Color Vision

[RS1]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Dude your thinking way too rationally. This is the FAA we're talking about afterall. Rational and common sense have no business in that place!

Totally agreed...
And not for nothing, of the 4 "groups" of color vision types (1 being normal) the FAA has... I strongly doubt being in group 2 or even a mild 3 affects safety at all. The NTSB probably skewed the color vision "related" accident reports under the direct influence of those with a strong opinion, or an agenda for "good" publicity (while still being completely baseless in the educated eye). Call me "anti-authority", or cynical, but I know what motivates people in public viewed positions, and it's almost never the logical or correct solution. Rather the one that looks better in newspapers to the average simple american. The one that would minimize criticism against them from the idiot masses. If you ever worked in IT, you know exactly the kind of politics I'm talking about here.

The FAA bases their flawed (and influenced) 'reasoning' of these new color vision standards on this specific accident:
"The incident that started this change was when a FedEx Boeing 727 crashed in 2002. The NTSB investigation determined that the first officer’s color vision deficiency was one of several causal factors. A result of that investigation was a change in the FAA procedures for removing the operational restrictions for color vision deficiency."

Funny because there is proof of the exact contrary. The FO's color vision deficiency had nothing to do with the accident, and that part of the report was phony at best. A rationalization on the parts of the closed minds writing this report. There was a flight engineer and a Captain on board looking at the same runway mind you. Why wouldn't one of the "normal" color vision pilots say "4 reds! Add power, pull up!". They were exhausted, not alert... that's why.

Fedex 1478

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2004/FedE...erformance.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NtqXTt0DU4

Look at the report first, then the video. The Captain (with "normal" color vision) was clearly looking at the runway too based on the voice recording...

Thankfully they all survived by the way.

 

[matt152]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Why wouldn't one of the "normal" color vision pilots say "4 reds! Add power, pull up!". They were exhausted, not alert... that's why.

I don't disagree that ADM was the primary reason that this accident happened. All I'm saying is that if the first officer did not have a severe color vision deficiency, the accident probably would not have happened. Granted, the color vision issue was last on the list of contributing factors.

The NTSB's probable cause:

"the probable cause of
the accident was the captain's and first officer's failure to establish and maintain a proper
glidepath during the night visual approach to landing. Contributing to the accident was a
combination of the captain's and first officer's fatigue, the captain's and first officer's
failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captain's and flight engineer's failure​

to monitor the approach, and the first officer's color vision deficiency."

The requirement for color vision for all classes of medicals is: "Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties."

No one is saying you can't have a color vision deficiency and be a safe pilot. But the issue is if certain tests are being used that incorrectly pass pilots with a severe color vision deficiency, then maybe a better test has to be developed.

 

[Bignellyxx]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

my bad

 

[matt152]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Let's not blow this out of proportion. The NTSB cited fatigue as a contributing factor before the color vision issue.

 

[Bignellyxx]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

getting a little ahead of myself i guess

 

[Zero1Niner]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

All I'm saying is that if the first officer did not have a severe color vision deficiency, the accident probably would not have happened.

Wow Matt. That is an INSANE conclusion for you to come to. If that were true in any way, then as has been said on this thread multiple times, the Captain and the FE would have noticed the 4 reds and called for action.

You are playing devils advocate pretty hard on this thread (not exactly sure I understand why), but that statement above is a real stretch. This is a serious issue for those affected by this problem, and the implication that one persons deficiency in a three person crew is the part of the chain of events that could have prevented this accident is just crazy.

 

[dpgtime]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Matt 152 is actually a fellow color deficient! Can't we all just...get along. hahhah. We are all in this to-get-her.

 

[matt152]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Wow Matt. That is an INSANE conclusion for you to come to.

Your personal attack was unnecessary.

If that were true in any way, then as has been said on this thread multiple times, the Captain and the FE would have noticed the 4 reds and called for action.

Obviously, if the FO stayed on the glidepath the accident would not have happened. The chain of events would have been broken right there. Is that a leap of logic?

The breakdown in ADM (i.e. CA and FE not calling for a go-around) was also part of the problem. But it is also a separate issue. If they had said "hey we're way low on the glidepath, GO AROUND" then the chain of events would have been broken.

You are playing devils advocate pretty hard on this thread (not exactly sure I understand why), but that statement above is a real stretch. This is a serious issue for those affected by this problem, and the implication that one persons deficiency in a three person crew is the part of the chain of events that could have prevented this accident is just crazy.

