Colour Blindness (merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Colour Blind...
I have a Category 1 medical, and when it comes to the color test, I always miss out on 2-4 of the colored cicrles. The doctor normally shows me about 12-14 samples. Though I am not color blind, I understand colour blindnes is genetic. Will my color vision deteriorate with age, or will it remain relatively the same throughout my career?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Believe it or not, one may actually experience a slight yellowing of the eyes' lens with advanced age, usually long after one has joined the bifocal-wearing set, which will slightly diminish one's ability to distinguish the more subtle differences between grey, blue and violet. The less vivid of the blues and violets start to look a trifle greyish instead.
Out of 14 trials, which is the usual number for the Pseudo-Isochromatic Plates (PIP) and Ishihara tests, a person with "normal" color perception is generally expected to get 10 of them correct. Those of us who can get through a PIP or Ishihara test with zero errors are those whose color perception is actually better than the norm.
I wouldn't worry about scores like that if I were you; it sounds like your altogether normal in that respect. If it's any consolation, while I've got a corrected visual acuity of 20/12 bilaterally and can pass every color-vision test ever devised with no errors, I'm myopic enough that I'd fail a JAA Class 1 renewal and couldn't get a Class 2 except with a waiver (refrac: OD -6.75 s -1.00 cyl, OS -5.25 s -0.50 cyl and an uncorrected DVA of 20/250). Fortunately, my own country (the US) has a different set of rules!
------------------
Anybody out after 2 AM is either a turd, a cop or a pilot. Or any combination of the three!
Out of 14 trials, which is the usual number for the Pseudo-Isochromatic Plates (PIP) and Ishihara tests, a person with "normal" color perception is generally expected to get 10 of them correct. Those of us who can get through a PIP or Ishihara test with zero errors are those whose color perception is actually better than the norm.
I wouldn't worry about scores like that if I were you; it sounds like your altogether normal in that respect. If it's any consolation, while I've got a corrected visual acuity of 20/12 bilaterally and can pass every color-vision test ever devised with no errors, I'm myopic enough that I'd fail a JAA Class 1 renewal and couldn't get a Class 2 except with a waiver (refrac: OD -6.75 s -1.00 cyl, OS -5.25 s -0.50 cyl and an uncorrected DVA of 20/250). Fortunately, my own country (the US) has a different set of rules!
------------------
Anybody out after 2 AM is either a turd, a cop or a pilot. Or any combination of the three!
Guest
Posts: n/a
where is the logic in the JAA's position? I fortunatley pass the colour standard, but not by much I have to rely on the FALANT test here in the US. I am also lucky in the prescription area -2.5 ( I intend to convert my licence to a JAA version eventually). My question is this how can the JAA refuse somebody with lenses stronger than -3 diopters when every day pilots with much thicker lenses fly over their very heads in N registerd aircraft. this and a few other nonsense ideas have found their way into the JAR's, I hope it all works itself out someday.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are some test plates for which numbers only show up for people with a particular colour deficiency. Or so I was told once by a tech, when I admitted that I couldn't see anything at all on a particular plate.
Some of the plates have two "answers": the one that is a different colour than the background, and another number that is distinguished from the background by differences in greyscale. People with normal colour vision see the coloured number effortlessly and go to the next page. People with a colour deficiency who hunt for the number using other clues, trying to pass the test, will fall into the trap and spot the grey number.
Some of the plates have two "answers": the one that is a different colour than the background, and another number that is distinguished from the background by differences in greyscale. People with normal colour vision see the coloured number effortlessly and go to the next page. People with a colour deficiency who hunt for the number using other clues, trying to pass the test, will fall into the trap and spot the grey number.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Folks!
I am a CVD (colour vision defective) in Europe. I have a deuteranomaly. In Europe especially in Germany it is really hard (nearly impossible) to get a medical with a colour vision deficiency !
Since the Germans will adapt to the "new" JAR-Regulation this year I was at the CAA in Gatwick for a Class 1 Med and I was assessed as unfit because I didn't pass the so called lanterntest.
But I didn't give up, so I went to the Aeromedical Institute in Soesterberg (NL) and I really passed the lanterntest, which was now very easy to pass because the way of testing was very different.
So in the next few days I will get my JAR-FCL3-Certificate for Class 1.
The only thing I REALLY don't understand is: Why do they have colour vision tests in their "extended ophtalmological examination" 5 yearly ?!
