Color Vision Standard - Advocacy

[bunk22]

Thanks for the link Dan. However, don't get emotional over this and you obviously have

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.

Dan, thanks for the link (I've got the mishap report saved somewhere) but don't get emotional over this, I'm pulling some chains here. If you had read all my posts in the thread, you would have seen that I fall into this boat, I'm only color safe, not color normal. I do believe color vision is mandatory for flying but the most basic testing, such as FALANT, seems to cover the field. The Navy has kept their color vision standards/tesing very simple and have not had any issues except possibily the one in 1980, at least that I know of. Why there is a need to further implement color vision with higher standards doesn't make sense as the issues are seemingly small to none, at least in the military. If one can distinguish red/green/white, it seems to have served Navy/Marine Corps aviators well. BTW, I am in my 40's and about to retire, I could certainly have issues from here on out but of course, I've flown military for almost 20 years so I've done my thing

Here is the arilinepilotcentral thread with good info. A struggling applicant finally was accepted by the ANG to fly Blackhawks or Apaches after the USAF failed him based on color vision and the issues by the USAF doc.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/archive/index.php/t-56943.html

 

[RS1]

Thanks for the link Dan. However, don't get emotional over this and you obviously have


Dan, thanks for the link (I've got the mishap report saved somewhere) but don't get emotional over this, I'm pulling some chains here. If you had read all my posts in the thread, you would have seen that I fall into this boat, I'm only color safe, not color normal. I do believe color vision is mandatory for flying but the most basic testing, such as FALANT, seems to cover the field. The Navy has kept their color vision standards/tesing very simple and have not had any issues except possibily the one in 1980, at least that I know of. Why there is a need to further implement color vision with higher standards doesn't make sense as the issues are seemingly small to none, at least in the military. If one can distinguish red/green/white, it seems to have served Navy/Marine Corps aviators well. BTW, I am in my 40's and about to retire, I could certainly have issues from here on out but of course, I've flown military for almost 20 years so I've done my thing

Here is the arilinepilotcentral thread with good info. A struggling applicant finally was accepted by the ANG to fly Blackhawks or Apaches after the USAF failed him based on color vision and the issues by the USAF doc.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/archive/index.php/t-56943.html

My mistake I didn't yet have time to read through the entire thread... I just think if things like "distracted driving" gets so much attention (mainly to get people elected on the small scale) when misuse or non-use of turn signals causes way more car accidents then this deserves a good look. I DO get emotional when people shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well". It personally caused me to put my life on hold for 5 + years to date. If that was not your intention, then I'm sorry...

 

[Qutch]

Could be it. That whole screening process might just work. Of course, I don't have the data on the subject

OP - Dan64456, I'd like to ask you to summarize Dr. Pape's work and the data he has collected.

After receiving training from a Dr. Robert Lohr, ophthamologist, I was able to convince Air Force medical personnel that some of my students and R&D test subjects (pilots like Bunk22 who had successfully passed some color simulation tests in the past, and had real world proficiency) were not really color deficient at all. They were the victims of a testing anomaly that incorrectly diagnoses some applicants, some of the time (which is common in virtually all medical testing). Using a variety of more detailed test techniques with which to re-screen them, we obtained unrestricted PASS results for them, not waivers.

But I've read through much of the work you posted by Dr. Pape (Australian AME), and it appears to me that he's gone much further than Dr. Lohr or I ever tried to go (or would have wanted to go). He claims that, having tossed out color vision test requirements altogether in Australia, and creating a whole generation of color blind (not merely color deficient) commercial Australian pilots who have not created a safety hazard, that he now has the data to prove that the standards are altogether unnecessary. Did I read that correctly? Does he really want to go that far? Does the data really support that?

Is that what you are advocating? Or can you sign on to Bunk's plan? His view seems rational to me. Bunk's Navy policy also seems more politically realistic.

....I do believe color vision is mandatory for flying but the most basic testing, such as FALANT, seems to cover the field. The Navy has kept their color vision standards/tesing very simple..... If one can distinguish red/green/white, it seems to have served Navy/Marine Corps aviators well.

.

 

[RS1]

OP - @Dan644566, I'd like to ask you to summarize Dr. Pape's work and the data he has collected.

