Speaking of Vision -- How 'bout Progressive Bifocals?

[Jay Honeck]

I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)

So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
distance).

So, I ordered them.

Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
thanks to the eternally variable prescription!

So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
them, yet), so I can change my mind.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Casey Wilson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.

I had a pair of progressives -- operative word=had. I didn't like them
for any purpose from planting seeds in the garden to driving and flying.
On the other hand, I have a pal who swears by them. I accused him of not
wanting to admit he screwed up when he bought them which made his resolve
even stronger.
Take a couple weeks of your 30-day trial and try them.

Let's go FLY!!

Casey

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I have reading glasses (now mandated by my medical...) that have relatively
small frames and are very light in weight. When I need them, I simply put
them on over my sunglasses and just slip them down my nose to where I look
over them to scan outside and can just glance down to read something.

Works just fine for me as my distance vision is still solid...it's just that
as I passed 40 years old, my arms started to get shorter and shorter.

Jay B

[Jay Honeck]

> I have reading glasses (now mandated by my medical...) that have relatively
> small frames and are very light in weight. When I need them, I simply put
> them on over my sunglasses and just slip them down my nose to where I look
> over them to scan outside and can just glance down to read something.

I don't think that's an option for me, as I am incredibly near-sighted.
I need glasses on ALL the time for distance -- so swapping (or adding)
glasses in the plane really wouldn't help the situation.

It's really frustrating, as I've got excellent close-vision -- with a
focal length of about 6 inches from my nose. Thus, removing my glasses
has become my preferred way of viewing sectionals, but that makes
maintaining any kind of a scan (inside OR out) impossible.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dr Ian Whitmore]

I have been flying with Varifocals (as we call them in the UK) for
more than 10 years. They never make me nauseous. I have asked my
optometrist to supply lenses with the widest area in focus(side to
side). I was warned that one of the problems was getting used to the
peripheral vision being in softer focus than with lines type bifocals.

In the UK the CAA discourages the use of varifocals because of the
peripheral vision difference.

I do remember a period of aclimatization when I first got them, not
retsricted to flying. However I have found that every change in
prescription has needed a few days at least to get used to it.

If you get on with them they will be fantastic.

Best wishes

Ian

In message . com>
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


--
Ian Whitmore Please reply to iwhitmore at argonet dot co dot uk

[Morgans]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote

> I have reading glasses (now mandated by my medical...) that have
> relatively small frames and are very light in weight. When I need them, I
> simply put them on over my sunglasses and just slip them down my nose to
> where I look over them to scan outside and can just glance down to read
> something.

I remember seeing some flexible plastic lenses (on a link from someone on
rec.aviation. something) that you trim to the size you need, and stick them
on your sunglasses, regular glasses, safety glasses, or whatever you want
to.

That would be a good thing, to find out what size of close in lens you need
to have, for the best results.

I have line bifocals, and I would not want to consider anything else. The
thing is, you get to choose where the line goes on the glasses, as to how
far up on the lens the transition is placed. I also have the auto darkening
kind, and love them. I always have my sunglasses when I need them.

I have my line pretty far down, since as a carpenter, I want to have my far
vision to be in effect without looking down, so I can see what I am walking
on while up high in the air on a beam or floor joist. There is a trade-off,
since if you get it too low, and too small, you really have to tilt your
head back very far to read a display, or read a book.

Bottom line? Personal preferences. Try some, and if you don't like it, try
the others. It's only money! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[gyoung]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck,

I agree with his verdict, but for a different reason (I wasn't flying
when I had 'progressives'). I found that the cone of correction is
-narrow-; I found it necessary to move my whole head side-to-side in
order look left and right across a page (or my computer screen, etc.); I
couldn't just move my eyes because left or right of center, acuity
suffered. The vertical angle also is, or seemed to be, small.

> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.

I chose bifocals (a few years ago), and as my eyes 'hardened up' I went
even to trifocals. I did have to play with the location of the 'lines'
since that equates to the vertical angle where the correction changes.

I'm very pleased with 'lined' bifocals and now trifocals (I've required
glasses since I was 14, almost 50 years now, so I was already accustomed
to the limitations spectacles impose).

george

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I wore progressives until I started flying 10 years ago. They didn't work
for me in airplanes.

