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?

Colour vision as far as I know doesn't deteriorate with age. Just plain old vision does...

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!

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.

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.

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).]

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 ?

Can anybody tell me if the Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) test is acceptable to the JAA or is it just the Holmes Wright lantern.

The Falant is acceptable to the FAA and the US military.

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'?

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.

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?

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. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

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? ;)

FCL3 - Can you describe what is involved in a FALANT test as I've never heard of it ? Like you, I've been around the opticians trying to get the same answer from two of them

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!

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.

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)?

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).]

Hey Baby !

THAT'S an argument !

But as the CAA/JAA told me, thy don't argue about seeing the nav lights (or not). They are more concered about the displays IN THE cockpit.

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 ?

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.

FCL3 - who was it that said that the tests were all 'about lights in the cockpit' and not outside ?

I didn't even know I was "colour deficient" until the nice CAA Doctor told me so, and a bit of a shock it was.

When I explained that I really can see if I'm about to fly into something, the Doctor (no names) just told me "some cockpits have red lights in them, you know."

If it hadn't been for my career tumbling past me out of the window, I would have realised then that it was the most stupid, ill-informed palm-off that I have ever heard. Actually, colour defectives can see MORE in a monochromatic situation than colour normals and they also, generally, have more acute night vision

If you've got the time, it is worth following the wonderful Dr Pape's link to the Austrlian Appeals Tribunal Case, Re Denison. This shows the depth of science which was investigated to reach their decision, and included (for instance) test-pilots "flying" simulators with the colour turned off. It is, as far as I can find out, the only time the issue has been examined in a neutral forum, and the result speaks for itself. The Australian CAA were as intransigent as ours (UK) and they lost.

I also found a paper from the 1940s in the library at uni a few years ago, from the time when the RAF were investigating colour vision in their applicants, and before attitudes had hardened. They discovered that about 8% of their pilots then (about the percentage of males who are colour defective) were in fact colour defective, with no difference in performance. This was at a time when the now archaic coloured airfield signals and recognition lights were regularly relied upon. (I also recently heard of a then-current Tornado pilot who was totally blue-green colour blind. Still today, none of the tests the RAF use pick up on that.)

The old article also pointed to the real problem in this matter: that nobody (including non-flying doctors)can actually know what another person is seeing, and so cannot tell whether they are safe or not. As is unfortunately usual with this type of issue and regulatory bodies, the result is a totally exclusive system which, in the face of all logic and with self-sustaining prejudice, excludes all but those in the middle of a statistical curve.

There, that's off my chest. Did someone further up mention the lifting of eyesight regs next year? Anyone know any more?

(edited for cock-up)

[This message has been edited by Hang On, I'm Busy (edited 05 July 2000).]

Good one ! I've read in several books that during the Second World War colour blind RAF guys were employed to spot the camoflagued and hidden vehicles of the Germans. This was because the colour defective individuals were aware of their 'disability' and were extra keen to look for changes in shape and outline rather than colour - the 'normal' guys were often fooled !

As for the eye-doc, his comment about red lights in the cockpit sums up his understanding and level of ignorance about flying. Does he believe that you would try and land if the only two of the landing gear lights in front of you were green rather than red ? Does he think that you would ignore the red master warning caption that would be flashing to get your attention for another reason ? Does he think that the ringing bell, klaxxon etc would not grab your attention in event of something else happening ? Are you not able to see the white, green, yellow and red bits on the ASi of soemthing like a C172 ? After all, these things are all about three feet from your nose and not outside your cockpit, or not 7m away in a darkened room and about 3mm in diameter as per the Lantern business.

I feel that it may be worth contacting Dr Pape in Australia. I emailed him a few years back when I first read about his research and he said that someone needed to take up the reins in the UK. Opinions ?

Keep 'em coming - the file on the thread on the home page is burning up

FCL3 - Whereabouts in Holland is Soesterberg and is it easy to fly into from the UK ?

FCL3 - I've just found Soesterberg and am thinking about making a trip over there. Can you put some telephone numbers and contacts up on this BB ?

Try their website at http://www.aeromed.nl/

This gives phone numbers, location and prices. At 985 guilders for an initial JAR Class One it is cheaper to go there than Handbrake House at £387.

Try Easyjet out of Liverpool for cheap flights, it is only 10/15 minutes by train from Schipol.

Good hunting..............

[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 12 July 2000).]

I recently undertook the Holmes Right Lantern Test at Heathrow airport. I passed, despite being colour blind. Is there an explanation for this? Before my test I was made to take an Ishihara test, which I failed. Does anyone know why I was able to pass my lantern test (ie. specific requirement for colour vision)and most importantly-WILL I HAVE TO TAKE IT AGAIN?

Yosser - cheers for that I'll have a look. Did you get a Class 1 over there as you are obviously familiar with where it is ?

