Color vision requirements.
David J Sherlock
I'm wanting to take flying lessons and am all set except for my eye
sight. I was told when I was a kid by an optician that I am red/green
color blind. Will this preclude me from becoming a class 3 private
pilot? How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around
it?
Hope someone out there can help me on this. I want to find out as much
as I can now before I shell out flippin' great wedges of cash for
nothing.
Thanks for any replies.
David Sherlock.
Michael Carver
In article <330c6...@robby.oit.umass.edu>, dav...@asimov.oit.umass.edu
says...
Just take the test. I am profoundly Blue/Green color blind but was able to
read the "damn dot test" my AE gave. Even if you fail this test you can
still get a domonstrated ability waiver from your local FSDO. If you can tell
the color difference between traffic lights you should pass this test. The
beautiful thing is that once you pass this portion of the exam, you never
have to take it again.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael Carver | 972-462-5623 |
| Chemist, Texas Instruments, Missile Systems | MA...@MSG.TI.COM |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same |
| level of thinking we were at when we created them. (Albert Einstein)|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Mike Brown
> How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around it?
I am also red/green color deficient (i.e. I can see red and green if
they are bright enough, but pastels all fade together). I suspect you
are the same - if you really couldn't tell red from green, you wouldn't
have needed a doctor to tell you so. I have a Private license, and so do
lots of other color blind people I know. The only catch is a "no night
flying" restriction.
The rules on color blindness changed last fall, and since my medical is
upcoming this spring I decided not to bother with the waiver request -
maybe under the new rules I will be deemed "not color blind enough" for
the FAA to care. If not, the procedure for getting a waiver is
relatively simple, I understand - they take you out on the ramp and you
look at a light gun. If you can tell red light from green light, you're
OK. Don't know what the procedures under the new rules would be.
The bottom line is, don't give up on flying. Even if I can't get a
waiver, I can have all the fun flying I want during daylight hours.
Mike Brown
Cessna N4579U
Broomstick
>From: Mike Brown <b...@lightlink.com>
>> How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around it?
>I am also red/green color deficient (i.e. I can see red and green if
>they are bright enough, but pastels all fade together). I suspect you
>are the same - if you really couldn't tell red from green, you wouldn't
>have needed a doctor to tell you so. I have a Private license, and so do
>lots of other color blind people I know. The only catch is a "no night
>flying" restriction.
>The rules on color blindness changed last fall, and since my medical is
>upcoming this spring I decided not to bother with the waiver request -
>maybe under the new rules I will be deemed "not color blind enough" for
>the FAA to care. If not, the procedure for getting a waiver is
>relatively simple, I understand - they take you out on the ramp and you
>look at a light gun. If you can tell red light from green light, you're
>OK. Don't know what the procedures under the new rules would be.
I got my SODA under the new rules. They still use the damn "blobs of ink"
test, but you apply for a waiver if you can't pass it. Here's what happens:
#1 - you go for your FAA medical. Among other things, the nice AME will give
you a color vision test, which you will fail. Assuming that nothing else
disqualifies you, you will be issued a medical and in the box marked
"restrictions" will be something like "no flying at night or when use of
lightgun signals required".
#2 - continue your flight training as before. Yes, you can even solo (as long
as you do it in the daytime) and EVEN get a Private Certificate (with a
nightflying etc. restriction) with that medical
What follows is optional, but why not go for it:
#3 - immediately file the necessary paperwork with the FAA for a lightgun
signal test and mail it to Oklahoma City, OK. After 4-6 weeks you will get an
official letter stating that you can take the test, where you are to take it,
and gives you 90 days to do it.
#4 - call the FSDO and make an appoint to take the test
#5 - take the test. This is where one guy takes you about 1500 feet away from
this other guy, who flashes lightgun signals at you. You say "that's red" or
"that's green" or "that's white" whenever appropriate.
Now, if you pass that test (and quite a few of us "colorblind" do) you get a
nice, shiny new medical MINUS the nightflying etc. restrictions and you are
free to fly at night or while getting flashed (snicker).
If you DON'T pass the test, that's it. You are colorblind and the
restrictions stay. You can still fly, but only in the daytime. This might
make a commercial career difficult, but maybe not impossible.
=======================================================================
|
>---Broomstick---- | Any Day Above Ground Is A Good Day
|
=======================================================================
brum...@interaccess.com|http://users.aol.com/beesticker/broomstick.html
=======================================================================
Hilton Goldstein
Broomstick wrote:
[zap]
> If you DON'T pass the test, that's it. You are colorblind and the
> restrictions stay. You can still fly, but only in the daytime. This might
> make a commercial career difficult, but maybe not impossible.
Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
"That picture was taken out of context." Jeff Innis, New
York Mets pitcher, on a bad picture taken of him.
Greg Ostrom
dav...@asimov.oit.umass.edu (David J Sherlock) wrote:
>I'm wanting to take flying lessons and am all set except for my eye
>sight. I was told when I was a kid by an optician that I am red/green
>color blind. Will this preclude me from becoming a class 3 private
>pilot? How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around
>it?
>Hope someone out there can help me on this. I want to find out as much
>as I can now before I shell out flippin' great wedges of cash for
>nothing.
>Thanks for any replies.
>David Sherlock.
If you really cannot tell the red lights from the green you will be
restricted to flying in the daytime only but you will still be allowed
to have a class 3 medical(U.S. A. rules).
Most applicants who fail the dot test do not know they were color
impaired and in fact function normally and pass the practical test.
I suggest:
Go to the AME and have the medical exam. If you do not pass the
tests at the AME office he CANNOT issue you a medical without the
color vision restriction.
If failing to be able to fly at night would cause you to skip flight
instruction then ask for the color lantern test as administered by the
FAA. They will shine red and green lights at you from the tower and
you will need to demonstrate the ability to tell the difference.
You will then be given a waiver that allows the AME to eliminate the
night time(and color signal control) restrictions.
Keep in mind the waiver has a class rating. If you need a higher
class medical your class III waiver will be no good and you'll have to
repeat the test.
Greg Ostrom AME
Sylvain Louboutin
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
>allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
>reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
how would ATC distinguish them from those who don't pay attention and
miss the darn signals, or those who did see them but can't possibly
remember what the heck this flashing red one means (hey! there even is a
`cheat' sticker on the light guns themselves to remind the person who
operate them :)
--
%% Sylvain....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie http://www.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/~sloubtin/
%% Distributed Systems Group, (O'Reilly Institute, room F.35)
%% Department of Computer Science, phone: (+353-88) 527790
%% Trinity College, Dublin 2, -Ireland- fax: (+353-1) 6772204
Al Shing
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote in article
<330CF3...@sgi.com>...
> Broomstick wrote:
>
> Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
> allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
> reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
>
Who needs a light gun? I have a handheld transceiver, and a cellular phone.
If my radios go out, I use the handheld. If the handheld doesn't work, I
land at an uncontrolled airport and call the tower.
I was told by Seattle Approach that if you lose comm while IFR, and you
have a cell phone, they want you to call them on the cell phone. The FCC
will not violate you for this. ATC much prefers this over the prescribed
lost comm and light gun procedures.
Al Shing
Mark Blackledge
David J Sherlock <dav...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote in article
<330c6...@robby.oit.umass.edu>...
> I'm wanting to take flying lessons and am all set except for my eye
> sight. I was told when I was a kid by an optician that I am red/green
> color blind. Will this preclude me from becoming a class 3 private
> pilot? How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around
> it?
I, too, am color blind, and just completed my private pilot certificate. My
medical states that I can't fly at night. What I plan to do now is get a
SODA (statement of demonstrated ability?) from someone at the nearby FSDO
who will (I suppose) take me to a tower a night where they will shine the
lights at me and I will say "red" or "green" (correctly hopefully) and then
I get a waiver to fly at night!
So, unless you really can't distinguish between those red and green lights,
it shouldn't be a problem. You might want to consider getting the waiver
before your certificate for less paperwork to carry around.
The color blind test I took seemed to be the standard medical test, where
you look for numbers in the multicolored circles. (Which obviously aren't
there because I sure couldn't see them!)
Have fun flying!
mark
Michael Carver
In article <330CF3...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
>
>Broomstick wrote:
>
>[zap]
>
>> If you DON'T pass the test, that's it. You are colorblind and the
>> restrictions stay. You can still fly, but only in the daytime. This
might
>> make a commercial career difficult, but maybe not impossible.
