Colour Blindness (merged)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
To Soup Nazi
Congratulations on your Class1!!
I hope the test you did is similar to the one the CAA is getting.
If it is a test using only red and green lights, then I should stand a better chance.
You are right in what you are saying. We should form some sort of action group. There are a lot of people out there who have the potential to be a good pilot, but are unfortunately held back by some outdated set of rules.
Any chance of sending Mr Pape over here for a while????
Regards
Ice.
[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Congratulations on your Class1!!
I hope the test you did is similar to the one the CAA is getting.
If it is a test using only red and green lights, then I should stand a better chance.
You are right in what you are saying. We should form some sort of action group. There are a lot of people out there who have the potential to be a good pilot, but are unfortunately held back by some outdated set of rules.
Any chance of sending Mr Pape over here for a while????
Regards
Ice.
[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Earth
in reply to Soup Nazi, here's what JAA Manual of Aviation Medicine, page 42, states:
"The Beyne's lantern (lanterne chromoptométrique de Beyne) presents the colours green, red, blue, white, and yellow-orange with an aperture size corresponding to a visual angle of 3 minutes of arc. Each colour is shown for one second. The examinee is placed in front of the lantern at a distance of 5 meters. No errors are accepted."
I was wondering how UK CAA will operate this apparatus, provided that it can display the white light source and provided that it can have up to 6 aperture sizes...
Cheers !
"The Beyne's lantern (lanterne chromoptométrique de Beyne) presents the colours green, red, blue, white, and yellow-orange with an aperture size corresponding to a visual angle of 3 minutes of arc. Each colour is shown for one second. The examinee is placed in front of the lantern at a distance of 5 meters. No errors are accepted."
I was wondering how UK CAA will operate this apparatus, provided that it can display the white light source and provided that it can have up to 6 aperture sizes...
Cheers !
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Earth
in reply to Soup Nazi, here's what JAA Manual of Aviation Medicine, page 42, states:
"The Beyne's lantern (lanterne chromoptométrique de Beyne) presents the colours green, red, blue, white, and yellow-orange with an aperture size corresponding to a visual angle of 3 minutes of arc. Each colour is shown for one second. The examinee is placed in front of the lantern at a distance of 5 meters. No errors are accepted."
I was wondering how UK CAA will operate this apparatus, provided that it can display the white light source and provided that it can have up to 6 aperture sizes...
Cheers !
"The Beyne's lantern (lanterne chromoptométrique de Beyne) presents the colours green, red, blue, white, and yellow-orange with an aperture size corresponding to a visual angle of 3 minutes of arc. Each colour is shown for one second. The examinee is placed in front of the lantern at a distance of 5 meters. No errors are accepted."
I was wondering how UK CAA will operate this apparatus, provided that it can display the white light source and provided that it can have up to 6 aperture sizes...
Cheers !
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
Why so many colours as opposed to the Holmes Wright Lantern which has only red,green and white?
If you have failed the HW Lantern using these 3 colours, why are they offering another test which has the same colours and an additional 2? Seems strange. Maybe the colours are of a different intensity?
Has anyone out there taken this Beyne Lantern test; if so how did you do?
Regards
Ice. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Ideas people, I need ideas!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
If you have failed the HW Lantern using these 3 colours, why are they offering another test which has the same colours and an additional 2? Seems strange. Maybe the colours are of a different intensity?
Has anyone out there taken this Beyne Lantern test; if so how did you do?
Regards
Ice. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Ideas people, I need ideas!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
Why so many colours as opposed to the Holmes Wright Lantern which has only red,green and white?
If you have failed the HW Lantern using these 3 colours, why are they offering another test which has the same colours and an additional 2? Seems strange. Maybe the colours are of a different intensity?
Has anyone out there taken this Beyne Lantern test; if so how did you do?
Regards
Ice. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Ideas people, I need ideas!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
If you have failed the HW Lantern using these 3 colours, why are they offering another test which has the same colours and an additional 2? Seems strange. Maybe the colours are of a different intensity?
Has anyone out there taken this Beyne Lantern test; if so how did you do?
Regards
Ice. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Ideas people, I need ideas!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: usa
adding extra colours is not really going to cause a problem for the vast majority of colour deficients. By far the most common type of colour deficiency is called deuteranamoly this is the green photopigment in the retina is not what everybody else has got, it still works fine but the wavelenght at which is works best is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
Deuteranamolous people see red just like every body else, they see yellow like everybody else and they see blue like everybody else the problem that most have is that green is not as distinct as the other colours and can be confused with the white light that the lantern test shines at you.