I've got trifocals now, with the middle lens ground for panel distance.
They work fine, and I don't give them a thought when I'm flying.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stubby]

gyoung wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
>> progressives totally suck,
>
> I agree with his verdict, but for a different reason (I wasn't flying
> when I had 'progressives'). I found that the cone of correction is
> -narrow-; I found it necessary to move my whole head side-to-side in
> order look left and right across a page (or my computer screen, etc.); I
> couldn't just move my eyes because left or right of center, acuity
> suffered. The vertical angle also is, or seemed to be, small.
>
>> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
>> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
>> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
>> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
>
> I chose bifocals (a few years ago), and as my eyes 'hardened up' I went
> even to trifocals. I did have to play with the location of the 'lines'
> since that equates to the vertical angle where the correction changes.
>
> I'm very pleased with 'lined' bifocals and now trifocals (I've required
> glasses since I was 14, almost 50 years now, so I was already accustomed
> to the limitations spectacles impose).

Yup. Tri-s are the answer. My mother was an avid bridge player. She
pointed out the value of the intermediate zone in trifocals for looking
at the bridge table. The instant I put them on, I said, "This is
right!" Looking at the instrument panel is the same distance as the
bridge table.

Any prescription for bifocal lenses can be used for trifocals. They put
the middle zone half way between the distance and reading prescriptions.
You can play with the vertical placement of the lens structure.
It's easy to go back to bifocals if you don't like trifocals.

[J. Severyn]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
I represent being called an old fart......
I've been flying for 23 years and used progressive lenses for about 20 of
those years. No problem at all. About 10 years ago I had the eye doc order
a pair of bifocals and progressives at the same exam. Reading with the
bifocals was easier (no head "nodding" to get the right focal length), but I
could not get used to the abrupt change in focal length at the "line".
So the progressives are the best for me. It took only a few days to get
used to them originally and I've used them ever since. YMMV.

Regards,
John Severyn @KLVK

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I have line bifocals, and I would not want to consider anything else. The
> thing is, you get to choose where the line goes on the glasses, as to how
> far up on the lens the transition is placed. I also have the auto
> darkening

You can pick where the progressive stuff starts as well, but I assume they
will take up more room on the lens...

> I have my line pretty far down, since as a carpenter, I want to have my
> far vision to be in effect without looking down, so I can see what I am
> walking on while up high in the air on a beam or floor joist. There is a
> trade-off, since if you get it too low, and too small, you really have to
> tilt your head back very far to read a display, or read a book.
>
> Bottom line? Personal preferences. Try some, and if you don't like it,
> try the others. It's only money! <g>

I like the progressives (at least, as far as having bi-focals goes, eh?)

Just be careful on stairways for the first few days. (or on any beams.)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> I like the progressives (at least, as far as having bi-focals goes, eh?)
>
> Just be careful on stairways for the first few days. (or on any beams.)

Yep. THAT is exactly why I went with the line option. I want to know if I
am in the close or distance part of the lens. Missed steps can be hazardous
to your health, especially if you are not in full compliance with OSHA fall
protection. <g>

That is ANOTHER story. I had to go get OSHA certified, and enforce all fall
protection (and other OSHA rules) fully, while teaching my students my
construction classes. Man, talk about slowing down productivity!

I guess it is worth it. I would not want to have a severely injured student
on my hands/conscience.
--
Jim in NC

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...

> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

The progressives work for me...It did take a few days to get used to them, and going up and especially down stairs would
throw me off until I got used to it. Used to be 20-15 'till I hit about 42, then I realized that I couldn't read the
menus in darkened restaurants, so I tried reading glasses, but the best solution has been these progressives. I have a
big fat pair for sunglasses and the more normal pair for everyday use...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:17:19 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
>::

>Just be careful on stairways for the first few days. (or on any beams.)

How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Do you guys wear "progressives"?
>Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?

How about contact lenses (for distant vision) plus reading glasses that you
can perch on your nose to read the charts.

--Gary

[john smith]

> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.

Google this forum for answers to the same question I asked three years
ago. I put off for three years getting bifocals until I no longer could.
I got the progressives and have not had any difficulties while flying
except for trying to look down out the window, as Larry pointed out.
The best answer is that it depends on your prescription. What range do
you need the correction?
In my case, I lost my very close vision (less than 9 inches). I am near
sighted, so the primary lense is for far vision. My progressive lense
does not seem to affect vision of the panel in any of the aircraft I fly
(C182R and S, C172N, Cherokee Six, Turbo Arrow, Archer, Champ, Stinson
108) day or night.
I do not use them when using the computer, but do use them to watch the
telly across the room. Looking at the section through the progressive
lense is one of those things where you learn how much to tilt your head
so that your eyes look through the proper portion of the lense.