>
>allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
>reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
>
>
>--
>Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
>415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
>M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
> http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
>
>"That picture was taken out of context." Jeff Innis, New
>York Mets pitcher, on a bad picture taken of him.
Why should they not be allowed to fly. MOST airports have no control tower.
Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have radios. If
the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
Michael Carver
In article <01bc1fc5$b3a3b500$95a0...@kumas.gte.net>, eey...@whoever.com
says...
>
>The color blind test I took seemed to be the standard medical test, where
>you look for numbers in the multicolored circles. (Which obviously aren't
>there because I sure couldn't see them!)
>
>Have fun flying!
>mark
Ah ha, I've been suspecting this for years. Can they really prove that there
is a discernible difference between blue and green or is this all some
chino-picko plot? Reminds me of a children's story about the emperer's new
wardrobe.
David J Sherlock
Thanks to all who answered my query. As many of you said, flying by day
only isn't all that bad... heck, you can see more... and hopefully I'll
pass the light gun test.
Thanks again to you all.
See you up there
David.
Hilton Goldstein
Mark Blackledge wrote:
>
> David J Sherlock <dav...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote in article
> <330c6...@robby.oit.umass.edu>...
> > I'm wanting to take flying lessons and am all set except for my eye
> > sight. I was told when I was a kid by an optician that I am red/green
> > color blind. Will this preclude me from becoming a class 3 private
> > pilot? How rigorous is the color blindness test? Are there ways around
> > it?
>
> I, too, am color blind, and just completed my private pilot certificate. My
> medical states that I can't fly at night. What I plan to do now is get a
> SODA (statement of demonstrated ability?) from someone at the nearby FSDO
> who will (I suppose) take me to a tower a night where they will shine the
> lights at me and I will say "red" or "green" (correctly hopefully) and then
> I get a waiver to fly at night!
Mark,
If you are color blind, you have absolutely no way of passing the light
gun test. You need to see colors. I assume you are color DEFICIENT,
big difference.
> So, unless you really can't distinguish between those red and green lights,
They are checking to ensure that you can see and interperet light gun
signals from the tower. Therefore, you are required to be able to
distinguish red, green, and white. Distinguishing between green and
white may be tricky.
Hilton Goldstein
Al Shing wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote in article
> <330CF3...@sgi.com>...
> > Broomstick wrote:
> >
> > allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
> > reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
> >
>
> If my radios go out, I use the handheld. If the handheld doesn't work, I
> land at an uncontrolled airport and call the tower.
How many other pilots carry transceivers and/or cell phones? Why does
the FAA even bothering light gun signals anyway?
Hilton Goldstein
Michael Carver wrote:
>
> In article <330CF3...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
> >
> >Broomstick wrote:
> >
> >[zap]
> >
> >> If you DON'T pass the test, that's it. You are colorblind and the
> >> restrictions stay. You can still fly, but only in the daytime. This
> might
> >> make a commercial career difficult, but maybe not impossible.
> >
> >allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
> >reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
> >415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
> >M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
> > http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
> >
> >"That picture was taken out of context." Jeff Innis, New
> >York Mets pitcher, on a bad picture taken of him.
>
> Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have radios. If
> the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
And what do you do if you're on the ground at large airport and you
radios fail?
It just seems strange that there is a procedure for communicating which
the FAA qualifies people to ignore. I'm not trying to start an
argument, just wondering about certain circumstances...
Hilton Goldstein
Michael Carver wrote:
>
> In article <330CF3...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
> >
> >Broomstick wrote:
> >
> >[zap]
> >
> >> If you DON'T pass the test, that's it. You are colorblind and the
> >> restrictions stay. You can still fly, but only in the daytime. This
> might
> >> make a commercial career difficult, but maybe not impossible.
> >
> >Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
> >allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
> >reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
> >
> >Hilton
> >
> >--
> >Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
> >415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
> >M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
> > http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
> >
> >"That picture was taken out of context." Jeff Innis, New
> >York Mets pitcher, on a bad picture taken of him.
>
> Why should they not be allowed to fly. MOST airports have no control tower.
> Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have radios. If
> the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
======
1. Cannot do a complete pre-flight: May not be able to verify that the
red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
2. FAR 91.129 "Operations in Class D airspace" says
(e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D
airspace,
each pilot of--
(1) and (2) zapped
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
glide
slope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.
======
A color-deficient pilot may not be able to interpret the VASI. Please
see 91.129 for the full text.
Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
Al Shing
In article <330DFF...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
>Al Shing wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who needs a light gun? I have a handheld transceiver, and a cellular phone.
>> If my radios go out, I use the handheld. If the handheld doesn't work, I
>> land at an uncontrolled airport and call the tower.
>
>How many other pilots carry transceivers and/or cell phones? Why does
>the FAA even bothering light gun signals anyway?
>
The light gun is a vast improvement over its predecessor technology, which
was a controller standing at the runway threshold with a red and a green
flag. If they showed you a green flag, you were cleared to land, while a
red one meant go around.
Well, the flag technology had limitations. If several planes were coming
in to land, there was no way for the controller to indicate which plane
was receiving the green flag. So they came up with the light gun signals.
Now, they could point the light gun at the airplane that was cleared to
land, so there was an additional level of communication.
Time moves on, and they found that radios would provide even better
communications than the light gun signals.
Now, it's the 1990's. Pilots have portable tranceivers and even telephones
that are independent of the airplane's power supply. If the 1930's
technology fails, should we revert to the 1920's technology, or use the
1990's technology?
I would hope that any pilot with a color deficiency restriction would
protect himself with a handheld tranceiver. Anyone flying IFR should too.
Al Shing
Ron Natalie
> Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
The VASI's are really a convenience (regs not withstanding). The reg
is screwy anyhow because it doesn't really mention any number of other
approach aids that may be there in lieu of the VASI.
As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color and you'll find
that things can be really wrong before the color change will be noticed.
Hilton Goldstein
Al Shing wrote:
>
> In article <330DFF...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> >Al Shing wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Who needs a light gun? I have a handheld transceiver, and a cellular phone.
> >> If my radios go out, I use the handheld. If the handheld doesn't work, I
> >> land at an uncontrolled airport and call the tower.
> >
> >How many other pilots carry transceivers and/or cell phones? Why does
> >the FAA even bothering light gun signals anyway?
> >
>
> The light gun is a vast improvement over its predecessor technology, which
> was a controller standing at the runway threshold with a red and a green
> flag. If they showed you a green flag, you were cleared to land, while a
> red one meant go around.
>
> Well, the flag technology had limitations. If several planes were coming
> in to land, there was no way for the controller to indicate which plane
> was receiving the green flag. So they came up with the light gun signals.
> Now, they could point the light gun at the airplane that was cleared to
> land, so there was an additional level of communication.
>
> Time moves on, and they found that radios would provide even better
> communications than the light gun signals.
But I guarantee you that more color deficient people would be able to
differentiate between the flags than do the light gun signals. I'm not
saying light gun signals are worse, just stating something I believe to
be true.
This brings up the question about coloring on sectionals (especially
problematic at night with red lights), but that's worthy of a totally
seperate thread - and I think it's been done anyway.
> Now, it's the 1990's. Pilots have portable tranceivers and even telephones
> that are independent of the airplane's power supply. If the 1930's
> technology fails, should we revert to the 1920's technology, or use the
> 1990's technology?
How old are radios, VORs and NDBs? Heck, flying is early 1900s
technology.
> I would hope that any pilot with a color deficiency restriction would
> protect himself with a handheld tranceiver. Anyone flying IFR should too.
I fully agree.
Sylvain Louboutin
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
>to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
well if you really want to be picky, you should also revoke the
tickets of any pilots who is smaller than 6' (or whatever is necessary
to visually inspect the contents of a fuel tank on some high wing);
ground pilots who have less than a college degree (in an appropriate
field of course) 'cause they can't possibly understand how an aicraft
really fly, people too short, too tall, too slim, too fat, etc.
etc. how long do you think it will take then for your own ticket to
be eventually taken away from you?
Hilton Goldstein
Sylvain Louboutin wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>
> >To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
> >to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
>
> well if you really want to be picky, you should also revoke the
> tickets of any pilots who is smaller than 6' (or whatever is necessary
> to visually inspect the contents of a fuel tank on some high wing);
So it is safe for these 'short' people not to visually inspect the
tanks?