I'd like to know if there is anbody out there who is colour vision defective and passed the JAR tests (or didn't pass)?
For the American, Canadian and Australian pilots:
Here are the colour perception requirements for Europe:
------------------------------
JAR-FCL 3.225 Colour Perception
Date: February 28, 1997
(a) Normal colour perception is defined as the ability to pass the Ishihara test or to pass Nagel's anomaloscope as a normal trichromate (see paragraph 1 Appendix 14 to Subpart B).
(b) An applicant shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail Ishihara's test shall be assessed as colour safe if they pass extensive testing with methods acceptable to the AMS (anomaloscopy or colour lanterns - see paragraph 2 Appendix 14 to Subpart B).
(c) An applicant who fails the acceptable colour perception tests is to be considered colour unsafe and shall be assessed as unfit.
------------------------------
Sincerly,
- FCL
-------------------
By the way, how's my English?
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 June 2000).]
I am a CVD (colour vision defective) in Europe. I have a deuteranomaly. In Europe especially in Germany it is really hard (nearly impossible) to get a medical with a colour vision deficiency !
Since the Germans will adapt to the "new" JAR-Regulation this year I was at the CAA in Gatwick for a Class 1 Med and I was assessed as unfit because I didn't pass the so called lanterntest.
But I didn't give up, so I went to the Aeromedical Institute in Soesterberg (NL) and I really passed the lanterntest, which was now very easy to pass because the way of testing was very different.
So in the next few days I will get my JAR-FCL3-Certificate for Class 1.
The only thing I REALLY don't understand is: Why do they have colour vision tests in their "extended ophtalmological examination" 5 yearly ?!
I'd like to know if there is anbody out there who is colour vision defective and passed the JAR tests (or didn't pass)?
For the American, Canadian and Australian pilots:
Here are the colour perception requirements for Europe:
------------------------------
JAR-FCL 3.225 Colour Perception
Date: February 28, 1997
(a) Normal colour perception is defined as the ability to pass the Ishihara test or to pass Nagel's anomaloscope as a normal trichromate (see paragraph 1 Appendix 14 to Subpart B).
(b) An applicant shall have normal perception of colours or be colour safe. Applicants who fail Ishihara's test shall be assessed as colour safe if they pass extensive testing with methods acceptable to the AMS (anomaloscopy or colour lanterns - see paragraph 2 Appendix 14 to Subpart B).
(c) An applicant who fails the acceptable colour perception tests is to be considered colour unsafe and shall be assessed as unfit.
------------------------------
Sincerly,
- FCL
-------------------
By the way, how's my English?
[This message has been edited by FCL3 (edited 20 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is very interesting news...
I failed the lantern test at Gatwick last year for UK Class 2 medical, so I have a restricted class 2, which prevents me from flying at night etc. on my BCPL. This is fine at the moment as I am able to instruct.
However, next year when I come to renew CAA have informed me that I will be required to undertake class 1 JAR medical and they will issue a Class 1 restricted - £350 for instructing PPLs in C150s! Are they having a laugh? The really daft thing is I have an unrestricted UK class 3 (valid for 5 years), meaning I can fly exactly the same a/c with no restrictions whatsoever as a PPL. (The lantern test for class 3 is less stringent, and even for the class 2 they tested me 3 times before they were sure, so I think I am only just 'colour unsafe').
Can you tell me what was different about the test at Soesterberg (as opposed to Germany/UK) that enabled you to pass it? Incidentally, why did you try the UK medical before going to NL?
Also, if you aren't Dutch, are the authorities issuing your professional license happy to do so against the Dutch issued medical ?
I failed the lantern test at Gatwick last year for UK Class 2 medical, so I have a restricted class 2, which prevents me from flying at night etc. on my BCPL. This is fine at the moment as I am able to instruct.
However, next year when I come to renew CAA have informed me that I will be required to undertake class 1 JAR medical and they will issue a Class 1 restricted - £350 for instructing PPLs in C150s! Are they having a laugh? The really daft thing is I have an unrestricted UK class 3 (valid for 5 years), meaning I can fly exactly the same a/c with no restrictions whatsoever as a PPL. (The lantern test for class 3 is less stringent, and even for the class 2 they tested me 3 times before they were sure, so I think I am only just 'colour unsafe').
Can you tell me what was different about the test at Soesterberg (as opposed to Germany/UK) that enabled you to pass it? Incidentally, why did you try the UK medical before going to NL?