After receiving training from a Dr. Robert Lohr, ophthamologist, I was able to convince Air Force medical personnel that some of my students and R&D test subjects (pilots like Bunk22 who had successfully passed some color simulation tests in the past, and had real world proficiency) were not really color deficient at all. They were the victims of a testing anomaly that incorrectly diagnoses some applicants, some of the time (which is common in virtually all medical testing). Using a variety of more detailed test techniques with which to re-screen them, we obtained unrestricted PASS results for them, not waivers.

But I've read through much of the work you posted by Dr. Pape (Australian AME), and it appears to me that he's gone much further than Dr. Lohr or I ever tried to go (or would have wanted to go). He claims that, having tossed out color vision test requirements altogether in Australia, and creating a whole generation of color blind (not merely color deficient) commercial Australian pilots who have not created a safety hazard, that he now has the data to prove that the standards are altogether unnecessary. Did I read that correctly? Does he really want to go that far? Does the data really support that?

Is that what you are advocating? Or can you sign on to Bunk's plan? His view seems rational to me. Bunk's Navy policy also seems more politically realistic.

.

I like the idea of operational tests as a last resort. I just really don't like fearing that the standard will get tightened even more in the future. Training for a job in this industry is already a huge roll of the dice, and this standard just makes for more rolls of even more dice. If he can prove that truly color blind people can safely perform the task (not so much identify colors), then I'd trust them to get me to my destination. If not, then this does at least shed more light on a standard that needs better testing methods (and better trained test administrators). Australia has either dodged a bullet for a long time (decades), or Dr. Pape is 100% correct and it's a non issue in today's world of civil aviation. I can easily identify Red, Green, and White... But the FALANT sometimes eludes me. Never in my life, both in the air and on the ground, have I had an issue with a position light, PAPI, or signal light. I am borderline normal / mild deutran - and I fail the Falant on bad days, pass it on good days... What does it mean?

Hopefully the new genetic tests and/or cures can put an end to this either way...

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

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.

1. I'm an airline pilot, and not in search of a job. This situation doesn't apply to me. I'm arguing on the principle, not for personal interest.

2. The fact that there are enough qualified people otherwise is irrelevant. It is clear you do not understand EEOC law very well. Read a book sometime.

3. Sure, if someone's deficiencies crate a problem, they should be excluded. What people on here have been saying, and what you've been ignoring, is that the current standards are arbitrary, and select out people who ARE capable. That is the problem.

 

[Roger Roger]

I'm ok handing out medicals to colorblind folks if we can revoke the ones of numbskulls who use terrible radio etiquette.

 

[TallFlyer]

I'm ok handing out medicals to colorblind folks if we can revoke the ones of numbskulls who use terrible radio etiquette.

10-4......

 

[Dugie8]

1. I'm an airline pilot, and not in search of a job. This situation doesn't apply to me. I'm arguing on the principle, not for personal interest.

2. The fact that there are enough qualified people otherwise is irrelevant. It is clear you do not understand EEOC law very well. Read a book sometime.

3. Sure, if someone's deficiencies crate a problem, they should be excluded. What people on here have been saying, and what you've been ignoring, is that the current standards are arbitrary, and select out people who ARE capable. That is the problem.

Let's put it another way. Take the blood pressure standards and crank them down tight to 120 +/- 5 over 70+/- 5 (or whatever the new "normal" blood pressure is now). If you are outside that range, you have to take a test with someone who is not a doctor, has no training in evaluating blood pressure and no knowledge of what higher and lower numbers mean from person to person. You fail the "evaluation" once and you are effectively shut out of any chance of a career in flying. Plenty of people spend their entire lives in the "normal" blood pressure range, no need to examine the test or evaluation.

 

[bunk22]

1. I'm an airline pilot, and not in search of a job. This situation doesn't apply to me. I'm arguing on the principle, not for personal interest.

Yeah, which airline? Situation doesn't apply to me either, I too was arguing, more along the lines of the devil's advocate. I just don't get emotional about the subject like a 12 year old girl

2. The fact that there are enough qualified people otherwise is irrelevant. It is clear you do not understand EEOC law very well. Read a book sometime.

Actually it's relevant as the qualified people cover the field, thus the standards often aren't changed or action taken. I guess I don't understand EEOC law very well but I do have common sense and tend not to get over emotional and make idiotic statements like equating color vision protection by the military under the Constitution. Did you read that in a book? If so, can I read it or maybe you can recommend one!!

3. Sure, if someone's deficiencies crate a problem, they should be excluded. What people on here have been saying, and what you've been ignoring, is that the current standards are arbitrary, and select out people who ARE capable. That is the problem.