> ground pilots who have less than a college degree (in an appropriate
> field of course) 'cause they can't possibly understand how an aicraft
> really fly, people too short, too tall, too slim, too fat, etc.
> etc. how long do you think it will take then for your own ticket to
> be eventually taken away from you?
Hell, do you know exactly how your fingers move? No. What does a
person's height or mass have to do with anything (apart from the usual
W&B calcs)?
Hilton Goldstein
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> > about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> > below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
>
> The VASI's are really a convenience (regs not withstanding). The reg
> is screwy anyhow because it doesn't really mention any number of other
> approach aids that may be there in lieu of the VASI.
I fully agree.
> As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
> vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color and you'll find
> that things can be really wrong before the color change will be noticed.
Agreed, but Jet A (and other fuel) has caused several accidents in the
past, and I'm sure will cause a few in the future too.
Hilton Goldstein
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> > about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> > below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
>
> The VASI's are really a convenience (regs not withstanding). The reg
> is screwy anyhow because it doesn't really mention any number of other
> approach aids that may be there in lieu of the VASI.
...and the FAR is only for Class D, not Class C or D. Seems wierd.
Anyone want to clarify this? Wouldn't it be cool if we had an FAA guy
read these newsgroups?!?!?
Hilton Goldstein
Hilton Goldstein wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> > > about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> > > below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
> >
> > The VASI's are really a convenience (regs not withstanding). The reg
> > is screwy anyhow because it doesn't really mention any number of other
> > approach aids that may be there in lieu of the VASI.
>
> ...and the FAR is only for Class D, not Class C or D. Seems wierd.
I meant "...not Class B or C."
Broomstick
In article <330E35...@sgi.com> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>From: Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com>
>Subject: Re: Color vision requirements.
>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:53:38 -0800
>> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>>
>> >To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
>> >to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
>>
>> well if you really want to be picky, you should also revoke the
>> tickets of any pilots who is smaller than 6' (or whatever is necessary
>> to visually inspect the contents of a fuel tank on some high wing);
>Sylvain Louboutin wrote:
>So it is safe for these 'short' people not to visually inspect the
>tanks?
Speaking as a short person who flies highwings, no, it is NOT safe to skip the
visual inspection. But this is not a problem. I solve it by either 1) using
a ladder or other means to boost my height or 2) actually climbing up onto the
wing. I know of a pilot even shorter than myself who had handholds added to
his 172 (STC) to assist in getting up to inspect the plane. An expense, yes,
but no more or less an aggravation than a big, heavy person needing to buy a
bigger (and therefore more expensive) plane because they can't fit into, say,
a C150.
Pilots in wheelchairs (there are some) deal with the same problem by either
flying a low-wing where they can get at the tanks or by dredging up someone
trustworthy to do the inspection for them. An aggravation, I'm sure, but you
do what you have to.
[snip]
>Hell, do you know exactly how your fingers move? No. What does a
>person's height or mass have to do with anything (apart from the usual
>W&B calcs)?
I'd say us short, light people have an advantage in that planes fly better
with less weight, and little folks fit into cockpits (on average) better than
overgrown types.
Personal and highly biased opinion, of course
Broomstick
In article <330E1D...@sensor.com> Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> writes:
>From: Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
>Subject: Re: Color vision requirements.
>> Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
>> about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
>> below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
[snip]
>As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
>vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color and you'll find
>that things can be really wrong before the color change will be noticed.
Not to mention that at night it's as hard as hell to see what color is in that
little tester anyhow. Under the red light you're supposed to use to keep your
vision night-adapted even people with normal vision pretty much are
colorblind. Near as I can tell, it really is the signal lights that a crucial
Also, the FAA examiner who did my lightgun test told me that everyone he's
ever tested can see red just fine - it's distinguishing between green and
white that causes problems. So a VASI with red and white would most certainly
not be a problem.
Hilton Goldstein
Broomstick wrote:
>
> In article <330E1D...@sensor.com> Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> writes:
> >From: Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
> >Subject: Re: Color vision requirements.
> >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:13:12 -0500
>
> >> Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> >> about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> >> below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
>
> [snip]
> >As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
> >vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color and you'll find
> >that things can be really wrong before the color change will be noticed.
>
> Not to mention that at night it's as hard as hell to see what color is in that
> little tester anyhow. Under the red light you're supposed to use to keep your
> vision night-adapted even people with normal vision pretty much are
> colorblind. Near as I can tell, it really is the signal lights that a crucial
Agreed.
> Also, the FAA examiner who did my lightgun test told me that everyone he's
> ever tested can see red just fine - it's distinguishing between green and
> white that causes problems. So a VASI with red and white would most certainly
> not be a problem.
The FAA examiner who did my lightgun test was red/green deficient and
had to write down the colors in the order the tower was going to show
them! :) He only told me afterwards. Oh yes, I'd red/green deficient
too - passed the test.
Yeah, white/green is the usual problem, but even my girlfriend agrees
that the green they flash is very pale, they should definitely add some
saturation. I've seen the actual lightgun, and the green is very
de-saturated.
Kelly Rhodes
Broomstick wrote:
>Speaking as a short person who flies highwings, no,it is NOT safe to skip
>the visual inspection. But this is not a problem. I solve it by either 1)
>using a ladder or other means to boost my height
As another short person who will not fly without having a sniff in the full
tanks, I *always* use a ladder, even on the lowly 152s, because--I'm afraid
of heights. I have a lightweight little folding stepladder I take with me
when I'm actually going somewhere.
>I know of a pilot even shorter than myself who had handholds added to
>his 172 (STC) to assist in getting up to inspect the plane.
Oh--I thought they all had those. :) I still won't climb up there without
the ladder, though.
Kelly (who never worries about walking into a wing) Rhodes
Sylvain Louboutin
brum...@interaccess.com (Broomstick) writes:
(and gets a few quotes wrong in the process :)
>Pilots in wheelchairs (there are some) deal with the same problem by either
>flying a low-wing where they can get at the tanks or by dredging up someone
>trustworthy to do the inspection for them. An aggravation, I'm sure, but you
>do what you have to.
just to clarify what I was trying to get at: I am physically
handicapped (on top of being colour deficient :); and when I initially
tried to get back to flying I had to face quite a lot of opposition from
people who ``knew better'' and kept objecting that I could not do this
or that and should therefore be grounded. took me years to get
through that kind of crap (as compared to the three weeks I spent to
complete the ppl) and I tend to be touchy when I see the same kind of
arguments popping up in this newsgroup; I can take on any ``abled
body'' pilot out there, and find one thing or another that *I* can do
and s/he cannot, because I haven't met anyone yet that does not have
some kind of physical disability, one way or another, it's a matter of
definition.
this colour vision thing is so typical of the ``what ifs'' arguments;
(I grew tired of having to answer ``what ifs'' questions at one stage;
``what if you end up in a flat inverted spin 300 feet about the ground
in IMC with your passenger frozen on the controls and the engine on
fire and they are flashing light guns at you...'' and have to come up
with an anwer; I am just slightly exagerating this one)
so back to the colour thing; does anyone knows of any *one* occurence
of flying incident that could possibly be traced to someone's colour
vision deficiency?
Broomstick
[snip]
>> >Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
>> >allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
>> >reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
[snip]
>> Why should they not be allowed to fly. MOST airports have no control tower.
>> Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have radios. If
>> the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
>To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
>to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
>======
>1. Cannot do a complete pre-flight: May not be able to verify that the
>red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
>able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
[snip]
>Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
>to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
I think you're confusing "color DEFICIENT" with "color BLIND". Most color
deficient folks CAN tell the difference between bright red and green, it's the
pastel colors and fine discrimination of shades that can trip us up (which is
how we get caught on the inky blob test). In fact, I worked for many years as
a professional artist and my "deficiency" was never noted and never a problem.
There are very few folks who are color BLIND - that is, completely unable to
distinguish green from white (or some other true colorblindness, as there are
several ways for this to go awry), and that is what the lightgun test is
intended to catch.
Oh, and by the way, that green lightgun signal looks rather bluish to me.
Determining whether the wing-mounted position lights are the correct colors in
the correct place has not been a problem, but even if it WAS a problem for
someone, I'd imagine that they could find another way to get around this -
like ask someone else to check it for them. Is it a common thing for these to
get switched around? Anyhow, these are more essential at night (during which
such a colorblind pilot wouldn't be allowed to fly anyhow) than during the day.