The lantern tests are unfair because the colours that have been seleced to represent red, green and white are not exactly red green or white they are reddish green, greenish red and greenish white.
However large differences exist between the various lanterns and it all depends on where the person who designed it thought that it would be a good idea to draw the line (not based on anything resembling scientific fact)
You may fail all the other tests and pass this one. .So try it.
Deuteranamolous people see red just like every body else, they see yellow like everybody else and they see blue like everybody else the problem that most have is that green is not as distinct as the other colours and can be confused with the white light that the lantern test shines at you.
The lantern tests are unfair because the colours that have been seleced to represent red, green and white are not exactly red green or white they are reddish green, greenish red and greenish white.
However large differences exist between the various lanterns and it all depends on where the person who designed it thought that it would be a good idea to draw the line (not based on anything resembling scientific fact)
You may fail all the other tests and pass this one. .So try it.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: usa
adding extra colours is not really going to cause a problem for the vast majority of colour deficients. By far the most common type of colour deficiency is called deuteranamoly this is the green photopigment in the retina is not what everybody else has got, it still works fine but the wavelenght at which is works best is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
Deuteranamolous people see red just like every body else, they see yellow like everybody else and they see blue like everybody else the problem that most have is that green is not as distinct as the other colours and can be confused with the white light that the lantern test shines at you.
The lantern tests are unfair because the colours that have been seleced to represent red, green and white are not exactly red green or white they are reddish green, greenish red and greenish white.
However large differences exist between the various lanterns and it all depends on where the person who designed it thought that it would be a good idea to draw the line (not based on anything resembling scientific fact)
You may fail all the other tests and pass this one. .So try it.
Deuteranamolous people see red just like every body else, they see yellow like everybody else and they see blue like everybody else the problem that most have is that green is not as distinct as the other colours and can be confused with the white light that the lantern test shines at you.
The lantern tests are unfair because the colours that have been seleced to represent red, green and white are not exactly red green or white they are reddish green, greenish red and greenish white.
However large differences exist between the various lanterns and it all depends on where the person who designed it thought that it would be a good idea to draw the line (not based on anything resembling scientific fact)
You may fail all the other tests and pass this one. .So try it.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
To Palgia,
Very interesting stuff you have written there, as has Inverted Flatspin.
May I ask how come you know so much about this? I am currently waiting to hear from the CAA as to when I can try the Beyne Lantern. I have also spoke to Mr Chorley who told me the same thing, "it's currently under tests".
I think I am correct in saying that the French use the Beyne Lantern and have done for a long while now.
Why are the CAA not adopting the same test standards as the French? JAA harmonisation and all that.
Changes to the criteria on the Ishihara plates won't really help many more people realise their dreams of becoming a pilot. (You now can pass if you recognise the first 15 plates out of 24.). .As inverted Flatspin correctly stated, most colour deficient people have a problem with the colour green. The first 15 plates of the Ishihara test will weed these people out anyway - so where's the progress?
Yet again it may be a case of turning to the USA to realise our own 'American Dream'.
We wait with bated breath Mr Chorley.
Regards
Ice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Very interesting stuff you have written there, as has Inverted Flatspin.
May I ask how come you know so much about this? I am currently waiting to hear from the CAA as to when I can try the Beyne Lantern. I have also spoke to Mr Chorley who told me the same thing, "it's currently under tests".
I think I am correct in saying that the French use the Beyne Lantern and have done for a long while now.
Why are the CAA not adopting the same test standards as the French? JAA harmonisation and all that.
Changes to the criteria on the Ishihara plates won't really help many more people realise their dreams of becoming a pilot. (You now can pass if you recognise the first 15 plates out of 24.). .As inverted Flatspin correctly stated, most colour deficient people have a problem with the colour green. The first 15 plates of the Ishihara test will weed these people out anyway - so where's the progress?
Yet again it may be a case of turning to the USA to realise our own 'American Dream'.
We wait with bated breath Mr Chorley.
Regards
Ice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
To Palgia,
Very interesting stuff you have written there, as has Inverted Flatspin.
