Color Vision Standard - Advocacy

SteveC said:
Are you really saying that you believe it is counter the U.S. Constitution to disqualify pilot applicants based on color vision deficiency?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it is contrary to federal law, which is founded on the Constitution, to discriminate on the basis of disability, particularly in arbitrary ways. The current process is arbitrary. Clearly, some level of color vision deficiency is too much, but the current process does not accurately determine that line.
 
said:
Source : National Institute of Health

"The MacBeth Lamp [properly calibrated lighting] has become so expensive that many smaller programs cannot afford to purchase one. This problem has promoted the use of alternate light sources that have had a deleterious effect on test results and in some instances contributed to job discrimination."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1506614
Click to expand...


The law does NOT prohibit job discrimination based upon legitimate physical limitations. (Subject for an entirely different thread.) The FAA and the military can set minimum color vision standards. And Bunk22 is correct IMO, the system will survive no matter what test standards they set.

But the focus of the OP was that the FAA approved color vision methodologies, standards, and training of personnel are not standardized, consistent or reliable. An experienced FAA rated pilot for example, with a sizeable investment in time and money, can suddenly find himself in career trouble, a victim of the confusion in the color vision testing protocols. The National Institute of Health seems to agree. Under these circumstances of uncertain and unreliable test standards, the NIH used the phrase "job discrimination".

Under those limited parameters, there is a legitimate gripe here. It affects a comparatively small number of pilots, but if you're the unlucky pilot who get's ensnared in the FAA's test confusion, it's a pretty big deal.
.
 
bunk22 said:
I believe the pilot in that mishap, he was the co-pilot and former P-3 Pilot in the Navy, was able to fight that final verdict but don't quote me on that. There was a good discussion on it over at www.airlinepilotcentral.com about a year and a half ago. The USAF medical side does not accept the FALANT as a valid color vision testing method. The USAF standards are color normal while the Navy is only color safe. This pilot was sent to the big USAF medical facility and tested there where it was supposedly determined he was severely color deficient but he had passed the Navy's FALANT test 9 years in a row. The head USAF Eye doc actually did the investigation, he was also the one who was able to do away with the FALANT in the USAF. This mishap, and a mishap in the Navy in 1980 is used as a justification of how the FALANT is not an accurate test and dangerous. The mishap in 1980 occurred at night off the boat, an F-4 was launched and was to join up on another Phantom but as he closed, supposedly he couldn't tell which side he was on as he couldn't determine the color of the wingtip light. He thought he was going head on and about to hit so he ejected himself and his RIO.

Of course problem is, the Navy has been using the FALANT since the 1940's I believe and I have been unable to find another mishap attributed to color vision or the failures of the FALANT test. So in 60 years, there has been one mishap but I've also read that this particular pilot had been cheating the program, cheating on the color vision tests but have been unable to confirm that.

Like I've said, if it wasn't for the FALANT, I would not have been a military pilot as it's the test that I've used since day one in the Navy, 20 years ago. On a few flight physicals, I've had to take the dot tests and actually passed a few of them and failed a few others, then they used the FALANT.
Click to expand...
Is the low number of accidents attributed to color blindness due to the fact that the military and the FAA screen for it?
 
The question you all should be asking yourselves is this: Are airplanes falling out of the sky in Australia? Are Australian registered airplanes in other countries falling out of the sky? The reason I say this is because even severely color vision deficient pilots are unrestricted down there. Airbuses and Boeings out of there don't seem to be presenting any kind of safety hazard, even when they fly to country's where the standards would put them out of the job - or even out of the Piper Cub.

"The irony has to be noted, that these CVD captains and First Officers, are flying their Australian registered Airbuses and Boeings, and many other aircraft types into countries where, should they wish to self-fly a locally registered Cessna 172 at night, they would be refused permission to do so because of their colour vision."
-Dr. Arthur Pape
http://www.cvdpa.com/#!articles/vstc6=a-brief-history-of-the-challenge/vstc15=article-9-page-7
 
moxiepilot said:
So with all this talk, can SODAs for color deficiency be used for airline pilots as well?
Click to expand...

They don't give out SODAs for color deficiency anymore. SODA holders were granted a "Letter of Somethingoranother" several years back in lieu of the SODA. I think that's what they give successful applicants now.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm saying it is contrary to federal law, which is founded on the Constitution, to discriminate on the basis of disability, particularly in arbitrary ways. The current process is arbitrary. Clearly, some level of color vision deficiency is too much, but the current process does not accurately determine that line.
Click to expand...

I hear one day color deficient people will get to use bathrooms with everyone else!!!
 