Broomstick
>brum...@interaccess.com (Broomstick) writes:
>(and gets a few quotes wrong in the process :)
Oops! Sorry - it happens.
[snip]
>From: slou...@cs.tcd.ie (Sylvain Louboutin):
>this colour vision thing is so typical of the ``what ifs'' argument
That's one thing about the SODA test here in the States - you're given a
chance to do it and SHOW you can do it despite someone else's "no you can't".
I'm sure the system doesn't always work, but at least you get the chance to
prove the nay-sayers wrong.
Roy Smith
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>> As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
>> vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color
A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
convenient in this regard :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Copyright 1997 Roy Smith
For-profit redistribution prohibited
Hilton Goldstein
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
> >> As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
> >> vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color
I didn't write this.
> A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
> color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
> convenient in this regard :-)
Good point. The problem with 100LL is that it is a very pastel blue,
exactly what color deficient people may not be able to see. Oh BTW,
remember to take off your sun-glasses! :)
Kelly Rhodes
Sylvain Louboutin wrote:
> by the way, have you had to demonstrate that you could overpower your
> passenger under any circumstances if said passenger decided to freeze on
> the controls? or was it just me...
Never had to do *this*, though I daresay it would have enlivened the
checkride. And I admit I was occasionally tempted to physically abuse my
instructor, but only to stop his incessant chatter.
Of course, that's what that nice heavy MagLite is for, I suppose...
Kelly (*thwack!* "Oof!") Rhodes
Sylvain Louboutin
Kelly Rhodes <cor...@cris.com> writes:
>Broomstick wrote:
>>Speaking as a short person who flies highwings, no,it is NOT safe to skip
>>the visual inspection. But this is not a problem. I solve it by either 1)
>>using a ladder or other means to boost my height
>As another short person who will not fly without having a sniff in the full
>tanks, I *always* use a ladder, even on the lowly 152s, because--I'm afraid
>of heights. I have a lightweight little folding stepladder I take with me
>when I'm actually going somewhere.
this is ok if you do not have any physical handicap... when I was
first challenged to demonstrate how I would check the contents of the
fuel tanks myself, this was my first answer; ``will be using some
kind of ladder/stool''; no way was I told; starting with one of the
first of a long line of what-ifs questions that I had to answer, was
``what if you end up in the middle of nowhere, where no ladder/stool
is available, that you forgot to take one on board etc. etc.''; the
reasonable answer would have been ``tough!.. I'll hitch hike home'';
but I had to find a way to climb up the darn thing (another reason why
tail-wheels planes are better, the front wheels are much more
conveniently placed and you can climb on them...);
the funny thing though is that the flight school where I eventually did
the ppl, the examiner who eventually did the ``medical check flight,''
and the AME, did not care one way or another; the difference being
that they knew what they were talking about unlike some bureaucrats...(and
it was a different administration altogether, these things varying
widely from one country to another one...)
by the way, have you had to demonstrate that you could overpower your
passenger under any circumstances if said passenger decided to freeze on
the controls? or was it just me...
--Sylvain
Sylvain Louboutin
r...@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>>> As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
>>> vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color
>A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
>color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
>convenient in this regard :-)
what about smell? if what you are looking for is checking whether
someone has put JetA1 instead of LL100 in your aircraft, you are more
likely to smell it before you see it...
funny that the sense of smell is not checked out during a medical...
(just kidding)
Michael Carver
In article <330E00...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
>
>>
>> Why should they not be allowed to fly. MOST airports have no control
>> tower. Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have
>> radios. If the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
>
>radios fail?
>
Obviously, you do what someone with normal color vision would do, taxi back!
You know, all that verbage about the pilot being responsible for the
airworthness of the plane. Well it applies always to everyone.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael Carver | 972-462-5623 |
| Chemist, Texas Instruments, Missile Systems | MA...@MSG.TI.COM |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same |
| level of thinking we were at when we created them. (Albert Einstein)|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Michael Carver
In article <330E16...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
>
>To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
>to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
>
>======
>1. Cannot do a complete pre-flight: May not be able to verify that the
>red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
>able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
>
Only a moron relies on the color of their gas as an indication of its
quality. Jet fuel looks different (with and without dyes), feels different,
and smells different from Avgas. Mix a about 20% 80 octane (red) with 100LL
(blue) and see how well your beloved dye works.
>2. FAR 91.129 "Operations in Class D airspace" says
>
> (e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D
>airspace,
> each pilot of--
> (1) and (2) zapped
> (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
> approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
>glide
> slope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.
>======
>
>
>A color-deficient pilot may not be able to interpret the VASI. Please
>see 91.129 for the full text.
>
>
Colorblind people don't see the world in black and white, they just have
difficulties differentiating certain colors. This has to do with the mix of
rods and cones in the fovia of the eye. Generally speaking, decerning
between colored and not colored in not an issue so most VASI are very
useable.
BTW, most colorblind people have better night and peripheral vision than
those with normal color vision. This regulation is one of those
anachronistic hold-overs from the weed-out programs for military training.
>Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
>about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
>below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
>
>Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
>to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
>
We can think up rules why everyone should be excluded from flying if we try
hard enough. The rules have loopholes because they are not always valid. I
think the current system, although archaic, works.
Ron Natalie
Mix up a 50/50 mix of Jet A and 100LL and let me see you
determine what it is by visual inspection.
Hilton Goldstein
Michael Carver wrote:
>
> In article <330E00...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
> >
> >>
> >> Why should they not be allowed to fly. MOST airports have no control
> >> tower. Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have
> >> radios. If the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
> >
> >And what do you do if you're on the ground at large airport and you
> >radios fail?
> >
>
> Obviously, you do what someone with normal color vision would do, taxi back!
If "taxi back" is always the correct thing to do, then why does the FAA
define light gun signals for loss of radios when on the ground? Haven't
you ever been refuses a taxi request and told to hold for a while?
Hilton Goldstein
Broomstick wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >> >Excellent post. I still find it strange that color-deficient pilots are
> >> >allowed to fly (ones who fail the lightgun test). Obviously they cannot
> >> >reliably interperet light guns, but ATC doesn't know that.
>
> [snip]
> >> Those that do rarely use the light gun because most of us have radios. If
> >> the radio fails, simply fly to an uncontrolled airport.
>
> >to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
>
> >======
> >1. Cannot do a complete pre-flight: May not be able to verify that the
> >red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
> >able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
> >Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
> >to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
>
> deficient folks CAN tell the difference between bright red and green, it's the
> pastel colors and fine discrimination of shades that can trip us up (which is
> how we get caught on the inky blob test). In fact, I worked for many years as
> a professional artist and my "deficiency" was never noted and never a problem.
I am directly involved in writing software which manipulates colors -
and I'm slightly color deficient. :)
> There are very few folks who are color BLIND - that is, completely unable to
> distinguish green from white (or some other true colorblindness, as there are
> several ways for this to go awry), and that is what the lightgun test is
> intended to catch.
But color-blind people are legal to fly during the day - right?
> Oh, and by the way, that green lightgun signal looks rather bluish to me.
Me too. My girlfriend is not color-anything and she sees it bluish
too. If many men battle to tell the difference between white and green,
why don't they color those light red and white?
Hilton Goldstein
Michael Carver wrote:
>
> In article <330E16...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
> >
> >To answer your question regarding color-deficient pilots not being able
> >to fly: I've thought of two reasons:
> >
> >======
> >1. Cannot do a complete pre-flight: May not be able to verify that the
> >red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
> >able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
> >
>
> quality. Jet fuel looks different (with and without dyes), feels different,
> and smells different from Avgas. Mix a about 20% 80 octane (red) with 100LL
> (blue) and see how well your beloved dye works.
The color of the gas ia A (read 'single') indication of its quality.
There are others, but if the color was not blue, would we fly?
> >2. FAR 91.129 "Operations in Class D airspace" says
> >
> > (e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D
> >airspace,
> > each pilot of--
> > (1) and (2) zapped
> > (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
> > approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
> >glide
> > slope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.
> >======
> >
> >
> >A color-deficient pilot may not be able to interpret the VASI. Please
> >see 91.129 for the full text.
> >
> >
>
> Colorblind people don't see the world in black and white, they just have
> difficulties differentiating certain colors. This has to do with the mix of
> rods and cones in the fovia of the eye. Generally speaking, decerning
> between colored and not colored in not an issue so most VASI are very
> useable.
