Military Color Vision policy is due for a change, its just a matter of time: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_201002/ai_n52372967/?tag=content;col1
Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Look at
- Thread starter bmather9
- Start date
frog_flyer
FredFlyer
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Del Rio, huh? That must suck.
ahhhhhh, damnit.
Del Rio, huh? That must suck.
ahhhhhh, damnit.
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Yea, not much fun, in my case at least. I got here last September and was disqualified for color vision in October, been fighting it since then. Trying for an exception to policy even though i know it's basically impossible. That article has alot of merit for the future I think. There are wide variations in color vision, even some that are considered deficient, perform better than some color normals. I have no idea what's going to happen with me but that article and a few other things give me hope and I want to spread the word as much as possible.
Yea, not much fun, in my case at least. I got here last September and was disqualified for color vision in October, been fighting it since then. Trying for an exception to policy even though i know it's basically impossible. That article has alot of merit for the future I think. There are wide variations in color vision, even some that are considered deficient, perform better than some color normals. I have no idea what's going to happen with me but that article and a few other things give me hope and I want to spread the word as much as possible.
frog_flyer
FredFlyer
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Soooooo, you got here before you went to Brooks? How'd that happen?
edit: I think I talked to you back in Nov. I can't recall who I was with but he knew you. 449?
Soooooo, you got here before you went to Brooks? How'd that happen?
edit: I think I talked to you back in Nov. I can't recall who I was with but he knew you. 449?
Superfly7XAF
Well-Known Member
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
True there are plenty of applicants but many exceptional applicants are DQ'd for colorvision deficiency/blindness. A lot of good people are left out as a result, just saying.
Also, do they do the FALANT at MFS or just the Ishihara plates again?
True there are plenty of applicants but many exceptional applicants are DQ'd for colorvision deficiency/blindness. A lot of good people are left out as a result, just saying.
Also, do they do the FALANT at MFS or just the Ishihara plates again?
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Yeah I did an FCI at Langley before commissioning and passed, got to Laughlin, was sent to Brooks for Medical Flight Screen and failed.
NVG's is a good point; evidently there are aviators who use NVG through all phases of flight with no problem.
Brooks does a plethora of test, not including FALANT. Ishihara plates is one of many you need to pass; if you have any degree of deficiency you're DQed. The article I posted (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_201002/ai_n52372967/?tag=content;col1) was written by 3 naval officers calling for a DOD wide review of the color vision standard, specifically related to aviation.
There is certainly no shortage of qualified applicants, but it's fairly well known by doctors and scientists I've talked with that the current tests don't do a very good job of correlating to real-world performance. The article speaks of new test procedures and standards adopted by the CAA and it seems they will be (or already are) adopted by the FAA. These tests sound to be much better at correlating to real-world performance and based on the standard set, allow approx 35% of color deficients to fly. Significant advancements in understanding of color vision have been made in the past decade and it turns out some of us really aren't so deficient after all.
Who knows what this means to the military; I don't think they can ignore it forever, but might not be as good as I hope.
Yeah I did an FCI at Langley before commissioning and passed, got to Laughlin, was sent to Brooks for Medical Flight Screen and failed.
NVG's is a good point; evidently there are aviators who use NVG through all phases of flight with no problem.
Brooks does a plethora of test, not including FALANT. Ishihara plates is one of many you need to pass; if you have any degree of deficiency you're DQed. The article I posted (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_201002/ai_n52372967/?tag=content;col1) was written by 3 naval officers calling for a DOD wide review of the color vision standard, specifically related to aviation.
There is certainly no shortage of qualified applicants, but it's fairly well known by doctors and scientists I've talked with that the current tests don't do a very good job of correlating to real-world performance. The article speaks of new test procedures and standards adopted by the CAA and it seems they will be (or already are) adopted by the FAA. These tests sound to be much better at correlating to real-world performance and based on the standard set, allow approx 35% of color deficients to fly. Significant advancements in understanding of color vision have been made in the past decade and it turns out some of us really aren't so deficient after all.
Who knows what this means to the military; I don't think they can ignore it forever, but might not be as good as I hope.