Also, if you aren't Dutch, are the authorities issuing your professional license happy to do so against the Dutch issued medical ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the way we test for colour vision in aviation is somewhat arbitrary. I wonder what similarities there are between passing the Ishihara test or Nagel anomaloscope or this lantern test, or that - and flying the aircraft safely?
I've also often wondered how important 'normal' colour vision is in the flying task these days, especially when we're mostly IFR and have at least two radios?
It seems to me that p'raps a 'cockpit specific' test should be done (and failed) before anyone is ruled 'colour unfit/unsafe'?
I've also often wondered how important 'normal' colour vision is in the flying task these days, especially when we're mostly IFR and have at least two radios?
It seems to me that p'raps a 'cockpit specific' test should be done (and failed) before anyone is ruled 'colour unfit/unsafe'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
browse on over to http://www.aopa.com.au/topics/medical/denison.htm for details about some research the Australians did a few years ago, when considering the same question.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for that. Most interesting ref.
What they are presumeably now doing in Australia seems to make a lot of sense to me.
I wonder when the rest of the world will catch up!?
The Farnsworth Lantern I would suspect is more aviation/practical than the Holmes Wright - but I wonder how both compares to the real flying environment?
What they are presumeably now doing in Australia seems to make a lot of sense to me.
I wonder when the rest of the world will catch up!?
The Farnsworth Lantern I would suspect is more aviation/practical than the Holmes Wright - but I wonder how both compares to the real flying environment?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi 150Driver!
I'm sorry for that late reply.
The reason why I first went to CAA was that I
didn't know the Dutch having the new JAR-FCL 3.
In Gatwick the lanternbox was about 7 (or more?)
meters away and I had to (!) lean back on the chair.
He didn't accept any corrections. When I said:
"It's white - no, it's green" he wrote down that I said
white!
I had about 4 errors and I was assessed as unfit after 30 minutes.
In Soesterberg it was quite easier. The ophtalmologist
there was really friendly. The box was right to me and
and I looked into a mirror in which I saw the box.
The box was about 2 meters away from the mirror (this means
totally 4 meters). And after all I had 0 errors.
The Germans still have their old requirements. You have
to set the anomaloscopy to the value of 1,3.
I had the value of 3,0. This means a deuteranomaly (green area).
The Krauts will adapt to the knew regulation this year.
And then it will be possible to start my ATPL-Training
here. But not, if I have to do the ****ing lanterntest
again.
CU,
- Denis
-------------------
By the way, how's my English?
I'm sorry for that late reply.
The reason why I first went to CAA was that I
didn't know the Dutch having the new JAR-FCL 3.
In Gatwick the lanternbox was about 7 (or more?)
meters away and I had to (!) lean back on the chair.
He didn't accept any corrections. When I said:
"It's white - no, it's green" he wrote down that I said
white!
I had about 4 errors and I was assessed as unfit after 30 minutes.
In Soesterberg it was quite easier. The ophtalmologist
there was really friendly. The box was right to me and
and I looked into a mirror in which I saw the box.
The box was about 2 meters away from the mirror (this means
totally 4 meters). And after all I had 0 errors.
The Germans still have their old requirements. You have
to set the anomaloscopy to the value of 1,3.
I had the value of 3,0. This means a deuteranomaly (green area).
The Krauts will adapt to the knew regulation this year.
And then it will be possible to start my ATPL-Training
here. But not, if I have to do the ****ing lanterntest
again.
CU,
- Denis
-------------------
By the way, how's my English?
Guest
Posts: n/a
actionman:
The Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) Test is simply a series of exercises in which you're shown three lights - one each red, green and white - arranged is varying sequences over 9 trials. The examinee's task is to tell which light is which on each trial. It's been the test of choice in the US Navy for decades for one simple reason: it's widely regarded as the only color-perception test that is absolutely "cheat-proof"!
------------------
Anybody out after 2 AM is either a turd, a cop or a pilot. Or any combination of the three!
The Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) Test is simply a series of exercises in which you're shown three lights - one each red, green and white - arranged is varying sequences over 9 trials. The examinee's task is to tell which light is which on each trial. It's been the test of choice in the US Navy for decades for one simple reason: it's widely regarded as the only color-perception test that is absolutely "cheat-proof"!
------------------
Anybody out after 2 AM is either a turd, a cop or a pilot. Or any combination of the three!