If a person cannot distinguish between red and white lights, and fails
the light gun test, that person cannot confidently stay above the VASIs.
> BTW, most colorblind people have better night and peripheral vision than
> those with normal color vision. This regulation is one of those
> anachronistic hold-overs from the weed-out programs for military training.
>
> >Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> >about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> >below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
> >
> >Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
> >to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
> >
>
> We can think up rules why everyone should be excluded from flying if we try
> hard enough. The rules have loopholes because they are not always valid. I
> think the current system, although archaic, works.
All I was saying, is that the FAA grants licenses to people who may not
be able to adhere to all FARs.
Michael Carver
In article <3311EC...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
>> >And what do you do if you're on the ground at large airport and you
>> >radios fail?
>> >
>>
>> Obviously, you do what someone with normal color vision would do, taxi
>>back!
>
>If "taxi back" is always the correct thing to do, then why does the FAA
>define light gun signals for loss of radios when on the ground? Haven't
>you ever been refuses a taxi request and told to hold for a while?
>
This can be a never ending arguement. Have you never refused an ATC
instruction? Most of us have. Yes, you will be asked to explain why you did
so but if your arguement is valid its no big deal. Light signals for
aircraft on the ground were instituted for NORAD aircraft. No amount of
maintanence will make those radios work. The FAA can and should bust you
if you if you take off with a radio that suddenly and mysteriously failed
during taxi. You generally have to pre-arrange light gun signals if you plan
to use them on the ground.
Michael Carver
In article <3311C8...@sensor.com>, r...@sensor.com says...
>
>Mix up a 50/50 mix of Jet A and 100LL and let me see you
>determine what it is by visual inspection.
Don't know what type of Jet A you get but it SHOULD form a really nice phase
layer with the Avgas on top. Of course both layers will likely be blue but
you should be able to see it okay. The key is determining when to stop
draining. You'll get the same "look" if they just fill your tanks with
water.
Michael Carver
In article <3311ED...@sgi.com>, hil...@sgi.com says...
>> >red and green position lights are installed correctly, and may not be
>> >able to visually inspect the color of the fuel.
>> >
>>
>> Only a moron relies on the color of their gas as an indication of its
>> quality. Jet fuel looks different (with and without dyes), feels
>> different, and smells different from Avgas. Mix a about 20% 80
>> octane (red) with 100LL (blue) and see how well your beloved dye works.
>
>The color of the gas ia A (read 'single') indication of its quality.
>There are others, but if the color was not blue, would we fly?
>
In the above case, yes. The plane is designed to run on 80 octane. 100LL is
more readily available but if the cheaper (better) gas is there why not take
advantage of it. The engine doesn't care what color it is just whether or
not its Avgas. A similar arguement could be made by those with mogas STCs.
Its not blue but its good gas.
Roy Smith
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> If many men battle to tell the difference between white and green,
> why don't they color those light red and white?
Dumb, isn't it? But the red and green long predate aviation. They go
back to sailing days. I don't know how far back, but I wouldn't be
surprised if ships as far back as the 1600's had red and green lights
marking their port and starboard sides (just like the red and green lights
on wingtips). In any case, I'm sure it long predates any concern about
things like ergonomics and human factors.
I wouldn't be surprised if red and green were picked simply because it was
easy to make colored glass in those colors.
I always get a kick out of the fact that on Star Trek, the ships still
have red and green lights on their warp nascelle tips. Old traditions die
hard.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Sylvain Louboutin
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>If a person cannot distinguish between red and white lights, and fails
>the light gun test, that person cannot confidently stay above the VASIs.
during day light VFR? ('cause if you fail the test, you can't fly at
night anyway);
believe me, VASI or not, I'll be way above it!
Hilton Goldstein
Sylvain Louboutin wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>
> >If a person cannot distinguish between red and white lights, and fails
> >the light gun test, that person cannot confidently stay above the VASIs.
>
> during day light VFR? ('cause if you fail the test, you can't fly at
> night anyway);
To the best of my knowledge, the FAR says nothing about day or night.
> believe me, VASI or not, I'll be way above it!
Me too, but we're not talking about you or me.
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
movie mogal Samuel Goldwyn, to a young writer
Broomstick
>From: slou...@cs.tcd.ie (Sylvain Louboutin)
>by the way, have you had to demonstrate that you could overpower your
>passenger under any circumstances if said passenger decided to freeze on
>the controls? or was it just me...
No (not yet). However. last summer I witnessed an instance where this did
become important. A friend who owns an open-cockpit airplane was taking a
passenger up, this gorilla a foot taller and at least twice as his weight. He
thoroughly pre-flighted the passenger, checked that the guy was strapped in,
and told him to keep away from the controls in front of the passenger seat.
Going down the runway the passenger got scared and froze - with his feet
braced against the rudder pedals, thereby locking the controls up quite
nicely. Anyhow, as the airspeed started to rise the plane started to tilt.
As those of us on the sidelines got ready to run in the event of a
cartwheeling airplane, they blast by (still on the ground) with the pilot
wrestling with the controls and yelling. Yelling so loud, in fact, that what
he said was clearly audible above the engine roar - "GET YOUR F******* FEET OF
THE F******* RUDDER PEDALS!!!"
Anyhow, the take-off was aborted, the passenger was re-briefed (and possibly
threatened with worse than death if he even LOOKED at the controls) and the
subsequent flight proceeded without further incident.
Broomstick
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
>> color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
>> convenient in this regard :-)
Hilton Goldstein wrote:
>Good point. The problem with 100LL is that it is a very pastel blue,
>exactly what color deficient people may not be able to see. Oh BTW,
>remember to take off your sun-glasses! :)
Funny...this color deficient pilot has never had a problem with this in
daylight. At night I do need a good flashlight, but I suspect so do other
people.
I'd think tinted sunglasses could potentially be a greater problem if they
interfere with color transmission.
Hilton Goldstein
Broomstick wrote:
>
> >Roy Smith wrote:
> >> A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
> >> color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
> >> convenient in this regard :-)
>
> Hilton Goldstein wrote:
> >Good point. The problem with 100LL is that it is a very pastel blue,
> >exactly what color deficient people may not be able to see. Oh BTW,
> >remember to take off your sun-glasses! :)
>
> Funny...this color deficient pilot has never had a problem with this in
> daylight. At night I do need a good flashlight, but I suspect so do other
> people.
Again, what I said was that failing the test implies that that person
may have problems seeing pastel colors. The 100LL blue is a pastel
color. We are not talking about you or me or anyone specific, each
person is different.
Broomstick
>From: Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com>
[snip]
>> >2. FAR 91.129 "Operations in Class D airspace" says
>> >
>> > (e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D
>> >airspace,
>> > each pilot of--
>> > (1) and (2) zapped
>> > (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
>> > approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
>> >glide
>> > slope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.
>> >
>> >A color-deficient pilot may not be able to interpret the VASI. Please
>> >see 91.129 for the full text.
>>
>> Colorblind people don't see the world in black and white, they just have
>> difficulties differentiating certain colors. This has to do with the mix of
>> rods and cones in the fovia of the eye. Generally speaking, decerning
>> between colored and not colored in not an issue so most VASI are very
>> useable.
Hilton said:
>If a person cannot distinguish between red and white lights, and fails
>the light gun test, that person cannot confidently stay above the VASIs.
Hey, the FAA examiner who did my test said that it's GREEN and white folks
have problems with, not RED and white. For complicated reasons red light is
seen in a slightly different way than other colors (which is why that red
overhead light in your cockpit doesn't screw up your nightvision, but other
colors of light will). As a result, it would be EXTREMELY rare for someone
not to be able to see red.
Even given the most extreme case - someone so colorblind they see no color at
all, just black and white - I'm not sure this would be a problem even then.
The white would appear as white and the red as some shade of gray. Don't
believe that? Are black and white movies one mass of color or shades of gray?
Because the VASI colors are in close proximity it would be possible to tell
which set is the "gray" one and act accordingly.
>> BTW, most colorblind people have better night and peripheral vision than
>> those with normal color vision.
Really? I didn't know that. Got confirmation on that?
>> This regulation is one of those anachronistic hold-overs from the
>> weed-out programs for military training.
That I'll believe.
