation, it does not." (Dr. Arthur Pape; some of you will know him.)
For my personal opinion: I think, that a color vision defect poses absolutely NO RISK to the safety of air naviagtion. My desire, to become a professional pilot in Germany, was not fulfilled in 1998 due too defective color vision. I would like to bring my matter for me - and all the others - to a german court room. Unfortunately it's very hard to find professional support.
-CVD Nils.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear folks!
I was just advised by a friend to check the ongoing discussion about color vision here and some answers are quite interesting.
Correcting a color vision defect with 'Viruses' and 'Vector-DNA' is surely a way to solve the medical problem in itself, but wouldn't it make more sense to find out, if a color vision defect poses any threat to the safety of air navigation?
This is a quite complicated question and it has allready been answered by three major court appeals in Australia. The Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard became totaly reassessed, and the conducted research projects, to justify the standard, were declared as flawed.
So, what I'm asking me again and again is: why is Europe still laboring for the highest color vision standards in aviation, and why do they tolerate foreign pilots from countries with remarkable lower color vision standards (Australia, USA, Canada...) to fly their airplanes into and out of the european airspace? Those possibly color vision defective pilots pose the same air safety risk then a color vision defective european would. But europeans are simply not allowed and the accepted color vision tests are nothing more then defacto color vision tests. Those tests just have one purpose: to show, that you ARE color vision defective.
"(...)colour discrimination is irrelevant to the multitude of tasks demanded of pilots. All the stuff about colour vision testing becomes irrelevant when that one truth is grasped. Does a pass or a fail on the Holmes-Wright lantern, the Ishihara, the anomaloscope and all the rest predict performance on actual flying tasks? No, without reservation, it does not." (Dr. Arthur Pape; some of you will know him.)
For my personal opinion: I think, that a color vision defect poses absolutely NO RISK to the safety of air naviagtion. My desire, to become a professional pilot in Germany, was not fulfilled in 1998 due too defective color vision. I would like to bring my matter for me - and all the others - to a german court room. Unfortunately it's very hard to find professional support.
-CVD Nils.
I was just advised by a friend to check the ongoing discussion about color vision here and some answers are quite interesting.
Correcting a color vision defect with 'Viruses' and 'Vector-DNA' is surely a way to solve the medical problem in itself, but wouldn't it make more sense to find out, if a color vision defect poses any threat to the safety of air navigation?
This is a quite complicated question and it has allready been answered by three major court appeals in Australia. The Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard became totaly reassessed, and the conducted research projects, to justify the standard, were declared as flawed.
So, what I'm asking me again and again is: why is Europe still laboring for the highest color vision standards in aviation, and why do they tolerate foreign pilots from countries with remarkable lower color vision standards (Australia, USA, Canada...) to fly their airplanes into and out of the european airspace? Those possibly color vision defective pilots pose the same air safety risk then a color vision defective european would. But europeans are simply not allowed and the accepted color vision tests are nothing more then defacto color vision tests. Those tests just have one purpose: to show, that you ARE color vision defective.
"(...)colour discrimination is irrelevant to the multitude of tasks demanded of pilots. All the stuff about colour vision testing becomes irrelevant when that one truth is grasped. Does a pass or a fail on the Holmes-Wright lantern, the Ishihara, the anomaloscope and all the rest predict performance on actual flying tasks? No, without reservation, it does not." (Dr. Arthur Pape; some of you will know him.)
For my personal opinion: I think, that a color vision defect poses absolutely NO RISK to the safety of air naviagtion. My desire, to become a professional pilot in Germany, was not fulfilled in 1998 due too defective color vision. I would like to bring my matter for me - and all the others - to a german court room. Unfortunately it's very hard to find professional support.
-CVD Nils.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CVD nils You are correct being colour deficient has no effect on air safety. To give you a rough idea between 1 in 8 and 1 in 12 men are colour deficient (depending on your racial background) Northern Europeans have the highest rate and curiously enough the closer you get to the equator the lower the rate among the populations. There was an interesting hypothesis a number of years ago that linked the differences in the rates to the differences in the amount of twilight at the various lattitudes and a correlation was established suggesting that colour vision deficiency is a selective advantage, giving our ancestors better vision during the twilight and dark hours and possibly better hunting ability. This would appear to have a basis in fact as I know quite a few colour deficients (myself included) who without exception see better in the dark than colour normals. However this does not mean that we are unable to distinguish colours as I'm sure all reading this topic will agree. With approx 1 out of every 10 men (global average)affected by this it would be a significant cause of auto accidents around the world if in fact as the aviation authorities would have you believe we are unable to tell the difference between red and green. In fact to my knowledge no car crash has ever been attributed to this and I have searched the NTSB database for north america on this one.
