Failed an FAA Color Vision Test? A Practical Guide for Pilots, AMEs, and Eye Doctors

The FAA’s 2025 color vision changes did not just change the testing process. They changed the conversation.

As both an optometrist and a pilot, I see why this issue creates so much confusion. Pilots are trying to figure out what to do next. AMEs are trying to give good guidance without turning a routine medical exam into a full-time speculation on what the FAA may or may not do. Eye doctors are trying to determine whether they can actually help or whether they are just being asked to confirm that a pilot failed a test everyone already knows he failed.

I think there is a practical way through this.

At our practice, we can help sort out whether a color vision problem is congenital, acquired, stable, new, or a sign of something else going on. And because we understand how these issues land in the real world of flying, we also know how quickly a medical limitation can start to feel bigger than it is. Once the words “restriction” or “limitation” hit the page, pilots do what pilots always do: they start trying to solve the problem.

Sometimes that helps. Sometimes it creates a second problem that is worse than the first one.

That is what I want to address here.

This article is for three groups:

• the pilot who failed the test,

• the AME trying to guide that pilot,

• and the eye doctor who wants to be useful instead of just decorative.

What changed, in plain English

The FAA tightened up the color vision pathway in 2025. The goal was standardization.

That part makes sense to me.

For years, color vision screening had too many side doors. Too much variation. Too much dependence on what a particular office happened to have available. Too much room for the process to feel like a scavenger hunt rather than an actual standard.

So I understand why the FAA wanted a cleaner system.

The problem is that a cleaner screening system does not automatically produce a clearer experience for the pilot who fails it.

That is where things get messy.

Where I think we can help AMEs

Most AMEs do not need another eye doctor talking in circles about cones, rods, and retinal physiology while the waiting room fills up.

What they need is a referral source who can answer practical questions.

• Is this likely a congenital color vision deficiency?

• Could this be something acquired?

• Is there a retinal issue, optic nerve issue, medication effect, cataract, or neurologic problem that needs attention?

• Does the pilot understand what happened, or is he already halfway down an internet rabbit hole trying to prove he only failed because Mercury was in retrograde?

That is where I think our practice can bring value.

A pilot who fails screening does not just need another person to say, “Yes, you failed.”

That pilot needs someone who can help sort out what that failure actually means and if there are practical steps that can be taken to move forward.

The biggest mistake I see pilots make

The biggest mistake is trying to explain away a color vision result by offering the FAA an even more concerning explanation.

That sounds obvious, but it happens.

If you read enough pilot forums and blog posts, you start seeing the same ideas over and over. People talk about lighting, timing, stress, memorization, test order, letter confusion, symbol confusion, dyslexia, needing more time, and all sorts of reasons the test was supposedly unfair or invalid.

Some of those concerns may be legitimate in the right setting. Bad administration is bad administration. That was part of the old problem.

But here is the practical point.

If you tell the FAA, “I did not fail because of color vision, I failed because I have trouble quickly identifying letters, sequencing symbols, or processing the format of the test,” that may not help you the way you think it will.

In fact, it may raise a bigger question.

Because from a flying standpoint, trouble quickly processing letters, symbols, routes, identifiers, or changes in sequence is not exactly a comforting explanation. That is not a sales pitch for safety.

I am not trying to play lawyer here. I am just saying that if you are asking the FAA for an exception, you need to be careful not to trade one concern for a worse one.

A word about dyslexia

This is one example that comes up often enough that it deserves to be said plainly.

If a pilot claims the color vision test was not valid because of dyslexia, I think that needs to be handled very carefully.

Why?

Because if your explanation is that you struggle to quickly sort out letters, letter order, or symbol recognition, that may create a much bigger concern than the color vision issue.

Flying is full of situations where you need to rapidly identify and act on information. Waypoints. Fix names. Clearances. Route amendments. Approach segments. Frequencies. Similar-looking identifiers. Last-minute changes from ATC.

If your argument is, “I’m safe in the airplane, but I need a lot more time to sort out letters and symbols,” that may not land the way you hope it will.

That does not mean dyslexia automatically disqualifies anybody. That is not my point.

My point is simpler: if you are trying to explain why standard color testing should not apply to you, make sure your explanation does not sound like a stronger case for a different flying problem.

That is not a strategy issue. That is just common sense.

A practical checklist after a failed FAA color vision test

Here is how I think pilots should approach this.

1. Find out exactly which test you took

   1. Do not leave the office saying, “I failed the FAA color vision test.” That is not enough. You need the exact name of the test and the actual result. Not a vague memory. Not “the dot one.” Not “the computer one.” The real name. That matters because the next step may depend on what was actually administered and how it was documented.