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Here's a link to the FAA/CAA paper that I'm talking about: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3560
I think it explains a bit about problems with current testing including the PIP and FALANT.
Here's a link to the FAA/CAA paper that I'm talking about: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3560
I think it explains a bit about problems with current testing including the PIP and FALANT.
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
I was picked by a Guard unit and told I was DQ because my potential for far-sightedness was outside of standards. My visual acuity was measured at 20/12. I had been at that Guard unit as an enlisted member for 4 years and had 4 additional years as AD. I had great service record and volunteered for every deployment. Meanwhile, some jerks who were selected from the said large group of applicants were caught cheating and many others are plucked from the Academy despite their clear lack of interest in being a pilot. I guess my point is I don't understand why the AF seems to think that the extremely rigid medical selection process should be the one pacer for finding those with the "right stuff". More merit should be given to other areas, too.
I was picked by a Guard unit and told I was DQ because my potential for far-sightedness was outside of standards. My visual acuity was measured at 20/12. I had been at that Guard unit as an enlisted member for 4 years and had 4 additional years as AD. I had great service record and volunteered for every deployment. Meanwhile, some jerks who were selected from the said large group of applicants were caught cheating and many others are plucked from the Academy despite their clear lack of interest in being a pilot. I guess my point is I don't understand why the AF seems to think that the extremely rigid medical selection process should be the one pacer for finding those with the "right stuff". More merit should be given to other areas, too.
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Not sure if I understand what you mean. It sounds like you are doubting the new testing method and suggesting it would allow people who are unfit and dangerous fly?
Not sure if I understand what you mean. It sounds like you are doubting the new testing method and suggesting it would allow people who are unfit and dangerous fly?
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
I generally agree with you. I don't want to just whine about military medical standards because they are certainly necessary. But a good example for this discussion is distant visual acuity, in the past every pilot needed 20/20 uncorrected, and many great applicants were likely disqualified even if they were corrected to 20/20 with contacts or glasses. Now waivers frequently granted for contact lenses or glasses and Lasik/PRK is becoming almost routine.
Color vision is much different and our understanding of it was not, (and probably still isn't) as good as our understanding of visual acuity. New research has shown that some color deficient individuals are as good at discriminating colors as some color normals. This begins to explain how people, like myself, are able to go through my life without ever noticing this condition, even passing initial tests. Only with rigourous testing is it noticed. Maybe it should be considered differently-abled rather than disabled?
I generally agree with you. I don't want to just whine about military medical standards because they are certainly necessary. But a good example for this discussion is distant visual acuity, in the past every pilot needed 20/20 uncorrected, and many great applicants were likely disqualified even if they were corrected to 20/20 with contacts or glasses. Now waivers frequently granted for contact lenses or glasses and Lasik/PRK is becoming almost routine.
Color vision is much different and our understanding of it was not, (and probably still isn't) as good as our understanding of visual acuity. New research has shown that some color deficient individuals are as good at discriminating colors as some color normals. This begins to explain how people, like myself, are able to go through my life without ever noticing this condition, even passing initial tests. Only with rigourous testing is it noticed. Maybe it should be considered differently-abled rather than disabled?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
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.
In this particular case, I happen to know that the USAF has been directly engaged in color vision assessment. Just because they haven't abandoned the standard color plate tests in favor of the digital assessment that the paper recommends doesn't mean that the AF is too stupid to know it exists, or too hard over on "that's the way we've always done it" to adapt if it really provided a better assessment (or, more importantly, better handled an existing problem). Because it's not a problem...so, by definition this would be an excellent solution for a non-existant problem.
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
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.
In this particular case, I happen to know that the USAF has been directly engaged in color vision assessment. Just because they haven't abandoned the standard color plate tests in favor of the digital assessment that the paper recommends doesn't mean that the AF is too stupid to know it exists, or too hard over on "that's the way we've always done it" to adapt if it really provided a better assessment (or, more importantly, better handled an existing problem). Because it's not a problem...so, by definition this would be an excellent solution for a non-existant problem.