No devil's advocate. I don't agree with "shopping around" to find a color vision test that you can pass. Whether it's the FALANT or anything else. I am arguing this point because it seems that alot of the color deficient guys on this forum are convinced that a serious color vision deficiency is not a problem. Or the FAA is out to screw these pilots. I think they are letting their own bias get in the way because they have a vested interest in following this career path.

Is it discrimination for the FAA to list epilepsy as a disqualifying condition for issuance of a medical certificate? If that's ok, then why are people having such an issue with a medical standard for color vision?

Can we all reasaonably assume that being able to correctly interpret a few colors is necessary to being a safe pilot? Do people really think the FAA and NTSB are trying to discriminate against color deficient pilots for no reason?

Anyway, I feel I have beat this horse to death.

Good luck to all of us with this problem.

 

[RS1]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Your personal attack was unnecessary.



Obviously, if the FO stayed on the glidepath the accident would not have happened. The chain of events would have been broken right there. Is that a leap of logic?

The breakdown in ADM (i.e. CA and FE not calling for a go-around) was also part of the problem. But it is also a separate issue. If they had said "hey we're way low on the glidepath, GO AROUND" then the chain of events would have been broken.



No devil's advocate. I don't agree with "shopping around" to find a color vision test that you can pass. Whether it's the FALANT or anything else. I am arguing this point because it seems that alot of the color deficient guys on this forum are convinced that a serious color vision deficiency is not a problem. Or the FAA is out to screw these pilots. I think they are letting their own bias get in the way because they have a vested interest in following this career path.

Is it discrimination for the FAA to list epilepsy as a disqualifying condition for issuance of a medical certificate? If that's ok, then why are people having such an issue with a medical standard for color vision?

Can we all reasaonably assume that being able to correctly interpret a few colors is necessary to being a safe pilot? Do people really think the FAA and NTSB are trying to discriminate against color deficient pilots for no reason?

Anyway, I feel I have beat this horse to death.

Good luck to all of us with this problem.

Fact of the matter is. I was one of the few that "shopped around" for a color vision test I can pass. It's one thing if the person is a 'dichromat', or even worse, sees only in monochrome... But for people that have an extremely mild case (still trichromat)... This shouldn't be a deal breaker for those types. I can "perceive those colors necessary", yet I can't pass the Keystone. So how does this make shopping around a bad thing? The FALANT is a damn good test to weed people out that don't have all 3 color receptor types. If you couldn't tell the colors apart, you'd fail this test. Epilepsy is obviously a problem, so please don't compare guns to flowers, and apples to oranges, A380's to Honda Civics, etc. These number plate tests have been proven on numerous counts to misdiagnose people even with completely normal color vision. Someone can't tell green from red? Ok maybe you got something there. This is not the case 90% of the time. This is why alternates are available... What pissed me off was when I went to a doctor with the FALANT, he said this to me as soon as I walked in the door:

Doctor: Is the traffic light's red light on top or bottom?
Me: Umm. The top.
Doctor: See, this is how you adapt, you can't tell red from green but you remember based on the position and brightness. A normal vision person would not have known that answer!
Me: Uhh, No... they look completely different to me, I'm just an observant person, and who doesn't know that green is usually on the bottom anyway?
Doctor: Trust me, you are color blind.



Took numerous color tests right after that. 2 of them told me I have NORMAL COLOR VISION. 1 told me a mild deutranomoly (green weak). Ok, big deal, I can't tell Green 171 from Green 173. Passed the FALANT.

Doctor: Good job, just ask whoever is onboard with you for a second opinion if you ever are in a situation where you are unsure of the color of a critical signal light.


Trust me, it's a stupid discrimination. If someone has 20/200 (BAD) distant vision but normal color vision and doesn't get any limitations then how is that safer than my natural 20/20 with a very mild green sensitivity shift? So I can't see a silly number in a silly pattern, but I can do just about everything else that requires color differentiation.


If you pass the FALANT, then you can definitely tell white from red. This test filters out brightness and has different hues on different plates for the same colors... It's not like it's a joke of a test.

Most people at the NTSB or even non ophthalmologist AME's don't know jack about color vision. There is no money to be made in researching something that there is no treatment for. They only know what they read in a bloody text book on a warm friday afternoon, and they probably even skipped class that day because they were hung over. Most ppl go by rumors they hear, and simply don't understand anything about it. Making ppl have to retest every single renewal is a crock. It costs extra money and extra vacation time and simply isn't fair.

Idiot person that finds out I'm color deficient: What color is this pen here?
Me: Green
Idiot: Ok what about this car here?
Me: Baby Blue metallic
Idiot: ..... I thot you said you were color blind (loses interest)
Me: **Shakes head, walks away.**

Get the point?