[Steve A]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.


Jay,

Try them, you'll either like them or hate them. I've had them about 4
years, and my first reaction was "what a piece of @#$@#$". After a few
days of thinking buying them was a mistake, things just worked with
them. (Brain / eyeball control system figured them out I guess.)
Flying with them is fine....read the chart, look for the traffic, scan
the panel....it all works.

Like you, mine were a result of not being able to read road maps and
charts. Distance was fine (with the existing glasses), the book in my
lap was not readable without taking the glasses off.

My experience is some people like them and others hate them.....doesn't
seem to be anything in between. That goes for both pilots and non-pilots.

Maybe I just wasn't ready to get lined glasses at 44. I am not heading
towards 50.....I'm not! I'm not! I'm not! :-)

Get it figured out before OSH, otherwise Mary gets to fly the approach
again!


Steve

[Dave Stadt]

I use my neck muscles. Works as designed.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:17:19 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
> >::
>
>>Just be careful on stairways for the first few days. (or on any beams.)
>
> How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
> trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?
>

[Dave Stadt]

I've had progressives for decades and wouldn't take a million dollars to go
back to bi- or tri-focals. Once you get used to them you don't even know
you are adjusting. The nausea sounds like an OWT.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Roy Smith]

I'm 47. I started noticing within the past year that it was difficult to
write in student's logbooks. Distance was fine, reading a book was fine,
reading a chart or approach plate was fine. Just writing in a logbook was
the one thing that was difficult to do. What really convinced me I had to
do something was when I went to renew my medical, and I could barely read
the eye chart.

Anyway, about a month ago, I had a pair of progressive bifocals made up. I
tried them for a few days, but just couldn't wear them. I felt like I was
swimming. Sitting at my desk (with two computer monitors on it) was a
total disaster; the second monitor is near the edge of my visual field, so
it was in the "neither reading nor distance" area on the side.

I traded them in for a pair of lined bifocals. I've had those for a week
or two, and while they're better, I'm not having much luck getting used to
them either. I tried wearing them in the plane, and found I couldn't read
the instruments.

At this point, I'm considering just getting a pair of full-lens reading
glasses and carrying two pairs around. Either that, or figure out a way to
become 37 again.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:17:19 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
> >::
>
>>Just be careful on stairways for the first few days. (or on any beams.)
>
> How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
> trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?
>
Looking straight ahead I am above the "progressive" stuff so I just look
straight at distant things. Closer things I just look a little down thorugh
the glasses. I'm not even aware of it anymore. Sitting here with the laptop
in my lap, the only time I notice the "progressive" effect is if I
_deliberately_ tip my head up or down to make it go out of focus. It's
become automatic.

The only time I fly anymore is when I visit my brother though... He's a few
states away but he has a homebuilt "Pitts" and a T-18 - I've never noticed
anything uncormfortable about the glasses when flying with him - looking at
the panel, ground, whatever. But then, when he has the stick, the easiest
way to look at the ground is when we are on a "down" line. :-)

The part that really sucks is trying to work under a car - my neck just does
not tip back far enough.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Al]

Use 'em. Like 'em. I set them on my nose so the view out the
windscreen is in focus and the panel is in focus. Then when I have the
sectional in my lap..it's in focus.

Al
1964 Cessna 172
1953 Eyes
KSFF Spokane, WA

[Jay Honeck]

> How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
> trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?

Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just
progressive lenses, either.

How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses? It
would seem nearly impossible?

Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> How about contact lenses (for distant vision) plus reading glasses that
> you can perch on your nose to read the charts.

I wore contacts for 10 years, and grew to really hate the routine, as well
as what hay fever, dust, and air conditioning did to my eyes while wearing
them.

Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
balking at the idea.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> The part that really sucks is trying to work under a car - my neck just
> does not tip back far enough.

Believe it or not, you can get glasses with the strong (close) part of the
lens at the bottom, (like regular bifocals) and the top, for just such work.
There is a name for them, but I've got CRS syndrome, at the moment. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
> got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses?
> It would seem nearly impossible?

It is not even "no big deal." It is a non event. You get in the habit of
tilting your head, wherever you need to look. You don't even think about
it.

