Old 09-24-2015, 05:42 AM
  #14  
Dan64456
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 456
Default

Originally Posted by BeechBus View Post
Can you reference where you read this? The only document I could find was written in June of 2009 and reflects the current standards.
Here it is:
https://d2jug8yyubo3yl.cloudfront.ne...c5c89b3a81.pdf

Note that they reference the Tallahassee case.. That's a red herring. Fatigue was the cause of that accident hands down.. Not to mention not following the procedures. (I can't stand when they quote that sham of a case. argh!)
Also check out Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)
Great info there (even about the Tallahassee case). It's a group that lobbies against the color vision standards based in Australia..(Dr. Arthur Pape is a pilot and a Doctor who leads the cause.. They have had successes past and present) But they have their eye on standards all over the world, including the FAA. The FAA's is actually pretty liberal believe it or not, even though it's a pain in the ass to get scheduled for an OCVT/MFT.

So as you can see it looks like the OCVT/MFT will be here to stay.. If you rely on a test not listed on that document, then consider the OCVT/MFT so you don't have to constantly worry about this anymore. If you want to try the CAD test, ERAU has it and they will more than likely let you try it out, but you need to take the trip down there. If you pass the Ishihara, Dvorine, or especially the Richmond HHR as of now, you are most likely good to go. Note that the FAA allows more errors on these tests to account for adequate(as opposed to what's in the test manual to be considered normal) color vision. You can see those allowed errors in the link to the FAA site above. Note that I can pass the Dvorine and certain ishihara tests according to the FAA standards, but I opted to take the OCVT/MFT anyway. (I failed one of those 6 plate tests initially which is why they allowed me to go this route, after 8 + years even).
Also note that in the study, "Acceptance of Risk" (of those who they believe squeak by the current standard) is a proposed option. AKA they probably recognize it's political and not a true safety risk based on god only knows how many people flying safely for 20+ years and tens of 1000's of hours who wouldn't pass under the proposed standards..
Anyway good luck and keep me posted.. I'll help anybody any way I can with this.
Dan64456 is offline