May I ask how come you know so much about this? I am currently waiting to hear from the CAA as to when I can try the Beyne Lantern. I have also spoke to Mr Chorley who told me the same thing, "it's currently under tests".
I think I am correct in saying that the French use the Beyne Lantern and have done for a long while now.
Why are the CAA not adopting the same test standards as the French? JAA harmonisation and all that.
Changes to the criteria on the Ishihara plates won't really help many more people realise their dreams of becoming a pilot. (You now can pass if you recognise the first 15 plates out of 24.). .As inverted Flatspin correctly stated, most colour deficient people have a problem with the colour green. The first 15 plates of the Ishihara test will weed these people out anyway - so where's the progress?
Yet again it may be a case of turning to the USA to realise our own 'American Dream'.
We wait with bated breath Mr Chorley.
Regards
Ice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Very interesting stuff you have written there, as has Inverted Flatspin.
May I ask how come you know so much about this? I am currently waiting to hear from the CAA as to when I can try the Beyne Lantern. I have also spoke to Mr Chorley who told me the same thing, "it's currently under tests".
I think I am correct in saying that the French use the Beyne Lantern and have done for a long while now.
Why are the CAA not adopting the same test standards as the French? JAA harmonisation and all that.
Changes to the criteria on the Ishihara plates won't really help many more people realise their dreams of becoming a pilot. (You now can pass if you recognise the first 15 plates out of 24.). .As inverted Flatspin correctly stated, most colour deficient people have a problem with the colour green. The first 15 plates of the Ishihara test will weed these people out anyway - so where's the progress?
Yet again it may be a case of turning to the USA to realise our own 'American Dream'.
We wait with bated breath Mr Chorley.
Regards
Ice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: icebox ]</p>
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: usa
Palgia
What is needed here is a deeper understanding of the mechanism of colour vision.
Colour vision is different for everybody. The supposed Gold standard for measuring red green discriminatory ability is the Nagel anomaloscope.
when a large group of colour normals are tested on the nagel anomaloscope each one will have a slightly different result. The anomaloscope is not per se a test it is a diagnostic tool the matching range is decided by statistical treatment of the results gathered from the "Normal" group anyone who falls within this number of standard deviations is considered normal and anyone who falls outside of this is considered abnormal the anomaloscope can actually tell you what you are seeing by giving you a red green ratio and from that you can approximate what percentage of green or red you are seeing relative to the normal sample.
All colour tests including the anomaloscope are prone to errors and misdiagnosis. In the FAA studies that you quoted they identified miss and false alarm rates for each test. The rates varied between the studies so reaching a conclusion about what they mean is difficult however one particular conclusion that can be reached is that somewhere in the order of 1 out of every 100 people who pass the ishihara test are unable to tell the difference between aviation signal lights (red green and white). This is surprising because the ishihara is thought to be 'bullet proof' by the JAA medical committee however it lets about 1% pass who should not.
There is conclusive evidence that the signal light test as administered by the FAA is a very good predictor of colour percetion. It has a 100% safety record stretching back to the days before the FAA even existed. According to the NTSB they are unaware of any accident where a colour deficient pilot flying without restrictions by virtue of the signal light test has every had an incident or accident where a causal or additional factor has been the pilot mistaking a safety critical colour.
When you consider the numbers (current estimates put the number of such pilots in the US in the order of 10000) the complete absence of accidents is very telling indeed.
There is circumstantial evidence that having a colour standard at all is redundant, however there is no hard evidence. Dr Pape in Australia is the expert on this. If true and it probably is it would explain why the colour deficient community is so damn safe.
In one of your posts you speak of common sense, I ask you when did the JAA ever give us any indication of having anything resembling common sense? Don't credit them with something that they don't have.
What is needed here is a deeper understanding of the mechanism of colour vision.
Colour vision is different for everybody. The supposed Gold standard for measuring red green discriminatory ability is the Nagel anomaloscope.
when a large group of colour normals are tested on the nagel anomaloscope each one will have a slightly different result. The anomaloscope is not per se a test it is a diagnostic tool the matching range is decided by statistical treatment of the results gathered from the "Normal" group anyone who falls within this number of standard deviations is considered normal and anyone who falls outside of this is considered abnormal the anomaloscope can actually tell you what you are seeing by giving you a red green ratio and from that you can approximate what percentage of green or red you are seeing relative to the normal sample.
