Be A Pilot commercial

[CFLav8r]

Does anyone else find the Be-A-Pilot commercial annoying?
The guy in the commercial seems to be more interested in showing us his
phony white teeth.
The fool keeps his upper lip up through the entire commercial so that his
teeth show the entire time.

Just my two cents worth...

David (KORL)

[Circuit Breaker]

CFLav8r wrote:

> Does anyone else find the Be-A-Pilot commercial annoying? The guy in the
> commercial seems to be more interested in showing us his phony white
> teeth.
> The fool keeps his upper lip up through the entire commercial so that his
> teeth show the entire time.
>
> Just my two cents worth...
>
> David (KORL)

Must say I haven't seen that one.

The commercials that annoy me are the ones the Air Force is putting out...
you know, the "We've been waiting for you" ones. Sure, you fly remote
control airplanes as a kid, so the Air Force is going to hand you a
mutlimillion [billion?] dollar R/C plane to control? Yeah, right.

What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least, this
is what the recruiters have told me. Piloting a fighter jet - of any sort
- has been my dream since my preteen years. I know there are many, many
more requirements than mere visual acuity, of course, but I feel cheated
that they won't allow prescription glasses in the cockpit but they'll
allow other glasses in. That was the main reason the recruiter gave me
was that glasses couldn't be worn, so acuity had to be nearly perfect.
Has this changed any?

--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ |
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

[Peter Duniho]

"Circuit Breaker" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...]
> What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
> wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
> people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least, this
> is what the recruiters have told me.

I could swear I know more than one (ex-)military aviator who wears glasses.
I am under the impression that glasses are disqualifying for entrance into
the pilot jobs, but that if your vision deteriorates later, you don't get
kicked out.

In other words, it's more likely just a way to minimize complications and
thin out the pool of applicants. After all, "everyone" wants to be a pilot,
so why should the military accept any but those "most perfect specimens of
human physiology"? Of course, once they've invested millions of dollars
training you, it'd be silly to get rid of you then, so if you need glasses
later, you get to stay.

In any case, obviously the recruiter's statement that glasses couldn't be
worn is just ridiculous. There's no obvious physical impediment to wearing
glasses in the cockpit, and even if there were, surely corrective lenses
could be built into the equipment (helmet or otherwise), or contact lenses
permitted.

Since we clearly have the technology to address vision issues in the
cockpit, I take it as granted that a restriction against corrective lenses
has something to do with other than legitimate technical issues. Arbitrary
policy-making seems the most likely explanation to me. I doubt there's any
actual good reason for it.

Pete

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Circuit Breaker > said:
>What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
>wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
>people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least, this
>is what the recruiters have told me. Piloting a fighter jet - of any sort

My understanding is that in the rare years when they have fewer
applicants, they'll take people who need glasses, but usually they have to
weed down the pool, so the first people they cut as the glasses wearers.

But as somebody has already said, if you get in with perfect vision and
later need glasses, you can stay on flying status until they can't be
corrected to 20/20.

Considering that everybody's eye sight gets worse over time, I guess they
figure they'd better start with people with perfect eyesight so there is
less chance it will deteriorate to un-correctable before they've got their
money's worth from you.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Either way, it'll remind the clued that there's only one letter
difference between 'turkey' and 'turnkey'.
-- Mike Andrews

[ajohnson]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Circuit Breaker" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > [...]
> > What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
> > wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
> > people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least, this
> > is what the recruiters have told me.
>
> I could swear I know more than one (ex-)military aviator who wears glasses.
> I am under the impression that glasses are disqualifying for entrance into
> the pilot jobs, but that if your vision deteriorates later, you don't get
> kicked out.
>
> In other words, it's more likely just a way to minimize complications and
> thin out the pool of applicants. After all, "everyone" wants to be a pilot,
> so why should the military accept any but those "most perfect specimens of
> human physiology"? Of course, once they've invested millions of dollars
> training you, it'd be silly to get rid of you then, so if you need glasses
> later, you get to stay.
>
> In any case, obviously the recruiter's statement that glasses couldn't be
> worn is just ridiculous. There's no obvious physical impediment to wearing
> glasses in the cockpit, and even if there were, surely corrective lenses
> could be built into the equipment (helmet or otherwise), or contact lenses
> permitted.
>
> Since we clearly have the technology to address vision issues in the
> cockpit, I take it as granted that a restriction against corrective lenses
> has something to do with other than legitimate technical issues. Arbitrary
> policy-making seems the most likely explanation to me. I doubt there's any
> actual good reason for it.
>
> Pete

I remember when I was in high school and looking into the possibility of
flying for the military, I discovered that the Air Force required 20/20
uncorrected but the Navy did not. I always thought this was strange -
I can land an F-14 on a tiny pitching carrier deck in a storm at night
with glasses, but I can't land an F-15 on a 10000' x 150' runway? There
may be more to it than that (I never entered either service after all) but
it seemed rather odd to me.