In the US the final test to decide if you are cabable of distinguishing the colours used in aviation signal lights is the aviation signal light itself. The FAA take you out onto an airfield and first at a distance of 1000ft they show you the signal lights in random order you name them as the show them and then they repeat the test at 1500ft again you name them as they show them. I took this test a few years ago and after I had passed I asked the guy who gave me the test two questions first how long had he been giving people this test and secondly how many people had failed the test? He told me that he had been doing this test for twenty years and in all that time NO ONE HAD EVER FAILED.
True Colour blindness is very rare indeed and is usually accompanied by very poor visual acuity due to other factors.
Ishihara's test is just an arbritrary test failing it does not mean you are colour blind. All the other tests are also arbritray they just draw the line in a different place.
The FAA are right about this one if you can tell the difference between the signal lights at an airfield (and from the evidence everybody can) then you should fly.
Good luck with your case if you go ahead and take one. Probably the best place to take a case maybee to the European Court which would have authority over the JAA. All the evidence is on your side and the precedents set by DR Pape in Australia are very strong, as well as the fact that many thousands of colour "defective" pilots are currently flying all over the world safely.
One Further note.
The JAA and The FAA are currently in negotiations to harmonise pilot licensing does anybody out there know if medical standards are on the table?
In the US the final test to decide if you are cabable of distinguishing the colours used in aviation signal lights is the aviation signal light itself. The FAA take you out onto an airfield and first at a distance of 1000ft they show you the signal lights in random order you name them as the show them and then they repeat the test at 1500ft again you name them as they show them. I took this test a few years ago and after I had passed I asked the guy who gave me the test two questions first how long had he been giving people this test and secondly how many people had failed the test? He told me that he had been doing this test for twenty years and in all that time NO ONE HAD EVER FAILED.
True Colour blindness is very rare indeed and is usually accompanied by very poor visual acuity due to other factors.
Ishihara's test is just an arbritrary test failing it does not mean you are colour blind. All the other tests are also arbritray they just draw the line in a different place.
The FAA are right about this one if you can tell the difference between the signal lights at an airfield (and from the evidence everybody can) then you should fly.
Good luck with your case if you go ahead and take one. Probably the best place to take a case maybee to the European Court which would have authority over the JAA. All the evidence is on your side and the precedents set by DR Pape in Australia are very strong, as well as the fact that many thousands of colour "defective" pilots are currently flying all over the world safely.
One Further note.
The JAA and The FAA are currently in negotiations to harmonise pilot licensing does anybody out there know if medical standards are on the table?
Guest
Posts: n/a
CVD nils You are correct being colour deficient has no effect on air safety. To give you a rough idea between 1 in 8 and 1 in 12 men are colour deficient (depending on your racial background) Northern Europeans have the highest rate and curiously enough the closer you get to the equator the lower the rate among the populations. There was an interesting hypothesis a number of years ago that linked the differences in the rates to the differences in the amount of twilight at the various lattitudes and a correlation was established suggesting that colour vision deficiency is a selective advantage, giving our ancestors better vision during the twilight and dark hours and possibly better hunting ability. This would appear to have a basis in fact as I know quite a few colour deficients (myself included) who without exception see better in the dark than colour normals. However this does not mean that we are unable to distinguish colours as I'm sure all reading this topic will agree. With approx 1 out of every 10 men (global average)affected by this it would be a significant cause of auto accidents around the world if in fact as the aviation authorities would have you believe we are unable to tell the difference between red and green. In fact to my knowledge no car crash has ever been attributed to this and I have searched the NTSB database for north america on this one.
In the US the final test to decide if you are cabable of distinguishing the colours used in aviation signal lights is the aviation signal light itself. The FAA take you out onto an airfield and first at a distance of 1000ft they show you the signal lights in random order you name them as the show them and then they repeat the test at 1500ft again you name them as they show them. I took this test a few years ago and after I had passed I asked the guy who gave me the test two questions first how long had he been giving people this test and secondly how many people had failed the test? He told me that he had been doing this test for twenty years and in all that time NO ONE HAD EVER FAILED.
True Colour blindness is very rare indeed and is usually accompanied by very poor visual acuity due to other factors.
Ishihara's test is just an arbritrary test failing it does not mean you are colour blind. All the other tests are also arbritray they just draw the line in a different place.
The FAA are right about this one if you can tell the difference between the signal lights at an airfield (and from the evidence everybody can) then you should fly.