All colour tests including the anomaloscope are prone to errors and misdiagnosis. In the FAA studies that you quoted they identified miss and false alarm rates for each test. The rates varied between the studies so reaching a conclusion about what they mean is difficult however one particular conclusion that can be reached is that somewhere in the order of 1 out of every 100 people who pass the ishihara test are unable to tell the difference between aviation signal lights (red green and white). This is surprising because the ishihara is thought to be 'bullet proof' by the JAA medical committee however it lets about 1% pass who should not.
There is conclusive evidence that the signal light test as administered by the FAA is a very good predictor of colour percetion. It has a 100% safety record stretching back to the days before the FAA even existed. According to the NTSB they are unaware of any accident where a colour deficient pilot flying without restrictions by virtue of the signal light test has every had an incident or accident where a causal or additional factor has been the pilot mistaking a safety critical colour.
When you consider the numbers (current estimates put the number of such pilots in the US in the order of 10000) the complete absence of accidents is very telling indeed.
There is circumstantial evidence that having a colour standard at all is redundant, however there is no hard evidence. Dr Pape in Australia is the expert on this. If true and it probably is it would explain why the colour deficient community is so damn safe.
In one of your posts you speak of common sense, I ask you when did the JAA ever give us any indication of having anything resembling common sense? Don't credit them with something that they don't have.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: usa
Palgia
What is needed here is a deeper understanding of the mechanism of colour vision.
Colour vision is different for everybody. The supposed Gold standard for measuring red green discriminatory ability is the Nagel anomaloscope.
when a large group of colour normals are tested on the nagel anomaloscope each one will have a slightly different result. The anomaloscope is not per se a test it is a diagnostic tool the matching range is decided by statistical treatment of the results gathered from the "Normal" group anyone who falls within this number of standard deviations is considered normal and anyone who falls outside of this is considered abnormal the anomaloscope can actually tell you what you are seeing by giving you a red green ratio and from that you can approximate what percentage of green or red you are seeing relative to the normal sample.
All colour tests including the anomaloscope are prone to errors and misdiagnosis. In the FAA studies that you quoted they identified miss and false alarm rates for each test. The rates varied between the studies so reaching a conclusion about what they mean is difficult however one particular conclusion that can be reached is that somewhere in the order of 1 out of every 100 people who pass the ishihara test are unable to tell the difference between aviation signal lights (red green and white). This is surprising because the ishihara is thought to be 'bullet proof' by the JAA medical committee however it lets about 1% pass who should not.
There is conclusive evidence that the signal light test as administered by the FAA is a very good predictor of colour percetion. It has a 100% safety record stretching back to the days before the FAA even existed. According to the NTSB they are unaware of any accident where a colour deficient pilot flying without restrictions by virtue of the signal light test has every had an incident or accident where a causal or additional factor has been the pilot mistaking a safety critical colour.
When you consider the numbers (current estimates put the number of such pilots in the US in the order of 10000) the complete absence of accidents is very telling indeed.
There is circumstantial evidence that having a colour standard at all is redundant, however there is no hard evidence. Dr Pape in Australia is the expert on this. If true and it probably is it would explain why the colour deficient community is so damn safe.
In one of your posts you speak of common sense, I ask you when did the JAA ever give us any indication of having anything resembling common sense? Don't credit them with something that they don't have.
What is needed here is a deeper understanding of the mechanism of colour vision.
Colour vision is different for everybody. The supposed Gold standard for measuring red green discriminatory ability is the Nagel anomaloscope.
when a large group of colour normals are tested on the nagel anomaloscope each one will have a slightly different result. The anomaloscope is not per se a test it is a diagnostic tool the matching range is decided by statistical treatment of the results gathered from the "Normal" group anyone who falls within this number of standard deviations is considered normal and anyone who falls outside of this is considered abnormal the anomaloscope can actually tell you what you are seeing by giving you a red green ratio and from that you can approximate what percentage of green or red you are seeing relative to the normal sample.
All colour tests including the anomaloscope are prone to errors and misdiagnosis. In the FAA studies that you quoted they identified miss and false alarm rates for each test. The rates varied between the studies so reaching a conclusion about what they mean is difficult however one particular conclusion that can be reached is that somewhere in the order of 1 out of every 100 people who pass the ishihara test are unable to tell the difference between aviation signal lights (red green and white). This is surprising because the ishihara is thought to be 'bullet proof' by the JAA medical committee however it lets about 1% pass who should not.
