CHANGES IN US NAVAL AVIATION COLOR VISION STANDARDS

Proposed Changes
in U.S. Naval
Aviation Color
Vision Standards
CAPT Matt Rings, MC(FS), USN
Aerospace Ophthalmology
Naval Aerospace Medical Institute
Conflict of Interest
& Disclosures
• No financial interests or promises thereof in any
products mentioned in this lecture
• Conference educational travel grant from Konan
• Opinions are the author’s, and not those of the
US Gov’t, Dept of Defense, or US Navy
• No guarantee of accuracy in future approved
aviation policies
•No off-label uses discussed or advocated
Color Vision in Naval Aviation
F-14A circa 1980
Proposed Boeing Upgrade F/A-18E/F
Color Vision in Naval Aviation
Unclassified image
Public domain USN
• Modern Aircrew color displays more complex
(ex. P-8A Poseidon sonobuoy stations)
FALANT History
.
• Designed to pass mild color vision defectives to make up
for manpower shortfalls in submarine duty (late 1940’s)
• Adopted for screening in Naval Aviation in 1950’s to
supplement Pseudo-Isochromatic Plates (PIP)
• Optec-900: replacement for Farnsworth Lantern
FALANT / Optec 900
Problems
•
FALANT insensitivity: allows moderate to severe CVD to pass
occasionally2,3 (defined as “Color Unsafe” in USN)1
•
35% of recorded FALANT scores in the fleet are incorrect 1
– Improper timing, lighting, distance, recording
– Coaching, cheating, easy memorization, not randomized
•
55% of CVD who were a true FALANT failure, had a “FALANT
Pass” in their medical record1
•
Majority of Flight Surgeons are unaware that many CVD can
pass FALANT – implications for SNA training failures & mishap
investigations
DoDMERB:
FALANT
Phase out plan
• Dept of Defense Medical Examination Review Board –
officer accession screenings for academies, ROTC,
USUHS
• DoDMERB is phasing out FALANT completely
– High Cost ($7000 each)
– Difficulty training staff how to use properly
– Change effects ALL services that utilize FALANT for screening new
enlisted and officers (USN, USA, USCG)
– Note: USAF has discontinued use of FALANT & PIP completely
CVD: Aviation Concerns
•
Modern displays engineered only for “Color Normal” pilots and crew.4
•
CVD pilots react slower to
aviation color signals, and make more mistakes
than color normals 5
•
CVD pilots: higher failure rate recognizing signal lights:
25%, 68%, 85% (mild, moderate, severe)12
•
CVD pilots without restrictions have ~2.0x higher mishap rate than
normals7,8,9 especially during night flights, approach and landing phases.
l
•
Many published reports of military aviation near-misses and training
failures due to CVD10, 11 (incl those passing the FALANT but failing the PIP)
Color Vision:
Proposed Changes
• Discontinue the use of the FALANT as an alternate means
of evaluating color vision in aviation personnel.
(Effective date to be determined)
• PIP to be the only authorized method of screening color
vision in aviation personnel.
• Future applicants will still require passing PIP at 12
correct of 14 test plates
New Color Vision Standards:
Policy Implementation
•
Current students and designated aviation personnel who fail
the PIP, but pass a properly performed FALANT, will be
medically screened and recommended for color vision
deficiency waivers with Flight Surgeon and C.O. concurrence.
•
Waivered aviation personnel will continue to be monitored
annually using the PIP.
•
Significant changes in PIP performance will be referred to NAMI
for further evaluation and computerized color vision testing.
Color Vision Policy:
Future Trends?
• Continue research on what level of CVD is acceptable for
military pilots and crew positions, with regard to multi-color
displays.
• 1948, Sloan12 -- Different qualifying color vision standards
should be selected to match the degrees of color
discrimination required in military aviation.
• Someday begin the transition to computerized tests for
aviation screening: objective, random, sensitive, long-term
savings vice physical plates.
Vision fit for the rigors of battle,
not just safety of flight…
- CAPT Philip Briska, NAMI Ophthalmology, 1985
References
•
1) Paulson, H. (1966). NSMC, Report 466 : The performance of the Farnsworth Lantern at the Naval Submarine
Research Laboratory and the Field from 1955 to 1965. U.S. Naval Submarine Medical Center, Groton, CT.
•
2) Rings, Picken, NAMI research; CCVT validation study vs. PIP vs. FALANT vs. Nagel. (2013).
•
3) DeHart, Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine, 3 rd Edition, p. 373.
•
4) NATO WG-24, Operational Colour Vision in the Modern Aviation Environment
•
5) Cole, B.L., & Maddocks, J.D.. (2008). Color vision testing by Farnsworth lantern and ability to identify
approach-path signal colors. Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine, 79(6), 585-90.
•
6) Zentner, A.B., (1987), A Proposal for a Diagnostic Colour Vision Standard for Civil Airmen
•
7) Cole, B.L., (1985), Do protanomals have difficulty seeing red lights? Proc. 20 th Session CIE. 1, E 0411-3 Paris.
•
8) Dille, J.R., 1975 Accident Experience of Civilian Pilots with Static Physical Defects, FAA, AsMA, Feb, 1978
•
9) Dille, J.R., 1976 Accident Experience of Civilian Pilots with Static Physical Defects, FAA, AsMA, Feb, 1980
•
10) SUSNFS Newsletters, Oct 1984, Oct 1987, Jan 1986
•
11) Ivan, D.J., Yates, J.T., (1994) In Search of the Abominable Coneman, Clinical Sciences Division, Brooks AFB
•
12) Sloan, LL, Comparison of Tests for Red-Green Color Deficiency, Aviation Medicine, Dec 1948
•
13) US Navy Color Vision Standards Revisited, NSMRL Report 98-01