 

[Arowana]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

I spend over $1500 to take off work and travel to Arizona just to take the FALANT test, thinking that I would only to do it once. I requested a LOE, which was denied, even though I sent the results before the policy changed! Finding an AME with this test is very difficult, so what happens years down the road if none are available? What about all the people who invested all the time and money into their flying career. The FAA test is too risky to take because you only get 2 tries, so that should not be the only option. It is a proven fact that color vision does not change, so why should we have to take it more than once? The FAA obviously felt they needed to change something because of the FedEx accident, so they went after color vision because it's the easiest issue for them to attack. The words "color blind" or "color deficient" are an easy stereotype, and have way too much stigma attached to them. If the average person was told that a pilot is color blind, this would automatically raise concern. They overlook the fact that most of the people labeled with this condition have such a minor deficiency.

 

[Zero1Niner]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Your personal attack was unnecessary.

Personal attack?? Hardly.

Obviously, if the FO stayed on the glidepath the accident would not have happened. The chain of events would have been broken right there. Is that a leap of logic?

No. That statement is completely obvious. Now whether that is contributable to a color vision defect, and that somehow this one time, a pilot that has been flying for years in both military and civilian aviation couldnt see the PAPI seems highly unlikely. So this guy has been unable to see VASI or PAPI lights throughout his career? Speaking of obviousness, it seems quite obvious this would be directly related to the exhaustion, not color vision.

No devil's advocate. I don't agree with "shopping around" to find a color vision test that you can pass. Whether it's the FALANT or anything else.

Per the FAA guidelines, its the pilots right to 'shop around' as you call it to find a test that they can pass. All of the alternative test are approved, and pilots should ABSOLUTELY take every single available test until they find one (hopefully) that works for them. It would be insane to simply give up on a lifelong dream in many cases just because they failed the ishihara test.

I am arguing this point because it seems that alot of the color deficient guys on this forum are convinced that a serious color vision deficiency is not a problem.

Thats not what I am hearing at all from any of the guys on this forum. What I hear them saying is that they dont want to be excluded from their dream of flying over a deficiency that has not unequivocally proven to be the primary or even contributing cause of an accident. And they feel they deserve justification for any rulings that might disqualify them.

Or the FAA is out to screw these pilots.

Is the FAA trying to 'screw' these guys? Not exactly. However they are trying to cover their a$$ first, as well as having an answer for the public.

Is it discrimination for the FAA to list epilepsy as a disqualifying condition for issuance of a medical certificate? If that's ok, then why are people having such an issue with a medical standard for color vision?

Comparing epilepsy with a color vision issue is completely ridiculous. Someone at risk of being incapacitated with someone seeing slightly different color variations are hardly comparable.

Can we all reasonably assume that being able to correctly interpret a few colors is necessary to being a safe pilot?

Until it can be proven that this is not the case, I would argue yes.

Anyway..this was not meant to be an attack on Matt in any way. If it comes across that way, my apologies. Although I have to say that I suspect if your color vision defect were just a little worst, that you just might be talking out of the other side of your mouth on this issue. Its easy to be critical once your in the door. Not so east for those on the outside.

Do we want people who are truly color blind flying? No. Do we want to ground a large segment of pilots because of a borderline defect that has not proven to truly be a safety risk? Certainly not.

Peace Matt! Nothing personal buddy.

 

[CaptainTeezy]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Ok here is the deal...EVERYONE LOSES COLOR VISION AT HIGHER ALTITUDES DUE TO HYPOXIA...HYPOXIA IS FELT IN MOST PEOPLE AROUND 5,000 FT. A lot of airports

So the idea of using colors is stupid anyways...I am a 135 pilot and there are 4 times when color supposedly plays a huge roll.

1. Beacons- First off they are not critical to navigation. The FAA does not even regulate them and they often get faded out in the sun...so the so called "green" varys from airport to airport. Cross referencing with VORs and GPS along with good old pilotage solves a lot. You can't even see the dual peaked white in military beacons until you get right over the beacon. But if you were using that to make a determination you would have probably busted airspace a long time ago if you weren't flight following. Besides, just because you can see a beacon does not mean you can see your runway and that is why controllers often vector planes to final. Proposed Solution-If you are color deficient you must carry a back up hand held radio and GPS and preflight it before you take off.

2. Airplane Navigation Lights-I have ALWAYS been able to tell which way an airplane is moving just by seeing the main airplane beacon. I have never been so close that I needed to use the colored lights. Proposed Solution-Instead of using colored lights use SHAPES. IE Three XXX's mean left wing and three circles 000 mean right wing along with color coding.

