Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Look at

[MikeD]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

but if new research is ultimately ignored, it will be contrary to the excellence spoken of in the core values.


.

HAHA!!!

I'm sorry, but that part just made me laugh. If you really buy that idealistic crap the senior brass spew about the AF and it's "core values" (#4 should be "Do as I say, not as I do"), then I've got an island home in Arizona to sell you.......

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

USAF currently disqualifies approx. 8% of applicants based on color vision, but there are still plenty of qualified applicants. I figure if there are 1000 pilot slots a year, then 80 are disqualified for CV.

Incorrect math.

There are 1000 that are selected, but the 8% applies to *applicants* and not selects. I'm certain applicants outnumber selections by a wide margin. So, you don't really know what the impact is.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

HAHA!!!

I'm sorry, but that part just made me laugh. If you really buy that idealistic crap the senior brass spew about the AF and it's "core values" (#4 should be "Do as I say, not as I do"), then I've got an island home in Arizona to sell you.......

Yea, I know, that was cheesy; I had a feeling someone would call me out. It sure fit well in what I was trying to say and I still think it is at least debatable that, if the USAF is disqualifying capable applicants, it is a problem.

 

[MikeD]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

Yea, I know, that was cheesy; I had a feeling someone would call me out. It sure fit well in what I was trying to say and I still think it is at least debatable that, if the USAF is disqualifying capable applicants, it is a problem.

Oh no, my dig isn't on you partner; it's really on the AF system itself that puts out this stuff and holds it's people to it, yet doesn't practice it itself.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

Incorrect math.

I believe what you are actually referring to would be incorrect statistics, not incorrect math.

There are 1000 that are selected, but the 8% applies to *applicants* and not selects. I'm certain applicants outnumber selections by a wide margin. So, you don't really know what the impact is.

So there are approx. 8% of men with color vision deficiency of some type (one of my most credible sources cites it as 1 in 10). So it makes sense to assume that about 8% of pilot applicants will have some type of color deficiency. I assume your argument is that some of that 8% don't get selected for pilot slots due to initial DODMERB physicals? This may be true to some extent, but 8% was actually the number quoted to me by doctors at Brooks. The strictness of the color vision screening, I'm guessing, accounts for this statistic being relatively high.

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

I believe what you are actually referring to would be incorrect statistics, not incorrect math.



So there are approx. 8% of men with color vision deficiency of some type (one of my most credible sources cites it as 1 in 10). So it makes sense to assume that about 8% of pilot applicants will have some type of color deficiency. I assume your argument is that some of that 8% don't get selected for pilot slots due to initial DODMERB physicals? This may be true to some extent, but 8% was actually the number quoted to me by doctors at Brooks. The strictness of the color vision screening, I'm guessing, accounts for this statistic being relatively high.

My point was that 1,000 is the round production number from all the SUPT bases -- that number has no relation to the number of people who apply. There could have been 2,000 or 10,000 people who applied to go to SUPT.

8% of that number could vary wildly.

Now, if your assertion was that 8% of selects who go through Brooks for EFSM are DQ for color vision, then that is a different statistic entirely.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

My point was that 1,000 is the round production number from all the SUPT bases -- that number has no relation to the number of people who apply. There could have been 2,000 or 10,000 people who applied to go to SUPT.

8% of that number could vary wildly.

Now, if your assertion was that 8% of selects who go through Brooks for EFSM are DQ for color vision, then that is a different statistic entirely.

I'm a bit confused about your logic, maybe mine was not clear in the first place. I will attempt to explain better:

1. 8% of males in the general population have color vision anomaly of some form
2. It could be assumed that a random selection of people (in regards to color vision) apply for pilot slots. Some of those who know they have color vision issues may not apply because they know they will not be accepted or the condition may be picked up on initial DODMERB physical. This step seems like it should significantly lower the number, but its surprising based on what Brooks says.
3. No matter the number of applicants, approx. 8% (maybe a bit less) will have some form of color vision anomaly.
4. If 1000 pilot slots are given to this pool of applicants (regardless of the number of applicants), then there will be approx. 8% of those initially selected for pilot slots who have color vision anomaly.
5. After being selected for a pilot slot, these 8% (80 individuals with pilot slots) will be disqualified at Brooks.
6. According to the new tests 35% may be fit to fly, so assuming this would hold true for military standards, 28 individuals would be unnecessarily disqualified.
7. This means that 28 of the top 1000 applicants, no matter if there are 2000, 10k, or 100k applicants, are potentially being unnecessarily disqualified.
8. As I said, this 8% should be at least somewhat lower due to initial screenings, but the doctors at Brooks who disqualified me, told me that 8% of the people they see for flight physicals get disqualified for color vision. Even if it were lowered to 4%, thats still 14 of the top 1000.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

There is nobody in the history of the human race that has more experience selecting people as candidates for flight training than your US Air Force. The USAF is very, very interested in only picking the candidates with the highest chances for success in both SUPT and in follow-on training. They have a lot to risk on who they send to UPT, and a lot to lose (in terms of time and money) when they pick the wrong people.

It is absolutely NOT something that is taken lightly...or something that is imposed for sheer entertainment or harassment value. It is a carefully thought out set of criteria that has been forged through years and years and tens of thousands of students.

The AF is constantly re-assessing and fine tuning that process. It is much different now than it was even a decade ago. It has gone through many different selection methods, assessments, tests, etc, and different weighting and mixing of all of those assessments. As the demands on students change (and success levels among selected students change), the selection methods are changed.

If you think that you've got a better way to do it, then by all means let's hear it. I would have to guess, however, that whatever way you have in mind has likely all ready been hypothesized, proposed, wargamed, tested, assessed, and rejected by the hundreds of smart people who actually develop and execute the AF's student pilot selection process.

Do you really think that you're smarter than those people? Simply because you don't understand the reasoning for the criteria (or don't agree with the criteria) isn't enough to invalidate that criteria.

If you want some light reading -- and are really interested in the depths to which the USAF analyzes selection methods compared to success in SUPT -- try this one out: "US Air Force Pilot Selection and Training Methods" by Dr Thomas Carretta.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430320&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

I'll first admit I haven't taken a look at your link yet, but will when I have time.

I have done no research on the subject, but I've heard of other countries beginning their pilot selection process at much younger ages than the USAF, even as young as elementary school. I guess it doesn't necessarily give them better candidates, but it seems rather in-depth to choose future aviators based on pertinent qualities at such a young age.

Certainly the USAF does an excellent job at selecting pilots, but I'd be interested to know the number of UPT students who DOR (drop on request). I'm not sure if the USAF wisely considered the desire/drive of a candidate to complete UPT in their selection process. Obviously those who really want to be there are much more likely to finish UPT and become effective aviators. I believe this could be given more weight in the selection process, compared to some medical conditions that are not likely to affect an aviators performance.

Maybe they already took this into full consideration, and then my answers will likely be found in the link provided.

 

[frog_flyer]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

I'll first admit I haven't taken a look at your link yet, but will when I have time.

I have done no research on the subject, but I've heard of other countries beginning their pilot selection process at much younger ages than the USAF, even as young as elementary school. I guess it doesn't necessarily give them better candidates, but it seems rather in-depth to choose future aviators based on pertinent qualities at such a young age.

Certainly the USAF does an excellent job at selecting pilots, but I'd be interested to know the number of UPT students who DOR (drop on request). I'm not sure if the USAF wisely considered the desire/drive of a candidate to complete UPT in their selection process. Obviously those who really want to be there are much more likely to finish UPT and become effective aviators. I believe this could be given more weight in the selection process, compared to some medical conditions that are not likely to affect an aviators performance.

Maybe they already took this into full consideration, and then my answers will likely be found in the link provided.

2.

The problem is that drive or desire is not quantifiable. Graduating from the academy with a 3.5 is..... no matter how much you suck.

 

[bunk22]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

USAF currently disqualifies approx. 8% of applicants based on color vision, but there are still plenty of qualified applicants. I figure if there are 1000 pilot slots a year, then 80 are disqualified for CV. According to the new testing (for civilian) 35% of those previously disqualified are fit for professional pilot; this would mean 28 per year are being unnecessarily disqualified. Not a huge number at all, and the USAF has no reason to change because of it. This does mean that it's likely about 28 of the top 1000 applicants are disqualified each year. Probably not worth it for the USAF, but worth it for me to point out.