You get stronger neck muscles, though. Think of all the calories you will
burn, with all of this new exercise. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Sonrise]

"Al" > wrote in message
...
> Use 'em. Like 'em. I set them on my nose so the view out the windscreen
> is in focus and the panel is in focus. Then when I have the sectional in
> my lap..it's in focus.
>
> Al
> 1964 Cessna 172
> 1953 Eyes
> KSFF Spokane, WA

This is all very enlightening. I hope to resume my PPL training soon, after
a 20-year hiatus. I was fitted with progressives last year, and have adapted
to them fairly well. (I did not try the lined lenses).

It did not occur to me that there might be problems in the cockpit related
to these lenses. I do very well while driving, now that my brain has adapted
to the zones, so I assumed reading the instrument panel would be similar. i
gather it will e, based on what I've read so far in this thread.

I do find my peripheral vision is best from the center up.

Horace

[Bob Chilcoat]

The lower part of my bifocals do not go all the way to the edge of either
lens. If I'm looking down and left (out the pilots window), I end up
looking through the distance prescription to the left of each reading
window. Still have distance, 3D vision of the ground below me.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
>> got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses? It
>> would seem nearly impossible?
>
> It is not even "no big deal." It is a non event. You get in the habit of
> tilting your head, wherever you need to look. You don't even think about
> it.
>
> You get stronger neck muscles, though. Think of all the calories you will
> burn, with all of this new exercise. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
> balking at the idea.

For good reason, IMHO.

I don't care if the "bad" result rate is only .1%. I do not want to be the
one in a thousand that gets worse vision out of the deal, or bad enough
vision that you could never fly again.

Glasses are not that bad, once you get accustomed to them. I'll keep mine,
thanks.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave]

I have used them flying for the last 5 years (progressives, both clear
and sunglasses)

Worky great, no issues..

Dave


On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:27:49 -0700, Al >
wrote:

>Use 'em. Like 'em. I set them on my nose so the view out the
>windscreen is in focus and the panel is in focus. Then when I have the
>sectional in my lap..it's in focus.
>
>Al
>1964 Cessna 172
>1953 Eyes
>KSFF Spokane, WA

[Morgans]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> The lower part of my bifocals do not go all the way to the edge of either
> lens. If I'm looking down and left (out the pilots window), I end up
> looking through the distance prescription to the left of each reading
> window. Still have distance, 3D vision of the ground below me.

Yep, that's true, too.

I have good uncorrected distance vision, so sometimes I peek out from under
the frame of my glasses, too. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.

I got my progressives about 4 years ago at age 42. I think they are
better than conventional bifocals, but they are still a pain. The sweet
spot for near vision is fairly small and you have to move your head a
lot to read and keep things in focus. I tend to often just hold things
closer and look over top of my glasses...

I've never had any issue with nausea. I did have a little trouble at
first stepping onto and off curbs and climbing or descending stairs, but
the brain acclimated to the new sight picture pretty quickly.

I'd say to not take them back too soon. Use the full 30 days before
making your decision as it will likely take a couple of weeks to get
reasonably functional with them. I'd prefer not to have progressives,
but at some point we really have little choice. I'm still contemplating
LASIK as another poster here mentioned recently, but I've had a number
doctors tell me that people may regret that surgery once they get into
their late 60s and beyond. I'm not really sure why, but something about
causing the eye to lose accomodation even faster than without the
surgery. However, most people I know who have had LASIK are very happy
with the results, but then none are pilots and all have less than 5
years on their "new" eyes.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
>>sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
>>some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
>>dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>>
>>So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
>>from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
>>I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
>>viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
>>distance).
>>
>>So, I ordered them.
>>
>>Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
>>progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
>>thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>>
>>So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
>>you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
>>LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
>>them, yet), so I can change my mind.
>
>
> I had a pair of progressives -- operative word=had. I didn't like them
> for any purpose from planting seeds in the garden to driving and flying.
> On the other hand, I have a pal who swears by them. I accused him of not
> wanting to admit he screwed up when he bought them which made his resolve
> even stronger.
> Take a couple weeks of your 30-day trial and try them.

Did you replace them with conventional bifocals or go back to single
prescription lenses and just deal with the near vision loss?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dr Ian Whitmore wrote:

> I have been flying with Varifocals (as we call them in the UK) for
> more than 10 years. They never make me nauseous. I have asked my
> optometrist to supply lenses with the widest area in focus(side to
> side). I was warned that one of the problems was getting used to the
> peripheral vision being in softer focus than with lines type bifocals.
>
> In the UK the CAA discourages the use of varifocals because of the
> peripheral vision difference.