There is conclusive evidence that the signal light test as administered by the FAA is a very good predictor of colour percetion. It has a 100% safety record stretching back to the days before the FAA even existed. According to the NTSB they are unaware of any accident where a colour deficient pilot flying without restrictions by virtue of the signal light test has every had an incident or accident where a causal or additional factor has been the pilot mistaking a safety critical colour.
When you consider the numbers (current estimates put the number of such pilots in the US in the order of 10000) the complete absence of accidents is very telling indeed.
There is circumstantial evidence that having a colour standard at all is redundant, however there is no hard evidence. Dr Pape in Australia is the expert on this. If true and it probably is it would explain why the colour deficient community is so damn safe.
In one of your posts you speak of common sense, I ask you when did the JAA ever give us any indication of having anything resembling common sense? Don't credit them with something that they don't have.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
To Palgia,
Yet another very interesting posting.
You are right in saying that the ICAO are ultimatley responsible for this colour perception standard which is based on science. Why the standard? Simple, no standard no safety. So one cannot argue with the intentions for the standard, but one can argue with the way each national aviation authority interprets as to 'how safe is safe'.
You wrote:
'The ICAO give a large amount of freedom to each individual aviation authority in determining who is actually colour deficient and who isn't.'
To me this seems an arbitary approach. The ICAO seem to be saying 'Ok guys do what you think is right within the standards we have set'. So countries have gone away and come up with their set of tests which fall within the criteria. The USA 'last chance' test is the signal gun test. A very sensible and relevant test. Of course these are the lights ALL pilots must be able to see properly. You are correct in saying that if there is radio failure a pilot must be able to see these lights. Carrying a hand held radio is an excellent idea because even a person with normal colour vision may not be able to see the lights from ATC in bad visibility. The chance of 2 radio failures is minute. But that's another topic for another day.
I have heard of people going to other countries within the JAA and getting their colour vision tested, passing and consequently getting the restrictions lifted from their licence. Isn't this what JAR harmonisation is all about?
Where do you draw the line? Good question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one yet. Each country seems to move the line to where THEY want it, as long it is still within the ICAO boundaries.
I don't think there is a conspiracy against us. As I said earlier the standards are set for safety reasons. These were not thought up overnight. They are scientifically researched. However I do believe they need to be reviewed again. The only way to beat these standards is with science - a long and hard task.
You said beat the ICAO and the rest will follow suit. This is very true but I think a more fundamental problem exists here. That is of the supposed harmonisation between the JAA countries.
As you may have guessed by now I am a cvd. I have been to the CAA and failed both the Ishihara and HW Lantern.
Under the regs. the HW Lantern, Anomolascope, Beyne Lantern and Spectrolux are accepted tests. Why couldn't I do all those tests before they decide to circle 'colour unsafe' on my medical? The obvious answer is cost. Too expensive to hold all that equipment to test 1/8 people who apply for the medical.
However shouldn't I be able to go to another JAA member state and have the remaining tests done there before a decision is made? If I do pass, it should be recognised by any other JAA country. But I have learned that this does not happen in practice. Also why different testing criteria for the same test? Where is the Spectrolux test available? Does anyone know?
So the next question is 'What now?'
I think a database of people in our situation should be started. And approaching Dr Pape for advice would be a good idea. This is a very tough, long and hard battle, so it is crucial that we start off on the right foot and tread carefully. It can be done though. Remember David beat Goliath!
So all you cvd 'Davids' out there lets start the first battle in a series of battles to win the war!
Anyway I'll stand down off my soapbox now because the Simpsons is on. (I wonder if Homer is a cvd? Hmmm... flying)
Regards
Ice.
Yet another very interesting posting.
You are right in saying that the ICAO are ultimatley responsible for this colour perception standard which is based on science. Why the standard? Simple, no standard no safety. So one cannot argue with the intentions for the standard, but one can argue with the way each national aviation authority interprets as to 'how safe is safe'.
You wrote:
'The ICAO give a large amount of freedom to each individual aviation authority in determining who is actually colour deficient and who isn't.'
To me this seems an arbitary approach. The ICAO seem to be saying 'Ok guys do what you think is right within the standards we have set'. So countries have gone away and come up with their set of tests which fall within the criteria. The USA 'last chance' test is the signal gun test. A very sensible and relevant test. Of course these are the lights ALL pilots must be able to see properly. You are correct in saying that if there is radio failure a pilot must be able to see these lights. Carrying a hand held radio is an excellent idea because even a person with normal colour vision may not be able to see the lights from ATC in bad visibility. The chance of 2 radio failures is minute. But that's another topic for another day.