The FALANT definitely seems like a good real-world based test, but I've heard some argue that it lets some people who are dangerously color deficient pass. The Navy's current testing allows some color deficient's to fly (about 30% according to that paper) and there doesn't seem to be a problem at all. Unfortunately for me, the USAF is more strict and any type or degree of color deficiency is disqualifying and doesn't use the FALANT because of this. I hope that eventually the new computer based CAD test (if it is proven to be superior over time) could replace most or all of the other tests.

If USAF aviation doesn't work out (which it almost definitely won't) then I may attempt an inter-service transfer at some point, but this will take some time because I'll need PRK/Lasik before I can pass the Navy medical.

One, where are your statistics on the FALANT with respect to how it lets folks through who are dangerously color deficient. Never heard that as it was my understanding the Navy went to it as it was a more realistic test as to being able to distinguish color in aircraft. There must have been some sort of mishap data to support this if so. I know there was an F-14 mishap back in the 70's or 80's in which color vision was involved...or a lack there of but other than that, haven't heard much.

Secondly, if it's around 8% who fail, it doesn't seem to me enough to justify changing the standard. There will be plenty, another 92% who will pass. Unless the FALANT is letting those who are dangerously color deficient, I would say it's certainly a good enough test to determine who can enter the program. My brother is considered a medium color deficient person and cannot pass the FALANT, not even close. He usually gets the first one right and nothing after, a standard 1/9 score.

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

Certainly the USAF does an excellent job at selecting pilots, but I'd be interested to know the number of UPT students who DOR (drop on request).

And you think changing the color vision test will affect this?

I believe this could be given more weight in the selection process, compared to some medical conditions that are not likely to affect an aviators performance.

Look dude, I sympathize with the fact that you want to fly for the military and current medical standards keep you from doing that.

But...

What I read in your posts is a whole lot of "should" and "might" and "want to" and "I believe"...and none of that is a factual basis for needing to change the system.

Again, it is an important part of the USAF's business to pick the right people to go to UPT. They've been doing it a LONG time, and they've gone through many different ways of doing it. They're very good at it, in fact, if you look at the product it produces and the efficiency at which it's done.

The fact is that the system is not broken:

- There is a pool of qualified applicants (regardless of how "qualified" is specifically defined) that is significantly larger than the training pipeline will allow.

- UPT completion rates have NEVER BEEN HIGHER in history than they are right now, and it's not because there has been a significant shift in the standard required for success (although that, too, has changed). Here's a chart showing the overall attrition rate for about 30 years (but not including the last 10 years) -- this includes medical disquals (airsickness, usually), DORs, washouts, etc.

- There is no evidence that post-graduate pilots in the operational world are having any difficulty accomplishing their missions.

So, all of this combined means that your core hypothesis (if you can call it that) is based on a logical fallacy: begging the question. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[skydog2]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

As for excluding capable applicants, this is obviously where I think I fall, and it's not a good deal from my point of view. Of course it is not a problem at all to the USAF for filling pilot slots, but if new research is ultimately ignored, it will be contrary to the excellence spoken of in the core values.

I'm reasonably certain that new research is not ignored. But if you re-invent the wheel everytime some new information comes out, you'll spend all your time in the garage and never go anywhere. Yes you update, but you do so prudently.

You don't qualify. Get over it. Stop talking about things "ought" to be done and move on. If is for children.

 

[bunk22]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

And you think changing the color vision test will affect this?



Look dude, I sympathize with the fact that you want to fly for the military and current medical standards keep you from doing that.

But...

What I read in your posts is a whole lot of "should" and "might" and "want to" and "I believe"...and none of that is a factual basis for needing to change the system.

Again, it is an important part of the USAF's business to pick the right people to go to UPT. They've been doing it a LONG time, and they've gone through many different ways of doing it. They're very good at it, in fact, if you look at the product it produces and the efficiency at which it's done.

The fact is that the system is not broken:

- There is a pool of qualified applicants (regardless of how "qualified" is specifically defined) that is significantly larger than the training pipeline will allow.

