I wanted to let everyone know about a growing group of very intelligent and passionate people working to have the color vision standard overturned, or at least looked at with unbiased judgement:

Colour Vision Defective Pilots Association (CVDPA)

"This website will show in detail why the Aviation Colour Perception Standard is wrong and unnecessary.

The arguments we make in this website have in the past formed the basis of two highly successful legal challenges to the Aviation Colour Perception Standard in Australia.

The Australian experience over the last twenty-three years since those successful challenges can become a positive example to the rest of the world.

There is no place in Aviation Safety Regulation for the confused approach that currently characterizes the Aviation Colour Perception Standard.

With your support, the CVDPA will work to achieve the same success in all countries".

Dr. Arthur Pape


Another gentleman, Pedro Ponte, has also created a website of his own for this purpose... If nothing else, they provide wonderful guidance to pilots (or potential pilots) who are going through this problem. Standards for each aviation administration are listed, as are articles, and plenty of other very useful information that most people are unaware of.

CVD Pilots - Home


By getting involved, it would be a wonderful way for AOPA to help people out, and to gain more pilots in the population. Countless thousands have given up when their AME told them: "Sorry kid, choose a different career."

The problem with this is that it is often bad information. The AME himself probably didn't know the alternate tests available or the Operational Color Vision Test / Medical Flight test that the FAA allows. Either way, this affects 10% of the male population and .5% of female. If you ask me, 10.5% is a lot of people being unfairly discriminated against. Hopefully if you take the time to read Dr Pape's article, you will find why color "blind" individuals are NOT unsafe to fly.

Thanks everyone, and I hope this somehow helps other people out that feel alone about this dream killer. It certainly almost killed mine.

 

I think you need good color vision until they replace all the PAPIs and VASIs with systems which don't use color...but that's a lot of money. they would also have to change some signs and markings on runways and taxiways.

There are most likely better ways to test for it than the flip-cards; more operationally oriented.

I'm all for helping people out, but the current crackdown was in response to that FDX crash in FL...I don't think we can just gloss over the safety issues here, some of them are real. There are some people who can't be professional pilots for a variety of reasons, and severe color deficiency probably needs to be one of them. I do think they can do a better job of separating those whose deficiency really impairs them operationally from those who do fine flying but can't tell chartreuse from green.

 

And that is the real key here. Right now it doesn't - at least without jumping through hoops! I'm one of them.

As for those PAPIs and VASIs - don't worry Rickair - it has been my recent experience that most of them aren't up to snuff in any matter Not until recently were many of these systems ever commissioned, even ones that had been in use for a long time.

USMCFLYR

 

The FDX crash was based on bad science... The 2 other crew members both had the same view of the runway, and both had normal color vision. Neither of them noticed a thing. The problem there was fatigue, not color vision. There have been articles with PAPI tests and it has been proven that ALL, not just color vision deficients, but normals as well, had a much less error rate with use of a "modified white". I believe the white was more intense, and cooler in color temp. I don't think changing the bulbs with these whites as they burn out is going to burn anyone's wallet. Yup, normal's made errors too. One major point in Dr Pape's articles is the use of bad science, and biased unquestioned judgement - such as in the FDX crash. They test how well people discern color in the aviation environment, not how safe or how efficiently they perform the actual task of flying. There are guys on there with 20+ years in Airbus's that have severe deficiencies and work out of Australia (where the standard was overturned). They fly into London for a night on their 200 - 400 seat jet, but aren't allowed to take a Cessna out after the sun goes down once they get there because of the strict regulations... It's ironic, nonsensical, and exemplifies the problem with this standard. Why not just change the colors of PAPI's? I think pretty much everyone can see Blue and White difference. Maybe that could drop the error rate to 0. But again, the PAPI is just redundant... The shape of the runway and 3d environment conveys most of the information required for a safe landing. Regardless, this is a great thing for people that have the 'problem', and the majority that do only have the mild to moderate deutran deficiency... Which isn't all that different from normal color vision anyway. (Current office based color vision tests only determine those who have ANY deficiency at all.. not how mild or extreme.)

Oh - and I also remember reading something about condensation on the PAPI lights that can make the red look pink (closer to the whites), and same thing with certain transition angles... Something to consider.

 

I think you mean the FDX accident investigation was based on bad science.
The CRASH was based on loss of SA by the crew for one.
You are correct about the all members of the crew not recounting anything about all red PAPIs. Some even make mention of the FO's misidentification of another flashing white light as the airport beacon as further evidence of his deficiency, yet makes no mention of another FDX CA who regularly flew into the airport mentioning that many make the same mistake.

Yes - many P139 airports now have VGSI systems on 24/7 I believe, but not ALL airports use them - - something to remember if you are the pilot flying into such an airport. I'm not sure what you mean about certain transition angles?

USMCFLYR

 

Talk with an AME and see just how many pilots can't really pass the given test. If really enforced to the "T", I don't think at least half of the male pilot population would ever get their medical, at least based on what my AME has told me. Supposedly I have some red/green deficiency. I've always been able to pass the test or do "well enough", but some of the numbers I just can't see (and yes, I know there are sometimes ones with nothing/if you see something it's wrong). I can always see the different colors, but sometimes I have to "trace it out" to get to the right one, which seems odd, but I don't know if they're supposed to be more distinctive or what. With a variety of other tests (alternative test in the Army) I've done fine, and I've never had any problems in real life discerning between reds and greens, but I just think the current test is ridiculous, and there is a lot of criticism of it for other reasons (inconsistent due to lighting levels, types of lighting, etc) . It's ridiculous because most people tend to agree that the level of color definition required by the test is not required for anything a pilot does.

 

I am in the same boat as James. The trouble with Ishihara plates is that they screen for for "perfect" color vision....something like saying your acuity is either 20/20 or you are legally blind. No, there are variations of acuity, just like color deficiency. Plus other confounds in the system; any AME I have gone to so far I an barely pass their Ishihara plates, but when I went to an eye doctor I got almost all correct, and I believe he had 1. the correct bulb 2. a non faded color plate book 3. turned off the room lights.