I have heard of people going to other countries within the JAA and getting their colour vision tested, passing and consequently getting the restrictions lifted from their licence. Isn't this what JAR harmonisation is all about?
Where do you draw the line? Good question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one yet. Each country seems to move the line to where THEY want it, as long it is still within the ICAO boundaries.
I don't think there is a conspiracy against us. As I said earlier the standards are set for safety reasons. These were not thought up overnight. They are scientifically researched. However I do believe they need to be reviewed again. The only way to beat these standards is with science - a long and hard task.
You said beat the ICAO and the rest will follow suit. This is very true but I think a more fundamental problem exists here. That is of the supposed harmonisation between the JAA countries.
As you may have guessed by now I am a cvd. I have been to the CAA and failed both the Ishihara and HW Lantern.
Under the regs. the HW Lantern, Anomolascope, Beyne Lantern and Spectrolux are accepted tests. Why couldn't I do all those tests before they decide to circle 'colour unsafe' on my medical? The obvious answer is cost. Too expensive to hold all that equipment to test 1/8 people who apply for the medical.
However shouldn't I be able to go to another JAA member state and have the remaining tests done there before a decision is made? If I do pass, it should be recognised by any other JAA country. But I have learned that this does not happen in practice. Also why different testing criteria for the same test? Where is the Spectrolux test available? Does anyone know?
So the next question is 'What now?'
I think a database of people in our situation should be started. And approaching Dr Pape for advice would be a good idea. This is a very tough, long and hard battle, so it is crucial that we start off on the right foot and tread carefully. It can be done though. Remember David beat Goliath!
So all you cvd 'Davids' out there lets start the first battle in a series of battles to win the war!
Anyway I'll stand down off my soapbox now because the Simpsons is on. (I wonder if Homer is a cvd? Hmmm... flying)
Regards
Ice.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
To Palgia,
Yet another very interesting posting.
You are right in saying that the ICAO are ultimatley responsible for this colour perception standard which is based on science. Why the standard? Simple, no standard no safety. So one cannot argue with the intentions for the standard, but one can argue with the way each national aviation authority interprets as to 'how safe is safe'.
You wrote:
'The ICAO give a large amount of freedom to each individual aviation authority in determining who is actually colour deficient and who isn't.'
To me this seems an arbitary approach. The ICAO seem to be saying 'Ok guys do what you think is right within the standards we have set'. So countries have gone away and come up with their set of tests which fall within the criteria. The USA 'last chance' test is the signal gun test. A very sensible and relevant test. Of course these are the lights ALL pilots must be able to see properly. You are correct in saying that if there is radio failure a pilot must be able to see these lights. Carrying a hand held radio is an excellent idea because even a person with normal colour vision may not be able to see the lights from ATC in bad visibility. The chance of 2 radio failures is minute. But that's another topic for another day.
I have heard of people going to other countries within the JAA and getting their colour vision tested, passing and consequently getting the restrictions lifted from their licence. Isn't this what JAR harmonisation is all about?
Where do you draw the line? Good question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one yet. Each country seems to move the line to where THEY want it, as long it is still within the ICAO boundaries.
I don't think there is a conspiracy against us. As I said earlier the standards are set for safety reasons. These were not thought up overnight. They are scientifically researched. However I do believe they need to be reviewed again. The only way to beat these standards is with science - a long and hard task.
You said beat the ICAO and the rest will follow suit. This is very true but I think a more fundamental problem exists here. That is of the supposed harmonisation between the JAA countries.
As you may have guessed by now I am a cvd. I have been to the CAA and failed both the Ishihara and HW Lantern.
Under the regs. the HW Lantern, Anomolascope, Beyne Lantern and Spectrolux are accepted tests. Why couldn't I do all those tests before they decide to circle 'colour unsafe' on my medical? The obvious answer is cost. Too expensive to hold all that equipment to test 1/8 people who apply for the medical.
However shouldn't I be able to go to another JAA member state and have the remaining tests done there before a decision is made? If I do pass, it should be recognised by any other JAA country. But I have learned that this does not happen in practice. Also why different testing criteria for the same test? Where is the Spectrolux test available? Does anyone know?