- UPT completion rates have NEVER BEEN HIGHER in history than they are right now, and it's not because there has been a significant shift in the standard required for success (although that, too, has changed). Here's a chart showing the overall attrition rate for about 30 years (but not including the last 10 years) -- this includes medical disquals (airsickness, usually), DORs, washouts, etc.

- There is no evidence that post-graduate pilots in the operational world are having any difficulty accomplishing their missions.

So, all of this combined means that your core hypothesis (if you can call it that) is based on a logical fallacy: begging the question. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the real world.

Can't say it better than this. The system isn't broken, regardless of how unfair it might seem to that 8% or so. Go Navy, take the FALANT, pass it and fly. Otherwise, it sucks but sometimes we just aren't meant to do certain things.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

One, where are your statistics on the FALANT with respect to how it lets folks through who are dangerously color deficient. Never heard that as it was my understanding the Navy went to it as it was a more realistic test as to being able to distinguish color in aircraft. There must have been some sort of mishap data to support this if so. I know there was an F-14 mishap back in the 70's or 80's in which color vision was involved...or a lack there of but other than that, haven't heard much.

Secondly, if it's around 8% who fail, it doesn't seem to me enough to justify changing the standard. There will be plenty, another 92% who will pass. Unless the FALANT is letting those who are dangerously color deficient, I would say it's certainly a good enough test to determine who can enter the program. My brother is considered a medium color deficient person and cannot pass the FALANT, not even close. He usually gets the first one right and nothing after, a standard 1/9 score.

I don't think good statistics exist on how many dangerous color deficients pass the FALANT and I think that is primarily because it seems no one can decide on who those dangerous color deficients are. The USAF says all color deficients are dangerous, the Navy seems to say about 30% of them are safe.

For accidents caused by color vision, there are a few I've heard of, never heard of the F14 one though. I heard of an F4 pilot who ejected because of what he thought was going to collide with another aircraft at night; and there's the Fedex one mentioned in the article. Probably at least a few more out there, but from what I could tell color vision has always been pretty far down on the list of contributing factors. I don't mean to downplay it's importance just giving info.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

I'm reasonably certain that new research is not ignored. But if you re-invent the wheel everytime some new information comes out, you'll spend all your time in the garage and never go anywhere. Yes you update, but you do so prudently.

You don't qualify. Get over it. Stop talking about things "ought" to be done and move on. If is for children.

I didn't mean to say it was ignored, I mentioned before that I'm sure the USAF has at least heard of it. I said "ultimately ignored", as if they will never change, but I think they will change, without re-inventing the wheel, but only after the new testing is validated and in a way that makes sense to their mission. Might take a decade or more, because there is no pressing reason to change.

I apologize if my posts sound like complaints, that is not my intent at all. I know I'm disqualified, but unfortunately I'm not over it yet because I'm still at my UPT base trying for an Exception to Policy. I know how unlikely this is to work, but since I'm already here I'm going to see what happens.

I meant to start this thread to spread the interesting information but I should have worded it differently because there are a lot of "ifs". Of course I don't really know if the military will ever change the regs on color vision, I do believe they will, but probably long after my time has passed.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

Can't say it better than this. The system isn't broken, regardless of how unfair it might seem to that 8% or so. Go Navy, take the FALANT, pass it and fly. Otherwise, it sucks but sometimes we just aren't meant to do certain things.

I'd like to transfer into the Navy flight program if possible, but unfortunately I don't pass the distant vision standard for the Navy but I'm confident I can pass the Ishihara plates and FALANT. From what I heard I'd need to first get PRK or LASIK and wait 6 months before I can be medically qualified.

I'd also need to get an inter-service transfer, if anyone has any information about this I'd really like to hear it. If I get a negative verdict on my Exception to Policy for the USAF I'll be looking into this further.

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

And you think changing the color vision test will affect this?

I don't think this at all, I was just curios on the statistics. I was fairly certain that the DOR rate was low.

Look dude, I sympathize with the fact that you want to fly for the military and current medical standards keep you from doing that.

But...