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
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
Hah, nevermind, I guess it pays to read the entire article vice the title. I agree that the weird little books could and should be updated to more modern standards (especially if they are in fact DQ'ing folks who aren't color blind)
Hah, nevermind, I guess it pays to read the entire article vice the title. I agree that the weird little books could and should be updated to more modern standards (especially if they are in fact DQ'ing folks who aren't color blind)
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
I think you're right, and believe me, I know the USAF is investigating color vision, as that's what I've been researching and dealing with for the past 6 months. I have no idea to what extent they are engaged in the new research.
I respectfully disagree with you on the idea that it's not a problem. I believe that it is a problem due to the statement that "current military standards could potentially exclude capable applicants, while including others who are incapable of performing safety-critical aviation tasks."
Certainly the USAF could continue with the current testing methods and would likely have plenty of qualified applicants for eternity, but I believe at some point they will be forced to change be it by overwhelming research evidence, political pressure, or lawsuit. Of course they know their current methods work well and will not jump to use the new tests, but eventually this type of testing will become validated by the test of time and the USAF will likely buy into it. That's why I say its a matter of time; unfortunately it may be too long for me, but I will fight while I still have a chance and hope for the future.
I think you're right, and believe me, I know the USAF is investigating color vision, as that's what I've been researching and dealing with for the past 6 months. I have no idea to what extent they are engaged in the new research.
I respectfully disagree with you on the idea that it's not a problem. I believe that it is a problem due to the statement that "current military standards could potentially exclude capable applicants, while including others who are incapable of performing safety-critical aviation tasks."
Certainly the USAF could continue with the current testing methods and would likely have plenty of qualified applicants for eternity, but I believe at some point they will be forced to change be it by overwhelming research evidence, political pressure, or lawsuit. Of course they know their current methods work well and will not jump to use the new tests, but eventually this type of testing will become validated by the test of time and the USAF will likely buy into it. That's why I say its a matter of time; unfortunately it may be too long for me, but I will fight while I still have a chance and hope for the future.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
And yet you fail to provide any evidence of that. There is currently neither a shortage of qualified applicants, nor a crisis of failures to excel in SUPT by those students selected by the current process. There is not any evidence of a problem manning operational cockpits, nor is there evidence of a problem with personnel who 'pass' the current color vision standards yet have some difficulty executing their assigned mission because they have some deficiency that the current standard tests missed.
So, what exactly is the problem again?
And you believe this why? Do you have some experience with the USAF aeromedical community and how they develop/evaluate/modify medical standards?
By what legal basis would there be a challenge which would bring this 'issue' (or, non-issue) into question? As there is no 'right' to service in the military, and there is certainly no 'right' to any specific job specialty within the military, then I'm failing to see where a legal challenge would force some sort of policy change.
It's fine that you don't agree with the current system; that doesn't necessarily indicate, however, that there is a problem.
And yet you fail to provide any evidence of that. There is currently neither a shortage of qualified applicants, nor a crisis of failures to excel in SUPT by those students selected by the current process. There is not any evidence of a problem manning operational cockpits, nor is there evidence of a problem with personnel who 'pass' the current color vision standards yet have some difficulty executing their assigned mission because they have some deficiency that the current standard tests missed.
So, what exactly is the problem again?
And you believe this why? Do you have some experience with the USAF aeromedical community and how they develop/evaluate/modify medical standards?
By what legal basis would there be a challenge which would bring this 'issue' (or, non-issue) into question? As there is no 'right' to service in the military, and there is certainly no 'right' to any specific job specialty within the military, then I'm failing to see where a legal challenge would force some sort of policy change.
It's fine that you don't agree with the current system; that doesn't necessarily indicate, however, that there is a problem.
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
"current military standards could potentially exclude capable applicants, while including others who are incapable of performing safety-critical aviation tasks."
It would be a problem if a UPT student was incapable of performing a safety-critical task.
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 understand there is no 'right' to service in the military and that the military is governed in different ways than civilian organizations. Maybe there is no such lawsuit that could succeed, but it was just a suggestion and there is no need to attack me on this.