Actionman, not yet, but I am booked in.............!

gemmie you are not colour blind. the reason that you failed the ishihara test is straight forward. I am in the same position as you are (I passed the FALANT farnsworth lantern test) but fail the ishihara test. When I was initially misdiagnosed as being colour blind I did quite a bit of research into it as it was bit of a shock considering that I never had any trouble with colours. The problem is actually with the ishihara test itself, it works just fine if you pass it but if you fail it does not mean that you are colourblind. one out of every three failures is able to reliably distinguish between red and green which is what the test is supposed to be checking for. Basically ishihara is the defacto standard because it has been around for so long however it is based on bad science. It uses blue, yellow and shades of purple to confuse your brain. When people that pass the ishihara test are tested using an analmascope the results vary from person to person suggesting that everybody sees colours a bit differently the 30-40% who fail the ishihara test (but can still distinguish all the colours) are among this group, they just don't pass ishihara's standard which is from all the evidence an abritrary one. Only a very few people are really colour blind. Almost all of the people who fail ishihara can tell the difference between red and green however it comes down to the intesity of the colour, and some people can not do it reliably.

The US military recognised this problem years ago and instituted a policy of using ishihara's test only as a screening tool. the actual standard is determined by the farnsworth lantern (FALANT). This test is also acceptable to the FAA. The Holmes Wright lantern is supposedly harder to pass than the FALANT but I have no first hand experience of Holmes wright.

Yosser - did you get my emails about this lot ?

Afraid not, actionman.

That "E" mail address will not let me in anymore.

Post yours and I will let you know how I get on.

Yosser - mine is [email protected]

I'd be very interested to hear about it all away from this BB.

Cheers

here is some good news for all concerned with this topic. I spoke to a professor of optometry just last week and he told me that there may well be a treatment in the not too distant future. The Human genome project was just finished recently (a year ahead of schedule) and this guy tells me that colour vision deficiency is a prime candidate for gene therapy. The technique used would be to use a suitable vector virus which would be used to infect the subject and in so doing a repair gene would piggyback along into the subjects cells. The cells in the retina would then begin producing normal colour pigments and all the evidence suggests that this would lead to normal colour vision. The guy that told me stressed that it was all theoretical but that once again ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IT WILL WORK. Apparently the difficult bit is finding a suitable vector virus, some thing with no side effects.

This professor told me that in the last year he has changed his estimate of when there would be a treatment down from within 50 years to within 5 years or even sooner.

To all PPRUNERS interested in this topic please keep a careful eye out for any advertisments regarding clinical trials in the next few years.

Lets hope it works and we can all kiss this problem goodbye.

With my luck the only suitable vector virus will turn out to be HIV..........

Sorry for replying so late!!

inverted flatspin:
I don't really know, if the FALANT is acceptable to the
JAA.
Maybe you should ask the JAA by eMail. http://www.jaa.nl

actionman:
We are about to start a "campeign" in our new association here
in Germany. We will build up a new Internet-Site and soon
we will sue the German LBA.
We also try to get telecasted. And one of the Flight Schools in
Germany informs applicants about the colour vision standard after
we informed the school about the bad situation today and nearly anyone
who has a colour vision deficiency is visiting our site and getting subscribed
to our Listbot-Email-List.

actionman:
<< FCL3 - who was it that said that the tests were all 'about lights in the cockpit' and not outside ?

It was a JAA-Doc, actually it was the Assistant to Licensing Director.
The JAA once planned to make a new Sim-Test with common cockpit-displays but
as he/she/it told me they do not have enough money and engineers to develop
such a test.

actionman:
Soesterberg is about 15 km to the east of Utrecht and about 60 km southeastwards
to Amsterdam. But isn't the Utrecht-Airport just 2 km away??

You can get good information here: http://www.aeromed.nl

gemmie:
It is quite possible that you have a colour vision *deficiency*.
That means that you are not able to distinguish e.g. white from
green at certain conditions (mostly it's the distance).
The Ishihara is very sensitive. Even if you have an extrem "light
version" of a colour vision defect you will not be able to see
every plate.
The Holmes-Wright can be passed even when you have a deuteranomaly or
a protanomaly.
Have you ever been tested at the anomaloscope?

gemmie:

I'm sorry, but as I know we have to do the Holmes-Wright test again. And that's why I'm still studying and fighting against the Colour Perception Standard.
I passed the HW and I have to do it again 5-yearly at the "extended opthalmological examinitaion".
The funny thing: The Aeromedical Institute wasn't able to give me any information about repeating the test. It was the JAA who told me.

FCL3 - thanks for your notes.

Don't know about all of you dudes but I don't know whether I like the idea of a white-coated professer messing around with the genes in my eyes ! The question is...is it worth messing with what is otherwise perfectly good sight to pass a medical?

By going down this road the likes of the CAA/JAA etc win because the likes of us lot end up seeking corrective treatment for an ailment that makes no difference in the air.

My thoughts: get rid of the stupid limitations and needless standards rather than trying to get colour vision genetically altered.

BTW...my wife's a clinical research nurse so I know what these profs are like !

FCL3

What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.

FCL3

What is a "anomaloscope"?
I am seriously thinking of going to Holland to try the Holmes Wright test.I have been to Gatwick several years ago and failed this miserably and have been resigned to the fact that I will never get a class one.The problem was the large distance and the fact that it was doubled by the use of a mirror on the facing wall(the actual lights were behind you).I feel that if the device were nearer I could do it!!
Hope springs eternal.