What I read in your posts is a whole lot of "should" and "might" and "want to" and "I believe"...and none of that is a factual basis for needing to change the system.

Again, it is an important part of the USAF's business to pick the right people to go to UPT. They've been doing it a LONG time, and they've gone through many different ways of doing it. They're very good at it, in fact, if you look at the product it produces and the efficiency at which it's done.

The fact is that the system is not broken:

- There is a pool of qualified applicants (regardless of how "qualified" is specifically defined) that is significantly larger than the training pipeline will allow.

- UPT completion rates have NEVER BEEN HIGHER in history than they are right now, and it's not because there has been a significant shift in the standard required for success (although that, too, has changed). Here's a chart showing the overall attrition rate for about 30 years (but not including the last 10 years) -- this includes medical disquals (airsickness, usually), DORs, washouts, etc.

- There is no evidence that post-graduate pilots in the operational world are having any difficulty accomplishing their missions.

So, all of this combined means that your core hypothesis (if you can call it that) is based on a logical fallacy: begging the question. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the real world.

As I said before I apologize if I sound like I'm full of complaints; I really just meant to try to spread the information about the potential for change, but I was a bit too bold saying that the USAF will change. You are absolutely correct that I don't have enough factual basis to prove the USAF is going to change, but that doesn't change that I believe they will eventually change the color vision standards to keep in line with advances in medicine and technology; for now you've beaten it to death, but the USAF has no reason to change, thus they will not due to their current success.

I don't think you can completely deny that they will eventually change the testing/standards, but it may be decades and no ones knows what it will be like.

I'd like to focus on the pertinent information that might help my Exception to Policy and any information regarding an inter-service transfer to Naval Aviation.

Also I've had trouble finding which other USAF career fields require normal color vision. My background is in aerospace engineering and I've always aspired to attend Test Pilot School and would like to do so as an engineer if I cannot be a pilot, but from what I've read I need a Flying Class III which also requires normal color vision. Any insight on this would be appreciated.

 

[///AMG]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

For accidents caused by color vision, there are a few I've heard of, never heard of the F14 one though. I heard of an F4 pilot who ejected because of what he thought was going to collide with another aircraft at night; and there's the Fedex one mentioned in the article. Probably at least a few more out there, but from what I could tell color vision has always been pretty far down on the list of contributing factors. I don't mean to downplay it's importance just giving info.

I think you just proved the point that the current system works. Like has been said, there is no shortage of physically qualified applicants, so they really have no reason to widen the applicant pool at this point (especially given the fact that pilot slots seem to be thinning out currently across the board)

 

[bmather9]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

I think you just proved the point that the current system works. Like has been said, there is no shortage of physically qualified applicants, so they really have no reason to widen the applicant pool at this point (especially given the fact that pilot slots seem to be thinning out currently across the board)

I agree the current system works, but which system? The Navy's or the USAF's? Both? Then why does the USAF impose significantly stricter requirements than the Navy?

This creates a controversy to me, but of course my opinion is no reason to change the standards.

 

[MikeD]

Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo

Then why does the USAF impose significantly stricter requirements than the Navy?

This creates a controversy to me, but of course my opinion is no reason to change the standards.

Well hell, that's easy. There has always been a higher standard in order to become a USAF Pilot vs a Naval Aviator. The wings of silver have always trumped the wings of gold. Aviation is what pilots in the USAF do, plain and simple. Naval Aviators are simply black-shoe ship/sub driver types who decided they wanted to wear a leather jacket, paint their boots brown, and step into an airplane or helo; while their Marine cousins are simply infantrymen at 50 AGL. Hell they can't even get the nomenclature correct, what with their duty runways, short/longfield arrestments, their fan breaks and their 180s, their incorrect O-3 insignia with the connecting bars at the ends.....and white in color on the flightsuit, their turtlenecks worn underneath the flightsuit, their inability to do anything but fly when in a flightsuit because its not considered a uniform, their tactical jets with only one stick in the front cockpit because they don't trust their NFOs, their shipboard Air Bosses who are perma-wired to the pissed off position, and their RATCFs with GCA controllers who tell you to "perform landing check."











Bada Bing! Be here all week! Try the veal!