>> >Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
>> >about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
>> >below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
Buddy, if you can't fly a safe glideslope during the day in VFR conditions
being colorblind is the least of your problems. You should be able to land
that sucker with or without VASI.
>> >Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
>> >to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
Lots of things in flying can be unsafe. Last I heard, continued VFR into IFR
conditions was near the top of the list and being colorblind just doesn't seem
to come up in the accident reports. In actual practice it just doesn't seem
to be a factor.
>> We can think up rules why everyone should be excluded from flying if we try
>> hard enough. The rules have loopholes because they are not always valid. I
>> think the current system, although archaic, works.
>All I was saying, is that the FAA grants licenses to people who may not
>be able to adhere to all FARs.
Which is why we have the SODA system - in which case you are given a chance to
prove you can perform to a safe standard - or you are issued a license with
restrictions like "no night flying" for those instances where you can't
demonstrate such ability.
Hilton Goldstein
I can easily see red, but I did battle a little with the green and
white, and since I've heard of many similar experiences, I will
certinaly tend to believe you on this issue.
> Even given the most extreme case - someone so colorblind they see no color at
> all, just black and white - I'm not sure this would be a problem even then.
> The white would appear as white and the red as some shade of gray. Don't
> believe that? Are black and white movies one mass of color or shades of gray?
> Because the VASI colors are in close proximity it would be possible to tell
> which set is the "gray" one and act accordingly.
Maybe, but that would be guessing. Just cause it's white, doesn't mean
the white light is brighter than red.
> >> BTW, most colorblind people have better night and peripheral vision than
> >> those with normal color vision.
>
> Really? I didn't know that. Got confirmation on that?
I never said that (i.e. I didn't say the "> >>" stuff)
> >> This regulation is one of those anachronistic hold-overs from the
> >> weed-out programs for military training.
>
> That I'll believe.
Ditto.
> >> >Sure, you may think this is picky, but it could also be fatal. How
> >> >about the wrong fuel in the tanks (if does happen), and how about flying
> >> >below the required glideslope (can be deadly)?
>
> Buddy, if you can't fly a safe glideslope during the day in VFR conditions
> being colorblind is the least of your problems. You should be able to land
> that sucker with or without VASI.
I tend to agree in perfect VFR, but what about marginal etc? So why
does the FAR about the VASI exist then?
> >> >Again, I'm not saying that color-deficient pilots should not be allowed
> >> >to fly. I'm just pointing out that it can be unsafe.
>
> Lots of things in flying can be unsafe. Last I heard, continued VFR into IFR
> conditions was near the top of the list and being colorblind just doesn't seem
> to come up in the accident reports. In actual practice it just doesn't seem
> to be a factor.
How do you know? Have you seen how many engine failures account for
crashes? Or crashes during the landing phase? To be honest, I tend to
agree with you, but you wouldn't expect to see "Pilot's
color-deficiency" under the Probable Cause, would you?
> >> We can think up rules why everyone should be excluded from flying if we try
> >> hard enough. The rules have loopholes because they are not always valid. I
> >> think the current system, although archaic, works.
>
> >All I was saying, is that the FAA grants licenses to people who may not
> >be able to adhere to all FARs.
>
> Which is why we have the SODA system - in which case you are given a chance to
> prove you can perform to a safe standard - or you are issued a license with
> restrictions like "no night flying" for those instances where you can't
> demonstrate such ability.
Again: And if you fail the SODA system, you're still allowed to fly, but
cannot guarantee the FAA that you can physiologically (sp?) adhere to
the 'VASI FAR'. For the FARs/FAA to be consistent, if should say:
1. You pass the light gun test, you can fly at night etc.
2. You fail the light gun test, you cannot fly at controlled airports.
NOTE: Please read this: I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just
trying to logically make sense of the FARs.
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
"He slides into second with a stand-up double." Jerry
Coleman, Padres broadcast announcer
Garner Miller
In article <5eqjbu$r69$1...@news.nyu.edu>, r...@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy
Smith) wrote:
> A trick is to hold the tester up against a white background. Makes the
> color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
> convenient in this regard :-)
Yep!
Also, if you get an opportunity, take a look in the top of a big tank of
100LL with a flashlight. You'll be AMAZED at how blue it is in quantity.
--
Garner R. Miller, Flight Instructor
Hawthorne Aviation - Ocala, Florida
FAA Aviation Safety Counselor
Remove the capital letters after ".com" to send me e-mail.
John R. Johnson
On 24 Feb 1997, Michael Carver wrote:
>
> This can be a never ending arguement. Have you never refused an ATC
> instruction? Most of us have. Yes, you will be asked to explain why you did
> so but if your arguement is valid its no big deal. Light signals for
> aircraft on the ground were instituted for NORAD aircraft. No amount of
> maintanence will make those radios work. The FAA can and should bust you
> if you if you take off with a radio that suddenly and mysteriously failed
> during taxi. You generally have to pre-arrange light gun signals if you plan
> to use them on the ground.
>
Being one who frequently flies NORDO aircraft, I always make it a point
to contact the tower prior to NORDO operations. If I am coming in they
will tell me how to arrive and be looking for me. When someone shows up
in that place without radio contact they will assume it is me and shoot
me a light. When I want to depart, I either go up to the tower cab or
call them on the phone. They then let me know which runway to use and
give me the numbers. Then I just look for the lights and away we go.
If my radio fails in flight, I have two options. I can always land at
an uncontrolled field and call the tower at my destination. This is
probably the BEST option. Alternatively, I can do like the FAR's say,
and circle above the TPA until the tower sees me and gives me a light.
If I have a transponder I can squawk the appropriate "no communication"
code.
If I am on my way to the active and lose my radio, I merely return to
the ramp and contact the tower with my plight. Interestingly, I have
often been able to contact the tower on the ground frequency when the
tower frequency has been inoperative. I have often had "partial" radio
failures, where some frequencies worked and some didn't.
John
Jerome Kaidor
In article <5er1no$i...@web3.tcd.ie>,
Sylvain Louboutin <slou...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>r...@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>
>>Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>>>> As for fuel color, this is vastly overrated. Even with normal color
>>>> vision, I have a hell of a time discerning the color
>
>>color stand out more. Many planes are painted white, which is very
>>convenient in this regard :-)
>
>someone has put JetA1 instead of LL100 in your aircraft, you are more
>likely to smell it before you see it...
>
>funny that the sense of smell is not checked out during a medical...
>
in the gas - I'd expect it to just smell like gas.
However, after doing several hundred tests, I found I did get used
to the weight of a tester full of fuel, its "heft" and the way it feels
when you toss it out. One time, it just didn't feel right - and it
didn't "sizzle" right on the tarmac. Sure enough, I'd gotten a whole
tester full of water....
- Jerry Kaidor ( je...@tr2.com )
Al Shing
In article <3313C0...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
>>
>Again: And if you fail the SODA system, you're still allowed to fly, but
>cannot guarantee the FAA that you can physiologically (sp?) adhere to
>the 'VASI FAR'. For the FARs/FAA to be consistent, if should say:
>
>1. You pass the light gun test, you can fly at night etc.
>2. You fail the light gun test, you cannot fly at controlled airports.
>
The SODA is strictly concerned with night flight and flight by color coded
signals. If you fail the SODA, the restriction remains. If you pass, the
restriction is removed. If you never take the test at all, the restriction
remains. For daytime flying, passing or failing the test is completely
irrelevant.
The FARs say nothing about how the SODA is to be administered, nor does it
spell out what waivers or restrictions are to be placed. This is up to the
discretion of the Federal Air Surgeon.
I imagine the Aeromedical Branch hashed this out a long time ago and came
to the conclusion, based on test cases that a) people who do not meet the
color vision standard can fly safely during the day, as long as they don't
need to use light gun signals. b) At night, if you lose comm, you may not
be able to turn on pilot controlled lighting at an uncontrolled airport,
and your only option is to proceed to a controlled airport and land via
light gun signals. This is a legitimate concern, and probably one of the
reasons for the night restriction. The other would be an inability to
distinguish between the red, green and white lights on airplanes at night,
which could lead to a midair in a worst case scenario.
As technology and medical knowledge changes over time, so does the medical
certification requirements and procedures. We recently saw that some
insulin dependent diabetics can now be eligible for third class medical
certification. We see a lot of pilots being certified, on a case by case
basis, for conditions that are disqualifying according to FAR Part 67, but
can be allowed due to the special issuance paragraph.