Not a problem if you have more than enough current capable people. It's a problem only for that individual.

 

[bunk22]

OP - Dan64456, I'd like to ask you to summarize Dr. Pape's work and the data he has collected.

After receiving training from a Dr. Robert Lohr, ophthamologist, I was able to convince Air Force medical personnel that some of my students and R&D test subjects (pilots like Bunk22 who had successfully passed some color simulation tests in the past, and had real world proficiency) were not really color deficient at all. They were the victims of a testing anomaly that incorrectly diagnoses some applicants, some of the time (which is common in virtually all medical testing). Using a variety of more detailed test techniques with which to re-screen them, we obtained unrestricted PASS results for them, not waivers.

But I've read through much of the work you posted by Dr. Pape (Australian AME), and it appears to me that he's gone much further than Dr. Lohr or I ever tried to go (or would have wanted to go). He claims that, having tossed out color vision test requirements altogether in Australia, and creating a whole generation of color blind (not merely color deficient) commercial Australian pilots who have not created a safety hazard, that he now has the data to prove that the standards are altogether unnecessary. Did I read that correctly? Does he really want to go that far? Does the data really support that?

Is that what you are advocating? Or can you sign on to Bunk's plan? His view seems rational to me. Bunk's Navy policy also seems more politically realistic.

.

I've failed a few times in the Navy, both the dot and FALANT but I simply asked to take them again. Actually, you get two shots at the FALANT normally. I had a tester in Korea pull out an old FALANT and had no idea how to use it, had me stand 20 ft lol Failed it big time!! I got the doc, he gave it appropriately and I passed. Point is, I don't know of anywhere when it's been one and done. I assume that if a person has multiple failures, there is a reason for it and they probably shouldn't be flying planes, if color vision is as important as most say it is. I'm not a doc though and my guess is just being able to see your basic lights has been good enough for my military flying and I'm most certainly mildly color deficient.

Want to hear about silly, my brother was a cop for the city of Corinth Mississippi for four years. He has never been able to pass any color vision test, he is classified as severely color deficient. So after several tough incidents as a cop he decided that to do this, he should get paid more money so he applied for the Memphis PD. He couldn't pass the color vision test so he was NPQ'd even after he was just a cop for four years. I guess the lights in Tennessee are different than in Mississippi. He had to have non technical jobs in the military, was convoy escort in Iraq.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Not a problem if you have more than enough current capable people. It's a problem only for that individual.

Imagine a situation where I need to hire 10 people, and I have 100 applicants. I want to reduce that pool, naturally. As an employer, I cannot make up ways to thin it down arbitrarily. I can't say, "only people over 5' 5" can apply, unless I can prove you must be taller to accomplish the job.

The people arguing on here are saying that the current rule is arbitrary, and worse, mis-applied. That is a problem for everyone because it is only by luck that it didn't apply to you. That's why there are federal guidelines on this sort of thing.

 

[Qutch]

Actually, bunk22 does understand this, certainly from the military perspective.

Once, I asked Air Force medical personnel why they didn't just use the more sophisticated test (at that time, the AO-HRR test, using an expensive McBeth Lamp, and properly trained personnel). That would eliminate mistakes and the unfairness. Their answer was similar to Bunk's.

They explained that they knew the Ishihara plates were just a simulation "blunt instrument" tool used for cheap, quick, mass screening. They needed to control costs somehow, and they have plenty of applicants. The quick Ishihara is an "economical" way to thin the cattle herd of pilot applicants coming thru the door. Applicants that don't pass the test are cattle-prodded off down another cattle shute to the hamburger room (some other job). Fair to the applicants? In most cases, Yes. For a few, No. But it's legal in the military. And it's legal in the civilian world until someone creates a ruckus and forces them to change their testing policy, which is what the OP is proposing.
.

 

[RS1]

What's funny about the FALANT test is exactly that... It's just another 'test'. According to a recent study, the Dvorine passed I think it was 3% or 4% more deutran types than the FALANT when the FAA guidelines are used (6 or less errors). The problem is - most clinicians and even AME's don't even allow one error. That's why I always bring this printout with me whenever I go to renew: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...m/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item52/amd/

They allow those errors because too many "normal's" were getting unfairly DQ'ed under the more strict guidelines.

 

[O&M]

It seems to me that the point being debated isn't the "color vision standards," but the appropriate method for assessing them. It's one thing to say that method X gives a more accurate result than method Y; it's another thing to say that everyone must use method X.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Fair to the applicants? In most cases, Yes. For a few, No.
.