Blackhawk said:
Is the low number of accidents attributed to color blindness due to the fact that the military and the FAA screen for it?
Click to expand...

Could be it. That whole screening process might just work. Of course, I don't have the data on the subject :)
 
bunk22 said:
I hear one day color deficient people will get to use bathrooms with everyone else!!!
Click to expand...

Laugh it up. Discrimination isn't cool, even if it is widely accepted, and maybe especially when it is widely accepted.

I'm not saying you can't write policy to exclude people incapable of doing the job. The current policy arbitrarily excludes people capable of doing the job.
 
moxiepilot said:
Then I'll fix the question ;)
Click to expand...
Yes.. The LOE can be used for 1st class and 2nd class provided that you complete the Medical Flight Test... You must first pass the Operational Color Vision Test for 3rd, then you can do the MFT. OCVT involves tower light gun test, sectional chart quiz, etc. MFT involves a flight with a DPE and he points out objects and lights asking for for their color. An example would be lined up on final, cover your eyes - he positions the plane high on the glide slope then asks "What lights do you see on the PAPI?" Then he might do it again and put you a bit low and ask again, etc... Before even considering that route, make sure you know the sectional chart COLD, and make sure you can pass the Light Gun test. (Call the tower and ask them to quiz you... Stand 1500 feet away)
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Well, unfortunately for you, that is a wrongheaded position.

What if I created a test that selected out 10% of the population. This test had nothing to do with the candidates ability, it merely selected out people with, say, green eyes. Yep, green eyed people, sorry, you don't get to be (insert your favorite job here) because we already have enough applicants to choose from.

How quickly would that policy get changed? Why would it get changed? Would it be legal per our Constitution? And, I'm sorry, but isn't it the military's job to defend the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Dude, you are reaching here, borderline hysterical actually. There are standards set for a reason and thus, in certain jobs like pilot in the Air Force or Navy, you have to mee to them to do the job. Is what it is. There are enough physically qualified people to do the job when folks don't meet the standards. It's a non issue and only an issue for the people who don't meet the standards. I absolutely defend the Constituition but that isn't the issue here as this has nothing to do with it. Like I said, the world needs bartenders, might be time to take a course.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Laugh it up. Discrimination isn't cool, even if it is widely accepted, and maybe especially when it is widely accepted.

I'm not saying you can't write policy to exclude people incapable of doing the job. The current policy arbitrarily excludes people capable of doing the job.
Click to expand...

Looks like it excludes people who can't physically qualify. Such is life, not everyone is equal, plenty of qualified applicants to take the job. Not everyone should get a trophy for playing.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Laugh it up. Discrimination isn't cool, even if it is widely accepted, and maybe especially when it is widely accepted.

I'm not saying you can't write policy to exclude people incapable of doing the job. The current policy arbitrarily excludes people capable of doing the job.
Click to expand...

Isn't most of the recent attention due to the FO in the 727 that went down short of TLH?
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
There are things that are legal to narrow the field, and things that aren't. You cannot choose to not hire someone based on a physical attribute if that attribute is not relevant to the job. Clearly, some level of color vision deficiency is not compatible with being a pilot.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this sums it up nicely and color vision is necessary to being a pilot and thus can be used to not hire someone. End of story and well said :)
 
Murdoughnut said:
Isn't most of the recent attention due to the FO in the 727 that went down short of TLH?
Click to expand...

The primary reason was fatige for the mishap, which could have affected his color vision but the testing afterwards, by the USAF medical facility, claimed the pilot was severely color defecient. I think the pilot was able to clear that up later on but it is still listed as a causal factor in the mishap.
 
bunk22 said:
Looks like it excludes people who can't physically qualify. Such is life, not everyone is equal, plenty of qualified applicants to take the job. Not everyone should get a trophy for playing.
Click to expand...

In most cases, the flaw is in the current testing methods and the availability of information, NOT the applicants vision. Too often, potential students are given misinformation and their hopes are killed. Many (if not MOST) DO meet the standards and are turned away. Your cop out attitude is typical of a person that isn't negatively affected by this, and exemplifies the very reason more light needs to be shed on the topic. The top 1% think the same way. Just wait until you are in your 40's or 50's, and lose your medical and see how you feel about your "screw everyone else because I made it" attitude then.
 
You people need to read the site. There is lots of information there, and even the 727 incident is explained. (Loss of situational awareness which is common in that area, 2 color normal pilots with the same view of the runway who didn't notice any red lights either, and fatigue)

http://www.cvdpa.com/#!articles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top