3. Light Gun Signals-This could be solved in a number of ways. Proposed Solution-Every color deficient pilot must carry a back up hand held radio that is preflighted before every flight. You could also replace the light gun with a panel about 3ft by 3ft and instead of using colors project a huge number or shape. IE 1=cleared to land 2=continue circling etc...

4. VASIs/PAPIs-If safety truely is the concern then since people become hypoxic at higher altitudes/elevations (Think Colorado/Montainous areas) color vision should not be relied upon. Proposed Solution-use projectors that shoot different Letters/Shapes/Numbers...IE XX=Low 00=high and say X0=on glideslope.

Yes...this will cost money...but since EVERYONE gets hypoxic at higher altitudes and it directly relates to safety, money should not be an issue. The FAA should move in this direction. By using color vision the FAA puts more risk on passengers lives. Again I strongly urge everyone to remember that everyone gets hypoxic and therefore loses color vision. How often do people land in Colorado where the elevation is over 5,000 ft.

I rest my case. There is no system that involves color vision that is superior to my SOLUTION. My solutions work for people that are truely color BLIND.

Thanks to all those who read this.

 

[RS1]

Re: Color Vision Letter of Evidence - Status

Ok here is the deal...EVERYONE LOSES COLOR VISION AT HIGHER ALTITUDES DUE TO HYPOXIA...HYPOXIA IS FELT IN MOST PEOPLE AROUND 5,000 FT. A lot of airports

So the idea of using colors is stupid anyways...I am a 135 pilot and there are 4 times when color supposedly plays a huge roll.

1. Beacons- First off they are not critical to navigation. The FAA does not even regulate them and they often get faded out in the sun...so the so called "green" varys from airport to airport. Cross referencing with VORs and GPS along with good old pilotage solves a lot. You can't even see the dual peaked white in military beacons until you get right over the beacon. But if you were using that to make a determination you would have probably busted airspace a long time ago if you weren't flight following. Besides, just because you can see a beacon does not mean you can see your runway and that is why controllers often vector planes to final. Proposed Solution-If you are color deficient you must carry a back up hand held radio and GPS and preflight it before you take off.

2. Airplane Navigation Lights-I have ALWAYS been able to tell which way an airplane is moving just by seeing the main airplane beacon. I have never been so close that I needed to use the colored lights. Proposed Solution-Instead of using colored lights use SHAPES. IE Three XXX's mean left wing and three circles 000 mean right wing along with color coding.

3. Light Gun Signals-This could be solved in a number of ways. Proposed Solution-Every color deficient pilot must carry a back up hand held radio that is preflighted before every flight. You could also replace the light gun with a panel about 3ft by 3ft and instead of using colors project a huge number or shape. IE 1=cleared to land 2=continue circling etc...

4. VASIs/PAPIs-If safety truely is the concern then since people become hypoxic at higher altitudes/elevations (Think Colorado/Montainous areas) color vision should not be relied upon. Proposed Solution-use projectors that shoot different Letters/Shapes/Numbers...IE XX=Low 00=high and say X0=on glideslope.

Yes...this will cost money...but since EVERYONE gets hypoxic at higher altitudes and it directly relates to safety, money should not be an issue. The FAA should move in this direction. By using color vision the FAA puts more risk on passengers lives. Again I strongly urge everyone to remember that everyone gets hypoxic and therefore loses color vision. How often do people land in Colorado where the elevation is over 5,000 ft.

I rest my case. There is no system that involves color vision that is superior to my SOLUTION. My solutions work for people that are truely color BLIND.

Thanks to all those who read this.

That's so funny, I've thought of almost the same exact thing... The symbols instead of color coding the lights... And Airport beacons like you said are next to useless anyways... This isn't about safety at all.. It's nonsense.

 

[RS1]

For what it's worth, I plan on taking the FAA's bS OCVT and MFT. Just so I can make my life decision that much easier, because frankly I'm sick of dealing with this. It took me a year to find the FALANT as it is, and I thought I was finally good to go, until the FAA jerked me off sending me a letter saying that the FALANT wasn't accepted (Just so they can wait until the new policy took effect before sending me my corrected medical certificate withOUT the much deserved LOE) and then "correcting" themselves conveniently after the new BS policy is in place. I'll be damned if I'm gonna go thu this yearly or every 6 months to maintain a 1st class. Such BS and it needs to be fought. Almost makes me wish I was born with HEART PROBLEMS instead of a mild color problem...

 

[Murdoughnut]

Heres my take. No one knows what coming down the road. Anything can happen. The earth could be hit by a giant meteor next year, and the whole world ceases to exist. You just dont know.