Good luck with your case if you go ahead and take one. Probably the best place to take a case maybee to the European Court which would have authority over the JAA. All the evidence is on your side and the precedents set by DR Pape in Australia are very strong, as well as the fact that many thousands of colour "defective" pilots are currently flying all over the world safely.
One Further note.
The JAA and The FAA are currently in negotiations to harmonise pilot licensing does anybody out there know if medical standards are on the table?
In the US the final test to decide if you are cabable of distinguishing the colours used in aviation signal lights is the aviation signal light itself. The FAA take you out onto an airfield and first at a distance of 1000ft they show you the signal lights in random order you name them as the show them and then they repeat the test at 1500ft again you name them as they show them. I took this test a few years ago and after I had passed I asked the guy who gave me the test two questions first how long had he been giving people this test and secondly how many people had failed the test? He told me that he had been doing this test for twenty years and in all that time NO ONE HAD EVER FAILED.
True Colour blindness is very rare indeed and is usually accompanied by very poor visual acuity due to other factors.
Ishihara's test is just an arbritrary test failing it does not mean you are colour blind. All the other tests are also arbritray they just draw the line in a different place.
The FAA are right about this one if you can tell the difference between the signal lights at an airfield (and from the evidence everybody can) then you should fly.
Good luck with your case if you go ahead and take one. Probably the best place to take a case maybee to the European Court which would have authority over the JAA. All the evidence is on your side and the precedents set by DR Pape in Australia are very strong, as well as the fact that many thousands of colour "defective" pilots are currently flying all over the world safely.
One Further note.
The JAA and The FAA are currently in negotiations to harmonise pilot licensing does anybody out there know if medical standards are on the table?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Uncle joe's mintballs !
Yes, the CAA-Test was horrible! But I can't guarantee that the NLs didn't change anything by now. Maybe you should try a phonecall. Most of the docs are fine! And maybe the'll tell you more precise information about the test (distance...).
The anomaloscope is a device to test whether you are colour vision defective or not. If you are a CVD the anomaloscope tells you the grade an the "area" of your defect.
It's a very old system. You look through an eyepiece an you see two semicircles with different colour (upper yellow, lower red ore vice versa). And now you have to make both semicircles identical.
But it doesn't give you a real satisfactory answer. The value it put's out varies every time you use this device.
But I don't think that you will ever see this anomaloscope in Soesterberg because they don't use it anymore. If you fail the Ishiharas mostly you have to pass the Holmes-Wright.
In Germany the authorities STILL provide to test by anomaloscope. If the value is larger than 1.3 (NORMAL COLOUR PERCEPTION) you don't get a Class One Medical (even if you have 1.32)!!
And I don't think one is unable to fly an airplane if such a device gives a value of 1.35 or 4.00 or even more!
But the JAA-requirements aren't better!
I'd really like to know what PROFESSIONAL pilots think about colour perception and the actual requirements !! Please answer !!
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 July 2000).]
Yes, the CAA-Test was horrible! But I can't guarantee that the NLs didn't change anything by now. Maybe you should try a phonecall. Most of the docs are fine! And maybe the'll tell you more precise information about the test (distance...).
The anomaloscope is a device to test whether you are colour vision defective or not. If you are a CVD the anomaloscope tells you the grade an the "area" of your defect.
It's a very old system. You look through an eyepiece an you see two semicircles with different colour (upper yellow, lower red ore vice versa). And now you have to make both semicircles identical.
But it doesn't give you a real satisfactory answer. The value it put's out varies every time you use this device.
But I don't think that you will ever see this anomaloscope in Soesterberg because they don't use it anymore. If you fail the Ishiharas mostly you have to pass the Holmes-Wright.
In Germany the authorities STILL provide to test by anomaloscope. If the value is larger than 1.3 (NORMAL COLOUR PERCEPTION) you don't get a Class One Medical (even if you have 1.32)!!
And I don't think one is unable to fly an airplane if such a device gives a value of 1.35 or 4.00 or even more!
But the JAA-requirements aren't better!
I'd really like to know what PROFESSIONAL pilots think about colour perception and the actual requirements !! Please answer !!
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Uncle joe's mintballs !
Yes, the CAA-Test was horrible! But I can't guarantee that the NLs didn't change anything by now. Maybe you should try a phonecall. Most of the docs are fine! And maybe the'll tell you more precise information about the test (distance...).
The anomaloscope is a device to test whether you are colour vision defective or not. If you are a CVD the anomaloscope tells you the grade an the "area" of your defect.