I know that in the past some minorities were unable to serve, that has changed drastically; I assumed it had something to do with a lawsuit. Of course color vision is much different than minorities, but in the past it was thought african-americans had poor night vision and this was part of the justification for keeping them out of the service. This was scientifically proven to be false and they were allowed to serve. If certain types of color vision can be scientifically proven to be acceptable, then I could guess that they would follow suit of the minorities. This is obviously all a hypothesis, but is interesting to me.
Even if such a lawsuit is impossible, I believe that after the science passes the test of time, that something will be changed; this change will of course be for the good of the USAF.
"current military standards could potentially exclude capable applicants, while including others who are incapable of performing safety-critical aviation tasks."
It would be a problem if a UPT student was incapable of performing a safety-critical task.
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 have no experience in how the USAF aeromedical community determines it's standards other than my personal research; I do believe that the Naval Officers who published the paper, calling for changes to the DOD aviation color vision standard, do know something about this.
I understand there is no 'right' to service in the military and that the military is governed in different ways than civilian organizations. Maybe there is no such lawsuit that could succeed, but it was just a suggestion and there is no need to attack me on this.
I know that in the past some minorities were unable to serve, that has changed drastically; I assumed it had something to do with a lawsuit. Of course color vision is much different than minorities, but in the past it was thought african-americans had poor night vision and this was part of the justification for keeping them out of the service. This was scientifically proven to be false and they were allowed to serve. If certain types of color vision can be scientifically proven to be acceptable, then I could guess that they would follow suit of the minorities. This is obviously all a hypothesis, but is interesting to me.
Even if such a lawsuit is impossible, I believe that after the science passes the test of time, that something will be changed; this change will of course be for the good of the USAF.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
Re: Color Blindness and Military Fitness for Duty: A New Loo
How many applicants are lost due to failing the color vision standards? That's the question. I think statistics would have to show that the AF or Navy is hurting on qualified applicants due to the number of failed color vision tests. My guess is the number is small, especially for the Navy being they use the FALANT which seemingly is pretty real world, can you distinguish between 3 color's of light. I'm just guessing though being I'm not even close to being an expert on the matter. I will say I am one of those individuals who usually fails the plates but in my 17 years active duty, all of it as a Naval Aviator, I've never failed the FALANT. I've flown to the carrier both day and night and never had a problem with any lights at the boat, in the cockpit, etc. Maybe the FALANT is a good indicator of real life duty??
I can see where the color vision thing might be an issue for some jobs. For example, my brother has had issues testing color vision in the military. he can't pass any of the plates or the FALANT. His job in the AF was a parachute rigger while in Iraq as of late with the NG, he was convoy escort. However, back in Mississippi where he lives, he was a cop for four years in the small town of Corinth. He never had an issue with a traffic light. He decided he wanted to go to a big town being he was tired of making $6/hr risking his life. He went to Memphis but failed the color vision plates and thus could not be a cop in the big city. He was already an experienced cop in a smaller city, four years worth of experience. IMO, doesn't make sense in this case but I'm biased on this one as well.
How many applicants are lost due to failing the color vision standards? That's the question. I think statistics would have to show that the AF or Navy is hurting on qualified applicants due to the number of failed color vision tests. My guess is the number is small, especially for the Navy being they use the FALANT which seemingly is pretty real world, can you distinguish between 3 color's of light. I'm just guessing though being I'm not even close to being an expert on the matter. I will say I am one of those individuals who usually fails the plates but in my 17 years active duty, all of it as a Naval Aviator, I've never failed the FALANT. I've flown to the carrier both day and night and never had a problem with any lights at the boat, in the cockpit, etc. Maybe the FALANT is a good indicator of real life duty??
I can see where the color vision thing might be an issue for some jobs. For example, my brother has had issues testing color vision in the military. he can't pass any of the plates or the FALANT. His job in the AF was a parachute rigger while in Iraq as of late with the NG, he was convoy escort. However, back in Mississippi where he lives, he was a cop for four years in the small town of Corinth. He never had an issue with a traffic light. He decided he wanted to go to a big town being he was tired of making $6/hr risking his life. He went to Memphis but failed the color vision plates and thus could not be a cop in the big city. He was already an experienced cop in a smaller city, four years worth of experience. IMO, doesn't make sense in this case but I'm biased on this one as well.
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.
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.