My advice is to do what you love. Thats it. You will deal with whatever happens as it happens. I am not advocating reckless decision making, but at the same time, you dont want to be in your late 40's (or older) wishing you would have followed your dreams.

I am in my late 30's making the career change as we speak (just finished my IR, Multi and Comm...now on to CFI, CFII and MEI). I let many other factors dictate my path along the way, and I could kick myself now for not following my dreams earlier in life. So I am doing it now before its too late.

This industry is not an easy one to say the least. Extremely unstable and cyclical, the need to pass a medical once a year that could end your career in a moment, declining wages, etc. But I would rather have done this for a while just to have experienced it than to never have done it at all.

Think of it this way. Try the alternate test and see which one feels the easiest for you. Stick with that until (or perhaps more likely IF) they make changes to that requirement. Or if you really want to be sure, go jump through the hoops for the FAA LOE and see if you can pass. If you pass, you have an LOE for life most likely. If you dont, then you perhaps move on to something else.

Just a thought. Wish you the best whatever you decide.

::end rant::

I would disagree - I don't think it's wise to blindly go into it saying "eh, whatever happens, happens". How do you explain that type of planning to your wife and three kids when you just dropped $100k for a career you're no longer qualified for? I think what this should do is push people who were sittting on the fence to fall to the side of keeping their money and flying for fun. For the rest, don't go into with the attitude "I'm not going to think about it - I'm just going to do what I love" - instead, think about it rationally and come up with a cost benefit utility function that justifies your decision. If you decide it's worth the risk, that's fine - just be willing to man up and live with it.

Each person has to make their own call - but closing your eyes when walking by the writing on the wall is a stupid means of decision making. If you're going to make a calculated risk - that's ok, so long as you actually did the calculation.

 

[Arowana]

It would be nice if the AOPA got involved with this! The Big Picture: "you must take the FALANT test at every exam rather than only once". This policy is discriminating against people with minor color deficiencies because:

1.) Only a few AME's in the country have the FALANT test, and they will retire eventually. People should not have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to make special trips across the country for every exam!

2.) New AME's are not using the FALANT because they don't make them anymore!

3.) If this was such a safety issue, they would pull all the existing LOE's for the FALANT test!

4.) Are they arguing that color vision changes over time, since they sill issue LOE's, but only if you complete their extensive OVCT and MFT test! For what reason is the FALANT test still allowed, but it must be demonstrated at every exam?

5.) The failure of the OVCT test will restrict you for life! This test is conducted in an uncontrolled environment, at airports with different equipment. The weather and/or time of day can make the test easier or harder. It is even recommended to take the test when the daylight is not directly overhead, but this is not always possible.

Conclusion: People who invest tens of thousands of dollars and time into their careers don't deserve to loose it years down the road because they can't find a FALANT test, or they fail the OCVT! It is pure discrimination when you make a certain group of people have to spend LOTS of extra money to travel for a test like this every exam. In my opinion, this policy violates the (ADA) American's with Disabilities Act.

 

[RS1]

It would be nice if the AOPA got involved with this! The Big Picture: "you must take the FALANT test at every exam rather than only once". This policy is discriminating against people with minor color deficiencies because:

1.) Only a few AME's in the country have the FALANT test, and they will retire eventually. People should not have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to make special trips across the country for every exam!

2.) New AME's are not using the FALANT because they don't make them anymore!

3.) If this was such a safety issue, they would pull all the existing LOE's for the FALANT test!

4.) Are they arguing that color vision changes over time, since they sill issue LOE's, but only if you complete their extensive OVCT and MFT test! For what reason is the FALANT test still allowed, but it must be demonstrated at every exam?

5.) The failure of the OVCT test will restrict you for life! This test is conducted in an uncontrolled environment, at airports with different equipment. The weather and/or time of day can make the test easier or harder. It is even recommended to take the test when the daylight is not directly overhead, but this is not always possible.

Conclusion: People who invest tens of thousands of dollars and time into their careers don't deserve to loose it years down the road because they can't find a FALANT test, or they fail the OCVT! It is pure discrimination when you make a certain group of people have to spend LOTS of extra money to travel for a test like this every exam. In my opinion, this policy violates the (ADA) American's with Disabilities Act.

Well since I failed the keystone, I'm going tomorrow to try the Ishihara and the Titmus. I will let everyone know of the results... I did pass the FALANT by the way as well...

 

[RS1]

In my opinion, this policy violates the (ADA) American's with Disabilities Act.

And I agree 100% with this fact as well. spread the word, email AOPA.