--
Allen Johnson

[Robert M. Gary]

If your vision changes after you are jet qualified the military will
allow you to use correction (although probably not contacts). They
aren't going to throw away the millions they spend on your training.
So its not unusual to see figher pilots (especially the older COs)
using correction. I can actually name a few myself. I wonder what the
military thinks of some of these new surgeries?



> What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
> wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
> people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least, this
> is what the recruiters have told me. Piloting a fighter jet - of any sort
> - has been my dream since my preteen years. I know there are many, many
> more requirements than mere visual acuity, of course, but I feel cheated
> that they won't allow prescription glasses in the cockpit but they'll
> allow other glasses in. That was the main reason the recruiter gave me
> was that glasses couldn't be worn, so acuity had to be nearly perfect.
> Has this changed any?

[Circuit Breaker]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> If your vision changes after you are jet qualified the military will allow
> you to use correction (although probably not contacts). They aren't going
> to throw away the millions they spend on your training. So its not unusual
> to see figher pilots (especially the older COs) using correction. I can
> actually name a few myself. I wonder what the military thinks of some of
> these new surgeries?

That, I am very curious about.

I received an article of mail today on the Florida Air National Guard that
had more info than anything I've ever seen. Simply, it was only a few
weblinks, but one of them actually linked to something I had never seen
before. In a roundabout way, I wound up on
www.baseops.net/archive/archiveupt and answered a few questions I had.

Aside from vision, which I believe is 20/60 or 20/70 currently, I think
the only thing that might hold me back is physical fitness and a very
small criminal offense from 5 years ago. I can get in shape, and the
offense can be expunged (albeit expensively).

I've dreamed of being a fighter jock (who hasn't, eh?) since I was a
preteen, so if I have any chance at this, I plan to milk it. Already sent
an e-mail off to a recruiter, but so far I've received no reply. I keep
forgetting to set the "return receipt" flag. Last time a sent a mail off
to a recruiter, I never received any reply. Funny, right out of high
school I had to threaten the Marines with legal action before they'd shut
up...

Anyway, dinner's up...

>
>
>
>> What I want to know is why the History channel showed an F-15 pilot
>> wearing standard civilian sunglasses in the airplane during flight, yet
>> people who require corrective lenses can't fly the plane. At least,
>> this is what the recruiters have told me. Piloting a fighter jet - of
>> any sort - has been my dream since my preteen years. I know there are
>> many, many more requirements than mere visual acuity, of course, but I
>> feel cheated that they won't allow prescription glasses in the cockpit
>> but they'll allow other glasses in. That was the main reason the
>> recruiter gave me was that glasses couldn't be worn, so acuity had to be
>> nearly perfect. Has this changed any?

--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ |
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

[Circuit Breaker]

ajohnson wrote:

> flying for the military, I discovered that the Air Force required 20/20
> uncorrected but the Navy did not. I always thought this was strange - I

I would prefer Air Force to Navy, but if I can fly for the Navy....
--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ |
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

[G.R. Patterson III]

ajohnson wrote:
>
> I remember when I was in high school and looking into the possibility of
> flying for the military, I discovered that the Air Force required 20/20
> uncorrected but the Navy did not.

Back in the stone age when I was in high school, I was told that, not only did the
Navy require 20/20 for pilots, but you couldn't wear glasses if you wanted a job that
was on deck.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Judah]

What is the problem with wearing contacts?

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

> If your vision changes after you are jet qualified the military will
> allow you to use correction (although probably not contacts). They
> aren't going to throw away the millions they spend on your training.
> So its not unusual to see figher pilots (especially the older COs)
> using correction. I can actually name a few myself. I wonder what the
> military thinks of some of these new surgeries?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> What is the problem with wearing contacts?

There are those that believe that they are more likely to become dislodged,
fall out, or otherwise become unusable.

Perhaps that was true in the olden days of gas permeable lenses, but any
soft contact lens wearer will tell you that a properly fitted set of
contacts is a MUCH more reliable form of vision correction than eyeglasses.

Pete

[Judah]

Yeah - it seems to me that contacts are much less likely to fall out of
your eyes than eyeglasses are to fall off your head. :)

But then, you're right. These types of policies are always a few decades
behind...


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What is the problem with wearing contacts?
>
> There are those that believe that they are more likely to become
> dislodged, fall out, or otherwise become unusable.
>
> Perhaps that was true in the olden days of gas permeable lenses, but
> any soft contact lens wearer will tell you that a properly fitted set
> of contacts is a MUCH more reliable form of vision correction than
> eyeglasses.
>
> Pete
>
>
>