So the next question is 'What now?'
I think a database of people in our situation should be started. And approaching Dr Pape for advice would be a good idea. This is a very tough, long and hard battle, so it is crucial that we start off on the right foot and tread carefully. It can be done though. Remember David beat Goliath!
So all you cvd 'Davids' out there lets start the first battle in a series of battles to win the war!
Anyway I'll stand down off my soapbox now because the Simpsons is on. (I wonder if Homer is a cvd? Hmmm... flying)
Regards
Ice.
Yet another very interesting posting.
You are right in saying that the ICAO are ultimatley responsible for this colour perception standard which is based on science. Why the standard? Simple, no standard no safety. So one cannot argue with the intentions for the standard, but one can argue with the way each national aviation authority interprets as to 'how safe is safe'.
You wrote:
'The ICAO give a large amount of freedom to each individual aviation authority in determining who is actually colour deficient and who isn't.'
To me this seems an arbitary approach. The ICAO seem to be saying 'Ok guys do what you think is right within the standards we have set'. So countries have gone away and come up with their set of tests which fall within the criteria. The USA 'last chance' test is the signal gun test. A very sensible and relevant test. Of course these are the lights ALL pilots must be able to see properly. You are correct in saying that if there is radio failure a pilot must be able to see these lights. Carrying a hand held radio is an excellent idea because even a person with normal colour vision may not be able to see the lights from ATC in bad visibility. The chance of 2 radio failures is minute. But that's another topic for another day.
I have heard of people going to other countries within the JAA and getting their colour vision tested, passing and consequently getting the restrictions lifted from their licence. Isn't this what JAR harmonisation is all about?
Where do you draw the line? Good question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one yet. Each country seems to move the line to where THEY want it, as long it is still within the ICAO boundaries.
I don't think there is a conspiracy against us. As I said earlier the standards are set for safety reasons. These were not thought up overnight. They are scientifically researched. However I do believe they need to be reviewed again. The only way to beat these standards is with science - a long and hard task.
You said beat the ICAO and the rest will follow suit. This is very true but I think a more fundamental problem exists here. That is of the supposed harmonisation between the JAA countries.
As you may have guessed by now I am a cvd. I have been to the CAA and failed both the Ishihara and HW Lantern.
Under the regs. the HW Lantern, Anomolascope, Beyne Lantern and Spectrolux are accepted tests. Why couldn't I do all those tests before they decide to circle 'colour unsafe' on my medical? The obvious answer is cost. Too expensive to hold all that equipment to test 1/8 people who apply for the medical.
However shouldn't I be able to go to another JAA member state and have the remaining tests done there before a decision is made? If I do pass, it should be recognised by any other JAA country. But I have learned that this does not happen in practice. Also why different testing criteria for the same test? Where is the Spectrolux test available? Does anyone know?
So the next question is 'What now?'
I think a database of people in our situation should be started. And approaching Dr Pape for advice would be a good idea. This is a very tough, long and hard battle, so it is crucial that we start off on the right foot and tread carefully. It can be done though. Remember David beat Goliath!
So all you cvd 'Davids' out there lets start the first battle in a series of battles to win the war!
Anyway I'll stand down off my soapbox now because the Simpsons is on. (I wonder if Homer is a cvd? Hmmm... flying)
Regards
Ice.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
Palgia
You will have to forgive my ignorance on this subject, I am a newcomer to the game but I am quickly learning the discrepancies in the system.
So maybe they have made a rod for their own back. Are they bound by their own rules to an extent where they HAVE to accept test results of another member country? Although when you approach the CAA they deny knowledge of this practice or discourage it. Mind you, their actions are understandable, otherwise it is a matter of 'opening the flood gates'.
Any comments?
Regards
Ice.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
You will have to forgive my ignorance on this subject, I am a newcomer to the game but I am quickly learning the discrepancies in the system.
So maybe they have made a rod for their own back. Are they bound by their own rules to an extent where they HAVE to accept test results of another member country? Although when you approach the CAA they deny knowledge of this practice or discourage it. Mind you, their actions are understandable, otherwise it is a matter of 'opening the flood gates'.
Any comments?
Regards
Ice.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: London
Palgia
You will have to forgive my ignorance on this subject, I am a newcomer to the game but I am quickly learning the discrepancies in the system.