You make a good point. I didn't fully understand how progressives
worked when I first got mine. I thought the entire bottom of the lens
would be the near prescription and the top the far prescription and a
blending in between. Turns out, mine are more like a circular variation
with the bottom sliced off. The bottom center of my lenses are the
near prescription, but the left and right side of the bottom part of the
lenses is nearly the same as the far prescription on top. Maybe this is
done to facilitate better distance peripheral vision, but it sure means
a lot more head motion to keep things in focus in the 12-24" range.


Matt

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"?

Dunno...cuz I'm not an old fart yet. :-) My day will come though.

Like Steve said, get it fixed before OSH or Mary goes for #2. Heck, she
deserves a simple approach after last year.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

> Believe it or not, you can get glasses with the strong (close) part of the
> lens at the bottom, (like regular bifocals) and the top, for just such
> work. There is a name for them, but I've got CRS syndrome, at the moment.
> <g>

My A&P just flips his glasses upside down, when he's working under the
panel.

He looks silly, but it works for him!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Like Steve said, get it fixed before OSH or Mary goes for #2. Heck, she
> deserves a simple approach after last year.

Well, I'll have 'em in a day or two. We'll see how they go.

I'm flying in to OSH this year, come hell or high water. I can't let Mary
have all the fun two years in a row!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Chris]

I have them, they work fine although the word is to have smaller frames so
the progressive involves less eye travel than having owl type lenses. It
does take a few days to get used to them but still with them and see.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[g n p]

This old fart has been wearing prog. bifocals for about 5 years now.
At first they were very disorienting. After a few flights and after figuring
out the head motions required when wearing them, I now belong to the "I
won't fly without 'em" crowd.
__________________
Socata TB-20 Trinidad

[Cub Driver]

On 2 Jun 2006 14:59:49 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
>from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals.

I assume you mean progressive glasses, since I've been told it's no
longer possible to get a progressive bifocal section, at least not in
plastic.

Progressive lenses are great if you need them. If you wear glasses as
a youth, you'll need bifocals in middle age, and you'll need "computer
glasses" when you're old. (I have bifocal everyday glasses in which
the bifocal section is set for 14-18 inches out. I'm using them at the
computer now. I also have bifocal reading glasses, in which the top is
for the computer and the bottom for reading.)

If it's just to get rid of the line, that's a vanity issue. For me,
the great thing about progressive lenses or sections was that it
enabled me to see clearly not only at reading distance but also at
computer/dashboard distance.

In fact, I first got progressive lenses when I began taking flying
lessons. It was just too embarrassing to keep asking the instructor
which instrument on the panel was the altimeter.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 2 Jun 2006 15:11:16 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Thus, removing my glasses
>has become my preferred way of viewing sectionals, but that makes
>maintaining any kind of a scan (inside OR out) impossible.

I once knew a guy who had Ben Franklin glasses, distance vision high
up, nothing below.

(Not clear glass! He read beneath the wire frame, or maybe they were
frameless.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Roy Smith]

In article <bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.

Amen, brother, but it sure beats the alternative!

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21...
>> How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
>> trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?
>
> Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just progressive lenses, either.
>
> How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've got your near-vision corrective lenses on
> the bottom of your glasses? It would seem nearly impossible?
>
> Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Well, it helps to have a high wing plane! ;-)

Actually, never had an issue with looking straight down. Like you pointed out, I will sometimes flip my glasses upside
down when working under the plane or similar.

[Jay Honeck]

> I assume you mean progressive glasses, since I've been told it's no
> longer possible to get a progressive bifocal section, at least not in
> plastic.

??

What is/was the difference?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Farris]

In article <bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21>,
says...
>

>
>Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just
>progressive lenses, either.
>
>How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
>got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses? It
>would seem nearly impossible?
>

No big trick - you just move your neck a few more degrees than you would
have perviously - you get used to it and you won't even notice it.

I use progressives when flying and driving, and they do not make me sick or
uncomfortable. I am "moderately" nearsighted, and can read the charts and
panel easily with no correction. The panel is just at the distance where a
slight correction is beneficial though. I find the progressives to be a good
solution - but do take the precaution to get them fitted right. Bring a
sectional with you to the optician, and sit in your pilot's posture with the
chart on your knee, or wherever you use it, and get your "close" correction
set for that. This is a bit different from the way they will set them if you
don't tell them anything specific, and it will make all the difference.

I completely agree with those who say you have to learn how to walk again -
and you should make your first steps carefully, and avoid curbs etc.