It's a very old system. You look through an eyepiece an you see two semicircles with different colour (upper yellow, lower red ore vice versa). And now you have to make both semicircles identical.
But it doesn't give you a real satisfactory answer. The value it put's out varies every time you use this device.
But I don't think that you will ever see this anomaloscope in Soesterberg because they don't use it anymore. If you fail the Ishiharas mostly you have to pass the Holmes-Wright.
In Germany the authorities STILL provide to test by anomaloscope. If the value is larger than 1.3 (NORMAL COLOUR PERCEPTION) you don't get a Class One Medical (even if you have 1.32)!!
And I don't think one is unable to fly an airplane if such a device gives a value of 1.35 or 4.00 or even more!
But the JAA-requirements aren't better!
I'd really like to know what PROFESSIONAL pilots think about colour perception and the actual requirements !! Please answer !!
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 July 2000).]
Yes, the CAA-Test was horrible! But I can't guarantee that the NLs didn't change anything by now. Maybe you should try a phonecall. Most of the docs are fine! And maybe the'll tell you more precise information about the test (distance...).
The anomaloscope is a device to test whether you are colour vision defective or not. If you are a CVD the anomaloscope tells you the grade an the "area" of your defect.
It's a very old system. You look through an eyepiece an you see two semicircles with different colour (upper yellow, lower red ore vice versa). And now you have to make both semicircles identical.
But it doesn't give you a real satisfactory answer. The value it put's out varies every time you use this device.
But I don't think that you will ever see this anomaloscope in Soesterberg because they don't use it anymore. If you fail the Ishiharas mostly you have to pass the Holmes-Wright.
In Germany the authorities STILL provide to test by anomaloscope. If the value is larger than 1.3 (NORMAL COLOUR PERCEPTION) you don't get a Class One Medical (even if you have 1.32)!!
And I don't think one is unable to fly an airplane if such a device gives a value of 1.35 or 4.00 or even more!
But the JAA-requirements aren't better!
I'd really like to know what PROFESSIONAL pilots think about colour perception and the actual requirements !! Please answer !!
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear inverted Flapspin!
I totally agree with your statement.
The Tower-Signal-Light-Test gives CVD's a fair chance to demonstrate their abilities in a situation where color is "used" to code information.
Otherwise I ask myself how often it happens, that airplanes have a total radio-com failure and need to be instructed by the tower-lantern? Normally they all have a second radio-com unit on board.
And what about real big airplanes? Would it make sense to give tower-signal-light instructions to a Boeing 747 approaching the airport 10 miles away? Those AT-Pilots normally just follow their "radio-communication-failure procedures", or?
So, Dr. Pape even demands, that the Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard should be totally removed from the regulations.
Kind Regards,
CVD Nils
I totally agree with your statement.
The Tower-Signal-Light-Test gives CVD's a fair chance to demonstrate their abilities in a situation where color is "used" to code information.
Otherwise I ask myself how often it happens, that airplanes have a total radio-com failure and need to be instructed by the tower-lantern? Normally they all have a second radio-com unit on board.
And what about real big airplanes? Would it make sense to give tower-signal-light instructions to a Boeing 747 approaching the airport 10 miles away? Those AT-Pilots normally just follow their "radio-communication-failure procedures", or?
So, Dr. Pape even demands, that the Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard should be totally removed from the regulations.
Kind Regards,
CVD Nils
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear inverted Flapspin!
I totally agree with your statement.
The Tower-Signal-Light-Test gives CVD's a fair chance to demonstrate their abilities in a situation where color is "used" to code information.
Otherwise I ask myself how often it happens, that airplanes have a total radio-com failure and need to be instructed by the tower-lantern? Normally they all have a second radio-com unit on board.
And what about real big airplanes? Would it make sense to give tower-signal-light instructions to a Boeing 747 approaching the airport 10 miles away? Those AT-Pilots normally just follow their "radio-communication-failure procedures", or?
So, Dr. Pape even demands, that the Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard should be totally removed from the regulations.
Kind Regards,
CVD Nils
I totally agree with your statement.
The Tower-Signal-Light-Test gives CVD's a fair chance to demonstrate their abilities in a situation where color is "used" to code information.
Otherwise I ask myself how often it happens, that airplanes have a total radio-com failure and need to be instructed by the tower-lantern? Normally they all have a second radio-com unit on board.
And what about real big airplanes? Would it make sense to give tower-signal-light instructions to a Boeing 747 approaching the airport 10 miles away? Those AT-Pilots normally just follow their "radio-communication-failure procedures", or?