So maybe they have made a rod for their own back. Are they bound by their own rules to an extent where they HAVE to accept test results of another member country? Although when you approach the CAA they deny knowledge of this practice or discourage it. Mind you, their actions are understandable, otherwise it is a matter of 'opening the flood gates'.
Any comments?
Regards
Ice.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
You will have to forgive my ignorance on this subject, I am a newcomer to the game but I am quickly learning the discrepancies in the system.
So maybe they have made a rod for their own back. Are they bound by their own rules to an extent where they HAVE to accept test results of another member country? Although when you approach the CAA they deny knowledge of this practice or discourage it. Mind you, their actions are understandable, otherwise it is a matter of 'opening the flood gates'.
Any comments?
Regards
Ice.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 316
Likes: 23
Hi Folks
I have been following these "Colour" pages for some time, with great interest and sympathy for those who have a problem. I believe it's our CAA who, as usual appear to be negative whenever possible. Look at the attitude in Australia and the US; far more helpful and positive.
I see that some of you have been to Holland and Switzerland, with success in obtaining medical Class1 certificates. Great news.
Can anyone who has been there recently please enlighten me as to the set-up; are they positive, on your side etc; any info on booking etc would be really appreciated.
Thanks very much to one and all, and good luck to those persevering.
I have been following these "Colour" pages for some time, with great interest and sympathy for those who have a problem. I believe it's our CAA who, as usual appear to be negative whenever possible. Look at the attitude in Australia and the US; far more helpful and positive.
I see that some of you have been to Holland and Switzerland, with success in obtaining medical Class1 certificates. Great news.
Can anyone who has been there recently please enlighten me as to the set-up; are they positive, on your side etc; any info on booking etc would be really appreciated.
Thanks very much to one and all, and good luck to those persevering.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 316
Likes: 23
Hi Folks
I have been following these "Colour" pages for some time, with great interest and sympathy for those who have a problem. I believe it's our CAA who, as usual appear to be negative whenever possible. Look at the attitude in Australia and the US; far more helpful and positive.
I see that some of you have been to Holland and Switzerland, with success in obtaining medical Class1 certificates. Great news.
Can anyone who has been there recently please enlighten me as to the set-up; are they positive, on your side etc; any info on booking etc would be really appreciated.
Thanks very much to one and all, and good luck to those persevering.
I have been following these "Colour" pages for some time, with great interest and sympathy for those who have a problem. I believe it's our CAA who, as usual appear to be negative whenever possible. Look at the attitude in Australia and the US; far more helpful and positive.
I see that some of you have been to Holland and Switzerland, with success in obtaining medical Class1 certificates. Great news.
Can anyone who has been there recently please enlighten me as to the set-up; are they positive, on your side etc; any info on booking etc would be really appreciated.
Thanks very much to one and all, and good luck to those persevering.
Guest
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Icebox, Palgia
You guys are certainly talking the talk. I'm liking what I hear. Yes I agree there probably is a point at which a colour defective becomes unsafe to pilot an aircraft. However I think the time has come to give the current testing methods and standards a complete review.
As I said before I failed both the plates and the Farnsworth. CASA have designed a "last chance lantern test" which can be sat at the Melbourne university of optometry. I sat this and passed. I had no idea I had passed until they told me as it seemed no different to the Farnsworth. The difference was of course that it only tested red and green as these ar the only colours having significance to an aircraft in flight.
I will try and find out where this test is at these days as it was around 5 years ago when I gave it a try. I'll get back but it may be a while. In the mean time you should seriously try and get hold of Pape. I guess the standard is not really cr@p just not relevent in its current form. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
You guys are certainly talking the talk. I'm liking what I hear. Yes I agree there probably is a point at which a colour defective becomes unsafe to pilot an aircraft. However I think the time has come to give the current testing methods and standards a complete review.
As I said before I failed both the plates and the Farnsworth. CASA have designed a "last chance lantern test" which can be sat at the Melbourne university of optometry. I sat this and passed. I had no idea I had passed until they told me as it seemed no different to the Farnsworth. The difference was of course that it only tested red and green as these ar the only colours having significance to an aircraft in flight.
I will try and find out where this test is at these days as it was around 5 years ago when I gave it a try. I'll get back but it may be a while. In the mean time you should seriously try and get hold of Pape. I guess the standard is not really cr@p just not relevent in its current form. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">