2. Know what the AME actually did

   1. Did the AME issue a certificate with a limitation? Did they tell you to get outside testing? Did they defer? Did they recommend a review?

   2. Those are very different situations. A lot of confusion starts because pilots remember the emotion of the appointment more clearly than the paperwork.

   3. Read the paperwork.

3. Get a proper eye exam

   1. This is where eye doctors can really help.

   2. A failed color vision screen may reflect a congenital deficiency that has been there your whole life. It may also reflect something acquired. Cataract, optic nerve disease, retinal disease, medication effects, diabetes, neurologic issues, and other problems can affect color perception.

4. Do not rely on folklore

   1. Pilots love stories. Aviation is full of them. Unfortunately, certification folklore is still folklore. If your strategy is built around something you read from a guy online who “totally figured out how to pass” after three tries and a head tilt, that is probably not a great plan. You need facts, records, and a real exam. I am always happy to help answer questions but I can't be sure unless I evaluate the patient so until them I am simply speculating about the individual pilot.

5. Be careful if you ask for an exception or review

   1. If you are trying to explain why the standard computer-based testing result does not reflect your true situation, keep your explanation factual and narrow. Do not exaggerate. Do not improvise a diagnosis. Do not throw out a new cognitive, reading, or processing explanation unless it is real, documented, and something you are fully prepared to discuss as it relates to flying.

Again, you do not want to solve a color vision problem by accidentally arguing for a different limitation that sounds worse.

My concern about the day-VFR limitation

Let me be clear: I understand why a day-VFR-only limitation exists.

I am not arguing that it makes no sense. It clearly does.

If a pilot cannot reliably identify color-dependent cues that matter to safe flight, then limiting that pilot to daytime VFR conditions is understandable.

My concern is a little different.

What worries me is the message some new pilots may hear once that limitation is in place.

A pilot may come away thinking, “Well, if I am stuck with this restriction, there is no point in getting more training.”

That is the part I do not like.

Because even if a pilot cannot legally exercise full instrument privileges with that medical limitation, it does not follow that instrument training has no value. In my opinion, that is the wrong lesson.

Instrument training teaches discipline. It teaches workload management. It teaches scan. It teaches procedure. It teaches a pilot how to think when things get busy and ugly and fast.

Those are valuable skills whether or not somebody ever files IFR in actual instrument meterorological conditions.

So my concern is not that the FAA created the limitation. My concern is that the limitation may, in practice, discourage some pilots from pursuing training that could still make them better and safer aviators.

That is not a legal argument. It is just a practical concern from someone who understand flying and eye care.

What I think AMEs need from a referral partner

This is where I think a good relationship between an AME and an eye doctor can really matter.

A useful referral partner is not just somebody who owns the right equipment.

A useful referral partner can:

• offer other testing options besides Waggoner like the Rabin Cone Test

• figure out whether the issue is congenital or acquired,

• look for underlying eye disease,

• explain the result to the pilot in plain English,

• and keep the pilot from making a bad argument that creates more trouble.

That is the value.

Not just test administration. Judgment.

What I think patients need from us

If a pilot comes to us after failing an FAA color vision test, we do not want to just tell him what he already knows.

We want to answer the questions behind the question.

What kind of deficiency is this?

Has it likely been there all along?

Does anything about the exam suggest something new or medically important?

Is there something here that matters for health, apart from certification?

And just as important, how should this pilot think about the next step without making things worse? There are logical ways that we can appeal but we need to make a strong case in light of the fact that the FAA is vague about what happens behind closed doors during the appeals process.

That is where we think we bring value.

The bottom line on the failed FAA color vision test

The FAA has made the color vision screening process more standardized. We understand why.

But once a pilot has failed an FAA color vision test, the hard part is no longer just the test itself. The hard part becomes what happens next.

Pilots need practical guidance.

AMEs need good referral relationships.

Eye doctors need to understand that their value is not just in running a test, but in helping sort out what the result actually means and helping that pilot make a strong case when submitting the Color Vision Limitation Review paperwork.

And if you are a pilot trying to explain why the standard test result should not apply to you, be careful. Do not create a new concern that sounds worse than the original one.

If you are in the Omaha area and have failed an FAA color vision test, or if you are an AME looking for a practical referral resource for these cases, this is exactly the kind of work our practice is interested in. We also have the Rabin Cone Test to use when the pilot has failed the Waggoner Color Vision Test.