So, Dr. Pape even demands, that the Aviation-Color-Perception-Standard should be totally removed from the regulations.
Kind Regards,
CVD Nils
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks FCL3 for the info.
I wonder how many Ishihara plates there are?Are there different sets with new ones produced annually or does every AME have the same set??
A previous mail on this thread did say that NL HW test did seem easier because the lights were much nearer.
I wonder how many Ishihara plates there are?Are there different sets with new ones produced annually or does every AME have the same set??
A previous mail on this thread did say that NL HW test did seem easier because the lights were much nearer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks FCL3 for the info.
I wonder how many Ishihara plates there are?Are there different sets with new ones produced annually or does every AME have the same set??
A previous mail on this thread did say that NL HW test did seem easier because the lights were much nearer.
I wonder how many Ishihara plates there are?Are there different sets with new ones produced annually or does every AME have the same set??
A previous mail on this thread did say that NL HW test did seem easier because the lights were much nearer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, the lights in NL were much nearer. THAT'S what I would call "standard"! 
There are 3 sets of Ishiharas (the 12- 24- and 36-Plates-Edition). Normally the 24- an 36-Plates-Edition are used by the AMEs.
But don't even think about learning them, because you have to look at them 5-yearly !!
If you make ONE mistake you have to pass HW. And if you don't pass the HW you're gone! And I don't think you'd like to be unemployed after flying for several years ...
There are 3 sets of Ishiharas (the 12- 24- and 36-Plates-Edition). Normally the 24- an 36-Plates-Edition are used by the AMEs.
But don't even think about learning them, because you have to look at them 5-yearly !!
If you make ONE mistake you have to pass HW. And if you don't pass the HW you're gone! And I don't think you'd like to be unemployed after flying for several years ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, the lights in NL were much nearer. THAT'S what I would call "standard"!
There are 3 sets of Ishiharas (the 12- 24- and 36-Plates-Edition). Normally the 24- an 36-Plates-Edition are used by the AMEs.
But don't even think about learning them, because you have to look at them 5-yearly !!
If you make ONE mistake you have to pass HW. And if you don't pass the HW you're gone! And I don't think you'd like to be unemployed after flying for several years ...
There are 3 sets of Ishiharas (the 12- 24- and 36-Plates-Edition). Normally the 24- an 36-Plates-Edition are used by the AMEs.
But don't even think about learning them, because you have to look at them 5-yearly !!
If you make ONE mistake you have to pass HW. And if you don't pass the HW you're gone! And I don't think you'd like to be unemployed after flying for several years ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm just flagging this one up to bring it to the top of the pile on the medical forum...
Anyone got anymore news about recent tests or changes in legislation ? We have to keep this very much in the 'news' if a similar campaign to the eyesight limits is to be run.
Anyone got anymore news about recent tests or changes in legislation ? We have to keep this very much in the 'news' if a similar campaign to the eyesight limits is to be run.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm just flagging this one up to bring it to the top of the pile on the medical forum...
Anyone got anymore news about recent tests or changes in legislation ? We have to keep this very much in the 'news' if a similar campaign to the eyesight limits is to be run.
Anyone got anymore news about recent tests or changes in legislation ? We have to keep this very much in the 'news' if a similar campaign to the eyesight limits is to be run.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the moment the Colour signal light test is the final deciding factor used by the FAA. If you fail all other tests but pass this one then you are given a waiver. I am currently lobbying the AOPA (US) to lobby the FAA for this to become the standard as opposed to a waiver. The reasoning I am using is that the FAA have been issuing this same waiver for a long time (maybee as long as fifty years) and in all that time the NTSB has not one single accident/incident on file where someone with this waiver caused an accident or incident due to mistaking colours. Put simply it is a non issue when it comes to safety. I have been in contact with Dr Pape in Australia and he agrees that if we can get the FAA to do this It will be a "very big stick to beat the JAA with"(my words not his). This may take some time to accomplish but I will post any results here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the moment the Colour signal light test is the final deciding factor used by the FAA. If you fail all other tests but pass this one then you are given a waiver. I am currently lobbying the AOPA (US) to lobby the FAA for this to become the standard as opposed to a waiver. The reasoning I am using is that the FAA have been issuing this same waiver for a long time (maybee as long as fifty years) and in all that time the NTSB has not one single accident/incident on file where someone with this waiver caused an accident or incident due to mistaking colours. Put simply it is a non issue when it comes to safety. I have been in contact with Dr Pape in Australia and he agrees that if we can get the FAA to do this It will be a "very big stick to beat the JAA with"(my words not his). This may take some time to accomplish but I will post any results here.