If you are very style-concious, you will be appalled by the unstylish frames
the progressives require, because it is not possible to make them effectively
in the tiny little sliver-lenses that all cool people are wearing today. You
will become persona non grata in the chic bars of Iowa City!

GF

[Ronald Gardner]

Jay,

I see this has prompted allot of response (more than I will read), so I'll
just tell you this. I went to these for the same reasons a few years ago.
I do not have any problems. How ever in my case I can actually read a
sectional better with out any glasses. I often need to take them off to
read the airport information.

Ron Gardner

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>> Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
>> balking at the idea.
>
>For good reason, IMHO.
>
>I don't care if the "bad" result rate is only .1%. I do not want to be the
>one in a thousand that gets worse vision out of the deal, or bad enough
>vision that you could never fly again.
>
>Glasses are not that bad, once you get accustomed to them. I'll keep mine,

I asked my eye-doctor about this, and his response was very pragmatic.
He said the "primary" risk was probably low enough to be acceptable, because
even though flying is important to me, not doing it any more would not be a
career loss issue. But, he said, I have over 30 years of normal life
expectancy left, and we have something like 20 years clinical experience
with this procedure, which to him makes it an unacceptable risk to benefit
ratio (because glasses are a relatively painless and effective alternative).

GF

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In article >, says...
>
>>
>>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>>Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
>>>balking at the idea.
>>
>>For good reason, IMHO.
>>
>>I don't care if the "bad" result rate is only .1%. I do not want to be the
>>one in a thousand that gets worse vision out of the deal, or bad enough
>>vision that you could never fly again.
>>
>>Glasses are not that bad, once you get accustomed to them. I'll keep mine,
>
>
> I asked my eye-doctor about this, and his response was very pragmatic.
> He said the "primary" risk was probably low enough to be acceptable, because
> even though flying is important to me, not doing it any more would not be a
> career loss issue. But, he said, I have over 30 years of normal life
> expectancy left, and we have something like 20 years clinical experience
> with this procedure, which to him makes it an unacceptable risk to benefit
> ratio (because glasses are a relatively painless and effective alternative).

That is pretty much the same logic I've used as well. Maybe it is too
conservative, but I'd hate to find out after 20-30 years (when I'm in my
late 60s to 70s) that there is some nasty side effect of this surgery.


Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Jun 2006 14:59:49 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>::

>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
>sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
>some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
>dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)

Well, at least you're getting wiser. :-)

>So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
>from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
>I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
>viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
>distance).

The main drawback of progressive lenses compared to trifocals, is the
narrow, vertical, corrected viewing area of all but the distance
correction at the top. (Did the optician show you a diagram of the
portion of the lenses where the correction is?) This forces you to
turn your head and point your nose at what you want to see in the
close/medium range. It seems you're always nodding up and down to
make sure you're looking through the best spot for the distance you
want to see. You do that with trifocals also, but you know when
you've transitioned from one zone to another.

>So, I ordered them.
>
>Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
>progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
>thanks to the eternally variable prescription!

I didn't suffer nausea, but I found trifocals far superior for IFR
operation. Just have the middle zone made wider (top to bottom) and
raised a few millimeters.

Beware. Polarized lenses will make it difficult for you to read LCD
displays.

Nikon polycarbonate transition lenses are light weight and very
scratch resistant. However, expect the windscreen to block enough UV
to impair the darkining while flying/driving.

Consider two pair of glasses, Trifocals with a magnetic clip-on sun
glasses for combined night and day flying use use, and progressive
transitions for casual ware. That way you can cater to your vanity
without impacting your airmanship.

[john smith]

> > Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.

> Amen, brother, but it sure beats the alternative!

Yep. I was a pallbearer for my uncle yesterday. Looking down through my
progressive lenses, I couldn't find the correct section of the lense to
focus on the grass. So as I was walking I was moving my head slightly up
and down until the grass came into focus.

[john smith]

My motivation for finally getting bifocals was not being able to read
the small print on approach charts at night.

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Like Steve said, get it fixed before OSH or Mary goes for #2. Heck, she
>>deserves a simple approach after last year.
>
>
> Well, I'll have 'em in a day or two. We'll see how they go.
>
> I'm flying in to OSH this year, come hell or high water. I can't let Mary
> have all the fun two years in a row!
>
> ;-)

Ah, the joys of two pilots, one plane. I have a feeling Steve's first
OSH arrival will be in the RV-6a. I'll be the cargo plane and will be
peddling as fast as I can to try and keep up. :-)



--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Roy Smith]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> My motivation for finally getting bifocals was not being able to read
> the small print on approach charts at night.