Accordingly, the color vision standard changed in the last revision,
purportedly to make it easier to obtain the unrestricted medical directly
from the AME. I don't know if we have seen this implemented in the spirit
that was advertised, but at any rate, if the AME decides to place the
restriction on the medical, the light gun test is still the way to have it
removed.
>NOTE: Please read this: I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just
>trying to logically make sense of the FARs.
>
Unless you are a lawyer, or an aeromedical expert, perhaps you should just
leave these matters to the people who are trained and authorized to make
these decisions. Your job is to fly your airplane safely, and legally. So
is everyone elses. Color deficiency has nothing to do with preflighting an
airplane, making a visual approach via VASI, PAPI, or ILS. It is based on
the requirement to be able to interpret light gun signals correctly.
I read this in one of the accident reports in the book "Aftermath", where
a pilot who repeatedly failed the light gun test made a night flight into
IMC without an instrument rating, and ended up doing something that got
him into an NTSB report. The NTSB did not cite color deficiency as having
anything to do with the accident, while the author commented that the
reason for the night restriction had to do with light gun signals. He said
that color deficient pilots fly just like any other pilots at night, and
the restriction had nothing to do with the accident.
Many pilots who do not have the restriction fly without legal night
currency - the three takeoffs and landings to a full stop, probably the
moral equivalent of a color deficient pilot who ends up having to fly at
night for one reason or another. Both are due to poor planning, or
get-home-itis, and if caught, both will probably get a talking to, but
probably no enforcement action will be taken.
Al Shing
>Hilton
>--
>Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
Roy Smith
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> writes:
>If my radio fails in flight, I have two options. I can always land at
>an uncontrolled field and call the tower at my destination.
I've done exactly that (well, almost). Radios failed (well, turned out to
be the comm panel in the end, but that's a detail). We were headed for
White Plains, NY (commercial Class-D field, with radar aproach services).
Landed at, I think, Stormville (uncontrolled field about 30 miles away).
Called up Flight Service, explained the problem. They called TRACON for us,
got us a squawk code, we told them when we'd be departing Stormville, and
what approximate route of flight we were going to take. And that was that.
Ended up being able to talk to tower on the handheld after all, but that was
just icing on the cake. Handheld comm in marginal at best, and we were
prepared for it to not work.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Hilton Goldstein
> >cannot guarantee the FAA that you can physiologically (sp?) adhere to
> >the 'VASI FAR'. For the FARs/FAA to be consistent, if should say:
> >
> >1. You pass the light gun test, you can fly at night etc.
> >2. You fail the light gun test, you cannot fly at controlled airports.
> >
>
> signals. If you fail the SODA, the restriction remains. If you pass, the
> restriction is removed. If you never take the test at all, the restriction
> remains. For daytime flying, passing or failing the test is completely
> irrelevant.
I agree as far as the restrictions go, but the light gun test, by its
very nature determines whether or not you can reliably see 'colored
lights'. Agreed?
[zap]
> I imagine the Aeromedical Branch hashed this out a long time ago and came
> to the conclusion, based on test cases that a) people who do not meet the
> color vision standard can fly safely during the day, as long as they don't
> need to use light gun signals.
Al, how many times do I need to say this: Here's some logic, please try
find fault with it:
1. Person takes light gun test and fails.
2. Therefore, that person cannot reliably distinguish between red,
green,
and white lights.
3. The FARs require that aircraft remain at or above the VASI
glideslope
at a Class D airport.
4. Therefore, this person cannot reliably distingiush the VASI colors.
5. Therefore, this person cannot identify the VASI glideslope.
6. Therefore, this person cannot reliably remain above the VASI
glideslope
with sole reference to the VASIs.
7. Therefore, this person may viloate an FAR due to their eye
physiology.
> As technology and medical knowledge changes over time, so does the medical
> certification requirements and procedures. We recently saw that some
> insulin dependent diabetics can now be eligible for third class medical
> certification. We see a lot of pilots being certified, on a case by case
> basis, for conditions that are disqualifying according to FAR Part 67, but
> can be allowed due to the special issuance paragraph.
Yes.
> Accordingly, the color vision standard changed in the last revision,
> purportedly to make it easier to obtain the unrestricted medical directly
> from the AME. I don't know if we have seen this implemented in the spirit
> that was advertised, but at any rate, if the AME decides to place the
> restriction on the medical, the light gun test is still the way to have it
> removed.
Yes.
> >NOTE: Please read this: I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just
> >trying to logically make sense of the FARs.
> >
>
> Unless you are a lawyer, or an aeromedical expert, perhaps you should just
> leave these matters to the people who are trained and authorized to make
> these decisions. Your job is to fly your airplane safely, and legally. So
> is everyone elses. Color deficiency has nothing to do with preflighting an
> airplane, making a visual approach via VASI, PAPI, or ILS. It is based on
> the requirement to be able to interpret light gun signals correctly.
See above. Color deficiency has nothing to do with preflighting, VASI,
or PAPI? Umm, hello?
I'm tired of this, let's move on...
Al Shing
In article <331607...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
>Al Shing wrote:
>>
>> In article <3313C0...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >cannot guarantee the FAA that you can physiologically (sp?) adhere to
>> >the 'VASI FAR'. For the FARs/FAA to be consistent, if should say:
>> >
>> >1. You pass the light gun test, you can fly at night etc.
>> >2. You fail the light gun test, you cannot fly at controlled airports.
>> >
>>
>> signals. If you fail the SODA, the restriction remains. If you pass, the
>> restriction is removed. If you never take the test at all, the restriction
>> remains. For daytime flying, passing or failing the test is completely
>> irrelevant.
>
>I agree as far as the restrictions go, but the light gun test, by its
>very nature determines whether or not you can reliably see 'colored
>lights'. Agreed?
>
No, it only tests whether or not you can interpret the light gun signals
from the light gun in an ATC tower. It does not test ability to see
colored lights in general. This is what the Ishihara test does, and it is
too broad for what the FAA really wants, which is why the light gun test
exists.
>
>[zap]
>
>> I imagine the Aeromedical Branch hashed this out a long time ago and came
>> to the conclusion, based on test cases that a) people who do not meet the
>> color vision standard can fly safely during the day, as long as they don't
>> need to use light gun signals.
>
>Al, how many times do I need to say this: Here's some logic, please try
>find fault with it:
>
>1. Person takes light gun test and fails.
>2. Therefore, that person cannot reliably distinguish between red,
>green,
> and white lights.
>3. The FARs require that aircraft remain at or above the VASI
>glideslope
> at a Class D airport.
>4. Therefore, this person cannot reliably distingiush the VASI colors.
>5. Therefore, this person cannot identify the VASI glideslope.
>6. Therefore, this person cannot reliably remain above the VASI
>glideslope
> with sole reference to the VASIs.
>7. Therefore, this person may viloate an FAR due to their eye
>physiology.
>
The flaw in your logic is that 1) does not imply 2) through 7). Someone
can fail the test because of the green/white problem, but have no problem
with the red/green and red/white. Such a person, the common case,
according to other messages in this thread, can fly the VASI just fine.
You are also forgetting that no one will be allowed to solo unless they
pass muster with their flight instructor, and no one will earn a pilot
license unless they pass the checkride. If a person cannot reliably fly a
VASI glideslope, he will not get past these two gatekeepers and be able to
fly as pilot in command. So your concern, which really doesn't make any
sense, is addressed by the process of flight training and pilot
certification. Everyone deserves the opportunity to try and prove they can
fly. If they are endorsed by a flight instructor and certified by a
designated examiner, then they are qualified to fly, regardless of whether
or not they can tell red from white. Your position is that a whole class
of people should not even have the opportunity to try and prove they are
qualified, even though many people in that class actually will qualify.
>
>See above. Color deficiency has nothing to do with preflighting, VASI,
>or PAPI? Umm, hello?
>
Your whole premise is based on a stereotypical view of what color
deficiency is. Several people have pointed out that you are mistaken. I
don't think you understand the process of medical certification, and why
the waiver process exists. You obviously have no knowledge about color
deficiency. Yet, you think you can sit and judge whether other people can
qualify for medical certification. If this is how you go about "becoming
familiar with all available information", then you should question your
own ability to meet FAR 91.103.