That in nonsensical. Fairness is not determined by how it affects you. Fairness (in one sense) is determined by whether the standards are arbitrary or not.

By your standards, racism is fair to whites, and unfair to blacks. "Hell, it don't affect me, what's the problem?" Think about the underlying principle to what you are suggesting.

 

[Qutch]

That in nonsensical. Fairness is not determined by how it affects you. Fairness (in one sense) is determined by whether the standards are arbitrary or not.

By your standards, racism is fair to whites, and unfair to blacks. "Hell, it don't affect me, what's the problem?" Think about the underlying principle to what you are suggesting.

Let me clarify. 1) I said the test standards are fair to most, because most people Pass, or they Fail because they are severely color deficient. That seems fair to me. Not arbitrary. 2) I said it is unfair to a few, because the test saddles them with an inaccurate Failure that they don't deserve.

I would like to see the FAA refrain from staining someone's record with a "failed" Ishihara simulation test. I think the applicants deserve the opportunity to see a specialist ophthalmologist (and/or an FAA field examiner), at his/her own expense, for more sophisticated, elaborate, time consuming and expensive tests. Again, the applicant has to pay for it. But that keeps the applicant's record clean if he/she does not really have a real world color deficiency. If the applicant can't pass a more sophisticated and elaborate set of sufficiency tests either, then like Bunk says, "off to bartender school."

I thought that was a reasonable position, pretty close to the OP's statement above (post 64), and fairly close to bunk22's position. I think there is a lot of good friendly consensus on this thread.
.

 

[bunk22]

Imagine a situation where I need to hire 10 people, and I have 100 applicants. I want to reduce that pool, naturally. As an employer, I cannot make up ways to thin it down arbitrarily. I can't say, "only people over 5' 5" can apply, unless I can prove you must be taller to accomplish the job.

The people arguing on here are saying that the current rule is arbitrary, and worse, mis-applied. That is a problem for everyone because it is only by luck that it didn't apply to you. That's why there are federal guidelines on this sort of thing.

Sure you can thin it down, if there are standards to be met and if folks don't meet them, they don't get the job. From the military, I've had to use colored lights, such as laser line-up at the carrier, the Fresnal Lens landing on the boat, landing on several different runways, etc. So the Navy sets a standard of color safe, pass the FALANT and you're in, don't pass it, you're out. IMO, it's a fair system and seems to weed out those who don't qualify. Again, not everyone gets a trophy in life. BTW, I'd rather be lucky than good and maybe I've been lucky but I've also had to apply my eyesight to real world situations where the basics of color vision come into play.

 

[bunk22]

They explained that they knew the Ishihara plates were just a simulation "blunt instrument" tool used for cheap, quick, mass screening. They needed to control costs somehow, and they have plenty of applicants. The quick Ishihara is an "economical" way to thin the cattle herd of pilot applicants coming thru the door. Applicants that don't pass the test are cattle-prodded off down another cattle shute to the hamburger room (some other job). Fair to the applicants? In most cases, Yes. For a few, No. But it's legal in the military. And it's legal in the civilian world until someone creates a ruckus and forces them to change their testing policy, which is what the OP is proposing.
.

I also hear the same thing about the depth perception test the Navy gives. Often it's a little clear cube with circles in it and a few other types and sometimes, they are difficult to determine. I can see being cattle-prodded through an examination and you fail. I've heard from our flight doc that more people fail that than the color vision. If the argument is how a test is given vice the actual test being supposedly unfair because it's too hard for anyone with color deficiency's, then the problem isn't about color vision but how it's given. But if it's just a test that only normal color vision folks pass, I don't think it will change as there are plenty of applicants that will pass the test without issue. The easy answer is to make sure the test is given properly, be a cock about it, make them give it properly. Those times I failed because it was given improperly, I made a stink and it was corrected.

A funny story at NAS Whiting Field, I went in to take my yearly flight physical and I took one of the Ishihara Plate test as the FALANT went missing. Yes, somebody just walked out with it Guess they wanted to practice. I thought I would fail this test, it was one with shapes, X, O and Triangles. I passed it, 14/14 and to be honest, don't know how as I was guessing on a few of the plates. It was not given properly either, not given in the appropriate light...maybe that's why I passed. So if someone passes when it's not given properly, is that okay as well? The FALANT is given down here in Kingsville improperly too, we sit like 3 ft from it because it's in a little room. At 3 ft, the colors are very distinct and clear. I believe one is supposed to be 8ft or so from it. Is the test now valid? Is it only invalid when one fails it?