These days, of course, you can solve that by downloading the PDFs and
printing them any size you want!

[john smith]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
> > My motivation for finally getting bifocals was not being able to read
> > the small print on approach charts at night.

> These days, of course, you can solve that by downloading the PDFs and
> printing them any size you want!

That's true, but when you don't know where you are going in the first
place, it is difficult to know where you will end up. :-))

[skym]

> Beware. Polarized lenses will make it difficult for you to read LCD
> displays.
>
>Boy, you can say that again!! When I got my Stormscope WX900, I was about to take it back, until I looked at it without my shades on. Al though I've read that polarized lens are not good for pilots anyway. I assume that 's because they attenuate the glint off other planes in your scan.

[Marc CYBW]

Hi jay,

I'm on my second set of progressives.

The first had a relatively large (say 30%) portion for reading and the rest
for distance.

Last year, I happened to change optometrists and it turns out the new doctor
is also a pilot. We got to discussing progressives and he asked me if had
problems with flares and touch downs. After I admitted I did, he attributed
it to the fact that at a stall angle I was actually viewing the runway with
the top edge of the reading portion of my glasses. So, he prescribed and
built a pilot's version of progressives with a very small portion for
reading things on your lap and panel. VOILA! Big improvement.

I'm still using them and they are excellent.

Marc


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Last year, I happened to change optometrists and it turns out the new doctor
> is also a pilot. We got to discussing progressives and he asked me if had
> problems with flares and touch downs. After I admitted I did, he attributed
> it to the fact that at a stall angle I was actually viewing the runway with
> the top edge of the reading portion of my glasses. So, he prescribed and
> built a pilot's version of progressives with a very small portion for
> reading things on your lap and panel. VOILA! Big improvement.

Cool! I'll have a new excuse for lousy landings!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> My A&P just flips his glasses upside down, when he's working under the
> panel.
>
> He looks silly, but it works for him!

Not good, when you have a lot of astigmatism in one eye, and none in the
other!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

>> Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.
>
> Amen, brother, but it sure beats the alternative!

My grandpa used to say, "getting old isn't for sissies!"
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

> Last year, I happened to change optometrists and it turns out the new doctor
> is also a pilot. We got to discussing progressives and he asked me if had
> problems with flares and touch downs. After I admitted I did, he attributed
> it to the fact that at a stall angle I was actually viewing the runway with
> the top edge of the reading portion of my glasses. So, he prescribed and
> built a pilot's version of progressives with a very small portion for
> reading things on your lap and panel. VOILA! Big improvement.

Choosing your optometrist/opthomologist an important consideration.
Richard Collins of FLYING magazine wrote about getting propperly fitted
bifocals back in the late 80's/early 90's.
He too, recommends finding one who is a pilot or familiar with aviation.
Collins focal length fell in the distance to the panel range. So much so
that he had several pairs of glasses made up for different panel
distances. This because he was actively flight testing/reviewing
aircraft for the articles he was writing for the magazine.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ze6gg.760313$084.313320@attbi_s22...
>> How about contact lenses (for distant vision) plus reading glasses that
>> you can perch on your nose to read the charts.
>
> I wore contacts for 10 years, and grew to really hate the routine, as well
> as what hay fever, dust, and air conditioning did to my eyes while wearing
> them.

How long ago was that? Today's lenses are much more oxygen-permeable. For
many people, the "routine" now consists of wearing the lenses for a week,
taking them out, throwing them away, and putting in a new pair.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> If you are very style-concious, you will be appalled by the unstylish
> frames
> the progressives require, because it is not possible to make them
> effectively
> in the tiny little sliver-lenses that all cool people are wearing today.
> You
> will become persona non grata in the chic bars of Iowa City!

That happened the moment we moved to Iowa City!

Must be the big floppy "EAA" hat, clip-on sunglasses, and graying beard, eh?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> I wore contacts for 10 years, and grew to really hate the routine, as
>> well as what hay fever, dust, and air conditioning did to my eyes while
>> wearing them.
>
> How long ago was that? Today's lenses are much more oxygen-permeable. For
> many people, the "routine" now consists of wearing the lenses for a week,
> taking them out, throwing them away, and putting in a new pair.

Over 10 years ago. Erg...gad. More like 20! Dang, how does this keep
happening to me? What seems like last week is now in the 1980s!