Guest
Posts: n/a
hello Lad's here is a very important link for anyone interested in this topic.
http://www.leftseat.com/colorvision.htm
It contains a very good downloadable article on how Colour (Color in America) Vision deficiency is dealt with by the FAA.
As we have come to expect from the americans it is a very commonsense and practical way of dealing with this issue.
Interestingly enough if you happen to pass one of the alternative tests listed by the FAA they then give you a letter certifiying that you meet the standard for colour vision which you present to the AME at all future medicals and you will never again be tested for colour vision. The same is true for the SODA (statement of demonstrated ablility) or signal light gun test, however this is the least desireable way of getting the restriction removed as it is considerd a waiver and if you apply for a professional flying job you will have to mention it on your application.
When I started learning to fly my AME gave me bad advice he sent me for the SODA straight away, I passed this test and was given an unrestricted medical right there and then, when I decided to begin my commercial training I found out about the alternative tests. I went to an eye specialist and he gave me the Devorine test and the Farnsworth Lantern test both of which I passed, The FAA then removed the waiver from my record and gave me the letter of competence. If only I had known about the alternative tests at the start it would have been a lot easier with a lot less paperwork but now that it is all sorted out, United airlines here I come.
http://www.leftseat.com/colorvision.htm
It contains a very good downloadable article on how Colour (Color in America) Vision deficiency is dealt with by the FAA.
As we have come to expect from the americans it is a very commonsense and practical way of dealing with this issue.
Interestingly enough if you happen to pass one of the alternative tests listed by the FAA they then give you a letter certifiying that you meet the standard for colour vision which you present to the AME at all future medicals and you will never again be tested for colour vision. The same is true for the SODA (statement of demonstrated ablility) or signal light gun test, however this is the least desireable way of getting the restriction removed as it is considerd a waiver and if you apply for a professional flying job you will have to mention it on your application.
When I started learning to fly my AME gave me bad advice he sent me for the SODA straight away, I passed this test and was given an unrestricted medical right there and then, when I decided to begin my commercial training I found out about the alternative tests. I went to an eye specialist and he gave me the Devorine test and the Farnsworth Lantern test both of which I passed, The FAA then removed the waiver from my record and gave me the letter of competence. If only I had known about the alternative tests at the start it would have been a lot easier with a lot less paperwork but now that it is all sorted out, United airlines here I come.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cheers - I've had a look at this sight and it looks good. The example plate tests that are on the site seem remarkably easy (but the site does warn you about this). It is also good to see that the FAA accepts a selction of tests whereas the CAA seems to think along the lines of 'Ishihara or Holmes lantern or bust'.
A previous message explained the FALANT test to me - but surely you will only ever see one of the following selections of nav lights ?
From behind, white, white, white.
From the front,left to right, green,white ( assuming the landing light's on), red.
And from port and starboard only the appropriate red or green and maybe the tail.
This asumes that you are not inverted and at the same altitude as the other aircraft but is the FALANT test a true representation ?
Any thoughts anyone (I haven't done it)?
A previous message explained the FALANT test to me - but surely you will only ever see one of the following selections of nav lights ?
From behind, white, white, white.
From the front,left to right, green,white ( assuming the landing light's on), red.
And from port and starboard only the appropriate red or green and maybe the tail.
This asumes that you are not inverted and at the same altitude as the other aircraft but is the FALANT test a true representation ?
Any thoughts anyone (I haven't done it)?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anybody know where I can get a FALANT test done?
Failed the Holmes Wright already, the CAA AME stated "it simulates IMC conditions".
If you see a nav. light in IMC it doesn't matter what colour it is, it will be embedded in your forehead milliseconds later.
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 30 June 2000).]
Failed the Holmes Wright already, the CAA AME stated "it simulates IMC conditions".
If you see a nav. light in IMC it doesn't matter what colour it is, it will be embedded in your forehead milliseconds later.
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 30 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, if the CAA told you that they are more concerned about seeing lights and colours on instruments etc then the test they use should reflect their argument... And should not rely on seing nav lights that they know you are not going to see in thick fog.
CAA get real - do you think we should start a campaign ?
CAA get real - do you think we should start a campaign ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes.I think a campaign should be started against the CAA for discrimination against pilots with a colour difficiency.I have over 2000 hrs on a PPL/IR and cannot progress further because of their intransigent attitude.I am allowed to fly on airways in zero visibility down to 250 feet on the ILS yet denied a CLP/ATPL.In U.S.A.or Australia I would have a class one but in the U.K. zilch.