 

[Qutch]

I also hear the same thing about the depth perception test the Navy gives. Often it's a little clear cube with circles in it and a few other types and sometimes, they are difficult to determine. I can see being cattle-prodded through an examination and you fail. I've heard from our flight doc that more people fail that than the color vision. If the argument is how a test is given vice the actual test being supposedly unfair because it's too hard for anyone with color deficiency's, then the problem isn't about color vision but how it's given. But if it's just a test that only normal color vision folks pass, I don't think it will change as there are plenty of applicants that will pass the test without issue. The easy answer is to make sure the test is given properly, be a cock about it, make them give it properly. Those times I failed because it was given improperly, I made a stink and it was corrected.

I'm sorry if we gave the impression to PhilosopherPilot that we don't give a damn. Not true. I fought hard for my students. And I've seen you spend hours on JC and other forums trying to help pilots thru this. One value of this thread is education. There is nothing you and I can do to change the standards right now. But we can tell applicants how we blasted thru the ignorance and bureaucratic hurdles. We learned how these tests are supposed to work and made a stink about it. Dan provided a valuable FAA chart showing the requirement for a MacBeth Viewing Lamp, 30" viewing distance, etc. I provided FAA and NIH documents explaining the problem. Those documents in hand, pre-test prep with their own private ophthalmologist, your advice, and the willingness to make a stink is all applicants should need to get a fair evaluation. There is nothing more we can do here.

A funny story at NAS Whiting Field, I went in to take my yearly flight physical and I took one of the Ishihara Plate test as the FALANT went missing. Yes, somebody just walked out with it Guess they wanted to practice. I thought I would fail this test, it was one with shapes, X, O and Triangles. I passed it, 14/14 and to be honest, don't know how as I was guessing on a few of the plates. It was not given properly either, not given in the appropriate light...maybe that's why I passed. So if someone passes when it's not given properly, is that okay as well? The FALANT is given down here in Kingsville improperly too, we sit like 3 ft from it because it's in a little room. At 3 ft, the colors are very distinct and clear. I believe one is supposed to be 8ft or so from it. Is the test now valid? Is it only invalid when one fails it?

The test you took was the AO-HRR that I keep referring to. In each pilot rescue case I got involved in, I demanded the AO-HRR. Astonished testing personnel informed me that if my student could not pass the Ishihara, there was NO WAY IN HELL he could pass the AO-HRR, considered a more difficult test. That's true for truly color blind people, but some people test false positive on the Ishihara simulation, and the AO-HRR will clear them (something I learned from Dr. Lohr). All of my students passed the AO-HRR test, just as you did. Back then at least, the AirForce considered the AO-HRR a Pass with Extra Credit, not a waiver. I don't think the AO-HRR is still available in the X-O-triangle format, but I could be wrong. I think it may be called the AOC-HRR, or Richmond HRR test today, and I don't know how it compares. Bunk, before you go civilian, perhaps you could check that out though with an Ace civilian ophthalmologist. Every test you can pass will reduce the pucker factor, come test day.

Supplied by Dan64456- (see AOC-HRR test)
Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners

Application Process for Medical Certification - Examination Techniques
Item 52. Color Vision

EquipmentTestEditionPlates
Pseudoisochromatic plates Test book should be held 30" from applicant

Plates should be illuminated by at least 20’ candles, preferably by a Macbeth Easel Lamp or a Verilux True Color Light (F15T8VLX)

Only three seconds are allowed for the applicant to interpret and respond to a given plate
.
American Optical Company [AOC] 1965 1-15
AOC-HRR 2nd 1-11
Richmond-HRR 4th 5-24
Dvorine 2nd 1-15
Ishihara 14 Plate 1-11
24 Plate 1-15
38 Plate 1-21
Richmond,
15-plates 1983 1-15
*Note to Agency-Designated ATCS AMEs Not all tests approved for pilots are acceptable for FAA ATCSs. Contact RFS for current list.


EquipmentTestEditionPlates

 

[kellwolf]

Here you go

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA Form 8500-7.pdf

I'm looking for a place that has the FALANT to take this form to, but I don't see anything on here for color vision. Where on the form is that stuff? Or maybe I just don't speak fluent "eye doctor."