FAA Rejects Farnsworth Lantern Test

"Important note: The FAA no longer accepts The Farnsworth Lantern D15."

I just happened to stumble on this. I have been planning to take the
Farnsworth Lanterns test. Seems it's no longer accepted by the FAA. For
AOPA members, here's the link:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/medical/colorvis.html

Also according to that link, you can only take the signal light test
twice. After that, they may refuse to allow you to take it again.

The link also lists the following as acceptable substitutes. They
recommend trying to pass one of these with your optimologist before you
apply for the signal light test. Anyone have any idea which one is
preferred since the Farnsworth test is no longer allowed?
* Keystone Orthoscope.
* Keystone Telebinocular.
* LKC Technologies, Inc., APT-5 Color Vision Tester.
* OPTEC 2000 Vision Tester (Model Nos. 2000PM, 2000PAME, and 2000PI).
* Titmus Vision Tester.
* Titmus 11 Vision Tester (Model Nos. Tll and TIIS).
* Titmus 2 Vision Tester Model Nos. T2A and T2S).


Greg

"GC" == Greg Copeland writes:
GC The link also lists the following as acceptable substitutes.
GC They recommend trying to pass one of these with your
GC optimologist before you apply for the signal light test.
GC Anyone have any idea which one is preferred since the
GC Farnsworth test is no longer allowed?

longish list of obscure tests deleted

Oh c'mon. Doesn't every region have a "preferred" wink-wink AME where
you can go and be guaranteed to pass if you walk through the door? We
do here. A half dozen filled urine cups lined up in the cubbyhole,
unmarked as to owner. Same eye charts for decades, and if you stumble
a bit the nurse helpfully offers a suggested response. Probably will
be a rush of old guys looking for LSA planes when our preferred AME
retires.

Greg Copeland wrote:

"Important note: The FAA no longer accepts The Farnsworth Lantern D15."

the thing though is that the Farnsworth D15 is not a lantern test (there
is a Farnsworth lantern test -- favored by the British CAA -- but
that's different); the D15 is the thing where you line up colored
tokens in the 'right' order; pretty neat to determine
whether you are protanomalous, deuteranomalous or whatever is the third
one; any one can administer the test: buy the kit, follow the
instructions, piece of cake... (*) there are still a bunch of alternative
tests you might want to try before going for the lantern test. Not sure
you are loosing much with the D15: actually I would venture that
many pilots who think they have a normal color vision because they ace
the Ishihara would fail the D15 (and
the light gun test for that matter -- the last one I know for sure, did
test a few friends when I was preparing for my own waiver); hang in there!
the good news is that the FAA now issues a waiver instead of a SODA for
color vision thing, and apparently no longer make the distinction about
whether you passed the light gun test during day time or night time.

--Sylvain (oh, I am not an ophtalmo, so take what I say with a grain of
salt, but I did my home work before applying for the waiver)

ps (*) could be an idea for folks who went through and/or are going to
go through the process to pool resources and get our own set of test
kits to practice between ourselves, rather than forking off the high
fees ophtalmo charge for the privilege... you can actually improve your
performance on many of these tests by practicing; and of course just
for the fun of putting 'normal color vision' pilots through it as well
just to demonstrate how silly the whole thing is, but I digress :-)

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:39:54 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

Greg Copeland wrote:

"Important note: The FAA no longer accepts The Farnsworth Lantern D15."

the thing though is that the Farnsworth D15 is not a lantern test (there
is a Farnsworth lantern test -- favored by the British CAA -- but
that's different); the D15 is the thing where you line up colored
tokens in the 'right' order; pretty neat to determine

The really irritating thing here is, I know I can fly safe at night. I
know this because I did well with my CFI. I just may not be able to
safely fly under light gun, I really don't know; though I suspect I can
tell the difference. The green and white are the only colors with which I
have any trouble. At any rate, flying at night and flying under light gun
are two completley different things. I really don't understand why they
have to lump them together.

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:
At any rate, flying at night and flying under light gun
are two completley different things. I really don't understand why they
have to lump them together.

If you cannot distinguish red, green, and white, you cannot recognize an
aircraft's position lights, and thus determine it's orientation to you.

Roy Smith wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:
At any rate, flying at night and flying under light gun
are two completley different things. I really don't understand why they
have to lump them together.

If you cannot distinguish red, green, and white, you cannot recognize an
aircraft's position lights, and thus determine it's orientation to you.

You may be correct in theory, but I can't remember the last time I had
to use the red/green orientation to figure out which way the aircraft
was moving. If the lights are moving across your windshield, then you
already know which way the aircraft is moving. If the lights are not
moving, then you better get out of the way.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
You may be correct in theory, but I can't remember the last time I had
to use the red/green orientation to figure out which way the aircraft
was moving. If the lights are moving across your windshield, then you
already know which way the aircraft is moving.

You see two lights at 12 O'Clock. Is the other aircraft moving towards you
or away from you? Would it help if I told you what color the two lights
were?

Maybe it's just that I grew up with boats, where lights tell you a lot. I
can look at a two red lights and two white lights and tell you that it's
tug towing a barge, and the whole thing is moving right to left. A red
light that changes to green (or vice versa) means I've just passed across
the other vessel's centerline. And so on.

On the other hand, I've noticed that people who's first introduction to
position lights was when they started flying tend not to think about them
like that.

On the other hand, I've noticed that people who's first introduction to
position lights was when they started flying tend not to think about them
like that.

I actually came up with my own very cornball way of thinking about
position lights:

"red on right, you're in fright"

At least I know if I see red on the right, green on the left, and no
apparent left or right motion, I had better do something immediately!


--
Guy

On the other hand, I've noticed that people who's first introduction to
position lights was when they started flying tend not to think about them
like that.

Boats are closer.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Greg Copeland wrote:

The really irritating thing here is, I know I can fly safe at night. I
know this because I did well with my CFI. I just may not be able to
safely fly under light gun, I really don't know; though I suspect I can
tell the difference. The green and white are the only colors with which I
have any trouble.

green and white are the two with which most people have trouble (color
vision deficient *and* normal vision folks as well...);

As to whether or not it makes sense, you might enjoy (and learn a few
useful things from) the following document:

http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/to...lourvision.pdf

....so I got my waiver via the light gun test (I flunk Ishihara,
Farnsworth D15, etc.); honestly, luck might have helped a bit
(I called 'white' when I saw 'green' and vice versa and it
worked :-); which means that I'll never have to take the test
again for any class of medical (I wave the piece of paper in front of
the AME each time I renew the medical, maybe that's why they call it
a 'waiver' :-)) and I happily fly at night without any problem.

--Sylvain