Someday, you'll have an opportunity to learn something about it. Then,
like the pilot who lost both arms and obtained a third class medical
certificate, or like the airline pilot who was allowed to keep his first
class medical despite having a chronic and uncurable inner ear disease
that causes severe vertigo, you'll be grateful that the FAA evaluates
applicants on a case by case basis, and will grant a waiver or special
issuance to pilots who otherwise don't meet the standard.
I'll never sit and judge whether or not any pilot should or should not fly
based on his medical condition, and neither should anyone else who is not
trained in aviation medicine. I have seen too many people be discouraged
from even trying to fly because somebody told them they couldn't because
of this or that medical condition. These people may then not even attempt
to get certified, even though there is a 98 percent chance that they
will.
I will insist that pilots be honest in their application for their
medical, and comply as best as they can with any restrictions that might
be placed on their medical.
>
>I'm tired of this, let's move on...
>
Good.
Al Shing
Hilton Goldstein
Al Shing wrote:
>
> In article <331607...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> >Al Shing wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3313C0...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >Again: And if you fail the SODA system, you're still allowed to fly, but
> >> >cannot guarantee the FAA that you can physiologically (sp?) adhere to
> >> >the 'VASI FAR'. For the FARs/FAA to be consistent, if should say:
> >> >
> >> >1. You pass the light gun test, you can fly at night etc.
> >> >2. You fail the light gun test, you cannot fly at controlled airports.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The SODA is strictly concerned with night flight and flight by color coded
> >> signals. If you fail the SODA, the restriction remains. If you pass, the
> >> restriction is removed. If you never take the test at all, the restriction
> >> remains. For daytime flying, passing or failing the test is completely
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >I agree as far as the restrictions go, but the light gun test, by its
> >very nature determines whether or not you can reliably see 'colored
> >lights'. Agreed?
> >
>
> No, it only tests whether or not you can interpret the light gun signals
> from the light gun in an ATC tower. It does not test ability to see
> colored lights in general. This is what the Ishihara test does, and it is
> too broad for what the FAA really wants, which is why the light gun test
> exists.
I took the light gun test and it looks extremely similar to VASIs, PAPIs
and traffic lights.
> >> I imagine the Aeromedical Branch hashed this out a long time ago and came
> >> to the conclusion, based on test cases that a) people who do not meet the
> >> color vision standard can fly safely during the day, as long as they don't
> >> need to use light gun signals.
> >
> >Al, how many times do I need to say this: Here's some logic, please try
> >find fault with it:
> >
> >1. Person takes light gun test and fails.
> >2. Therefore, that person cannot reliably distinguish between red,
> >green,
> > and white lights.
> >3. The FARs require that aircraft remain at or above the VASI
> >glideslope
> > at a Class D airport.
> >4. Therefore, this person cannot reliably distingiush the VASI colors.
> >5. Therefore, this person cannot identify the VASI glideslope.
> >6. Therefore, this person cannot reliably remain above the VASI
> >glideslope
> > with sole reference to the VASIs.
> >7. Therefore, this person may viloate an FAR due to their eye
> >physiology.
> >
>
> The flaw in your logic is that 1) does not imply 2) through 7). Someone
> can fail the test because of the green/white problem, but have no problem
> with the red/green and red/white. Such a person, the common case,
> according to other messages in this thread, can fly the VASI just fine.
I agree with what you say above (Apart from the first sentence).
However, AS THE CURRENT LIGHT GUN TEST EXISTS, my point 2 is valid and
therefore so are the rest; i.e. if someone walks out of the FSDO having
failed, could you be 100% certain that that person can differentiate
betwen a red light and a white light? No. Period. No.
> You are also forgetting that no one will be allowed to solo unless they
> pass muster with their flight instructor, and no one will earn a pilot
> license unless they pass the checkride. If a person cannot reliably fly a
> VASI glideslope, he will not get past these two gatekeepers and be able to
> fly as pilot in command.
Staying above the glide slope isn't very difficult in good conditions.
I'm sure you know what effect haze etc has on our vision.
> So your concern, which really doesn't make any
> sense, is addressed by the process of flight training and pilot
> certification. Everyone deserves the opportunity to try and prove they can
> fly. If they are endorsed by a flight instructor and certified by a
> designated examiner, then they are qualified to fly, regardless of whether
> or not they can tell red from white. Your position is that a whole class
> of people should not even have the opportunity to try and prove they are
> qualified, even though many people in that class actually will qualify.
It is not 'my position'. The FAA requires someone to remain above the
VASIs at a Class D airport. I'm looking at this logically and I don't
mean any offense by this in any way, but you're looking it emotionally.
I'm not taking any position on this, just applying logic to the FARs.
> >See above. Color deficiency has nothing to do with preflighting, VASI,
> >or PAPI? Umm, hello?
> >
>
> Your whole premise is based on a stereotypical view of what color
> deficiency is. Several people have pointed out that you are mistaken. I
> don't think you understand the process of medical certification, and why
> the waiver process exists. You obviously have no knowledge about color
> deficiency. Yet, you think you can sit and judge whether other people can
> qualify for medical certification. If this is how you go about "becoming
> familiar with all available information", then you should question your
> own ability to meet FAR 91.103.
Somehow I knew this would get personal. I know why the waiver exists -
I have one. I understand the FAA's position when someone passes it and
when someone fails it.
> Someday, you'll have an opportunity to learn something about it.
[zap]
Let's argue facts, and not start throwing insults around.
As I said in my previous post, let's kill this thread, but please answer
my one question above with a 'yes' or a 'no'.
Stay above those VASIs! :) Just kidding...
Sylvain Louboutin
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
>Al, how many times do I need to say this: Here's some logic, please try
>find fault with it:
>1. Person takes light gun test and fails.
>2. Therefore, that person cannot reliably distinguish between red,
>green,
> and white lights.
>3. The FARs require that aircraft remain at or above the VASI
>glideslope
> at a Class D airport.
>4. Therefore, this person cannot reliably distingiush the VASI colors.
>5. Therefore, this person cannot identify the VASI glideslope.
>6. Therefore, this person cannot reliably remain above the VASI
>glideslope
> with sole reference to the VASIs.
>7. Therefore, this person may viloate an FAR due to their eye
>physiology.
the person you describe should certainly be grounded. but not on the
basis of his eye's physiology, but for relying on the sole reference to
the VASI for a VFR landing during day light! (and IMHO for flying darn
low on final...)
the other flaw in your logic is that VASI or PAPI glide slope indicators
use red and white lights only, while the light gun test tests for
white, green and red (colour deficient people tend to fail on the white
versus green one), or if you use the lantern test favoured by the
british white,green,red,blue and yellow...
if you fail to distinguish red and white you do have a more serious
problem than mere colour vision deficiency...
Hilton Goldstein
Sylvain Louboutin wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
> >Al, how many times do I need to say this: Here's some logic, please try
> >find fault with it:
>
> >1. Person takes light gun test and fails.
> >2. Therefore, that person cannot reliably distinguish between red,
> >green,
> > and white lights.
> >3. The FARs require that aircraft remain at or above the VASI
> >glideslope
> > at a Class D airport.
> >4. Therefore, this person cannot reliably distingiush the VASI colors.
> >5. Therefore, this person cannot identify the VASI glideslope.
> >6. Therefore, this person cannot reliably remain above the VASI
> >glideslope
> > with sole reference to the VASIs.
> >7. Therefore, this person may viloate an FAR due to their eye
> >physiology.
>
> the person you describe should certainly be grounded. but not on the
> basis of his eye's physiology, but for relying on the sole reference to
> the VASI for a VFR landing during day light! (and IMHO for flying darn
> low on final...)
Hi Sylvain,
What about illusions such as haze, narrow runways, rain, etc. I agree
flying below the glideslope isn't kosher - beware of approaching
objects!
> the other flaw in your logic is that VASI or PAPI glide slope indicators
> use red and white lights only, while the light gun test tests for
> white, green and red (colour deficient people tend to fail on the white
> versus green one), or if you use the lantern test favoured by the
> british white,green,red,blue and yellow...
Ahh, it's not a flaw in my logic, it's a flaw in the FAA's testing.
Either you pass or fail the light gun test. To the best of my
knowledge, you cannot pass the red/white part of the test and fail the
green/white part - it's either: You can differentiate between red, green
and white, or you cannot differentiate between red, green, and white.
> if you fail to distinguish red and white you do have a more serious
> problem than mere colour vision deficiency...