Anyway, I've spoken with folks about the new contacts, and how wonderful it
is to just throw them away when they get uncomfortable. It all sounds much
better than when I wore them.

But I still don't want to mess with them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:09:11 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
>> trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?
>
>Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just
>progressive lenses, either.
>
>How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
>got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses? It
>would seem nearly impossible?

Like Bob's, the bifocal (bottom) portion of my glasses only covers
about 2/3 of that area. It starts at the inside and that leaves about
a 1/3 on the outside edge ground for distance. That's handy when
landing as my peripheral vision is still effective.

I tried the progressive's and after 3 weeks I still hadn't been able
to get used to them. I was flying a lot back then and ended up coming
back at night. When I pulled the nose up in the flare I saw three
runways. The glasses ended up in the back seat real quick. Being that
I was wearing the big Telex headset at the time I thought they took my
ears with them.

Prior to 45 my vision was better than average and I thought something
was wrong when it went to 20/20. Unfortunately it kept on changing.
At first I only needed glasses for distance, but after 4 or 5 years I
needed glasses for near and far vision. Now my distance vision is
back to normal or slightly better than normal. Unfortunately I still
need glasses for near vision.

As to whether to go with blended, progressive, or bifocals I think
pretty much depends on the individual.

I also wear photo-gray (TM) glasses/bifocals which work very well.
I tried the "Transitions"(TM), but they wouldn't get dark in the
plane.

I usually "condition" a new pair of photo-gray or Transitions by
setting them out in direct sunlight for a few hours to a full
afternoon. My current pair were "conditioned" right at the doc's
office using an ultraviolet lamp.

>
>Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.

A true sign that you are getting old is when it's your back that's
stiff in the morning.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:31:45 -0400, gyoung > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
>> progressives totally suck,

<snip>

>I chose bifocals (a few years ago), and as my eyes 'hardened up' I went
>even to trifocals. I did have to play with the location of the 'lines'
>since that equates to the vertical angle where the correction changes.

I tried the tri-focals, but hated them with a passion. I do too many
things and the lines were never in the right place. After a couple
weeks I told them I wanted to go back to bi-focals. It only took a
couple days to get used to the bi-focals. I was never able to make the
blended bifocals work for me, but it was the tri-focals that were by
far the most aggravating.

>
>I'm very pleased with 'lined' bifocals and now trifocals (I've required
>glasses since I was 14, almost 50 years now, so I was already accustomed
>to the limitations spectacles impose).

You youngsters just adapt faster than those of us who have been around
for a while. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>george

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:58:33 -0400, Roger >
wrote in >::

>I also wear photo-gray (TM) glasses/bifocals which work very well.
>I tried the "Transitions"(TM), but they wouldn't get dark in the
>plane.

There are tradeoffs. Transitions will change from/to color/clear
almost instantly.

[Big John]

Jay

Got a pair of progressive and they made me sick. I could cock my head
from side to side and felt like I was on Ocean Liner in heavy seas.

I also had trouble walking up and down steps with the change of height
of each step.

My solution was to get trifocals.

Top - distant vision.
Middle - instrument panel
and
bottom - map reading.

Had lines set so I could fly instruments without moving my head and
getting vertigo.

Got cataracts taken out so now only use bifocals.

Real life story about what I did to see as I grew older.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````


On 2 Jun 2006 14:59:49 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>ls?
>Date: 2 Jun 2006 14:59:49 -0700

[Big John]

Jay

Just tilt your head like you do if your not wearing any glasses to
look straight down.

How often do you do that flying straight and level? If you have
problem just bank the plane.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:09:11 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Bifocals

[Roger]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:23:57 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:58:33 -0400, Roger >
>wrote in >::
>
>>I also wear photo-gray (TM) glasses/bifocals which work very well.
>>I tried the "Transitions"(TM), but they wouldn't get dark in the
>>plane.
>
>There are tradeoffs. Transitions will change from/to color/clear
>almost instantly.

They must have changed the formula as of a couple years ago I really
didn't notice much difference other than they wouldn't change at all
in the plane or car.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ross Richardson]

I have been wearing soft contacts for 20 years now and it is generally 2
minutes in the morning and 3 minutes in the evening. I really have no
problems. Not enough to think about Lasik, PRK, and all the others.
However, I like the idea of progressive reading glasses. I buy mine at
Sam's Club. The 3 for $15.00. Not bad. But they are great for my
everyday work and reading charts. The panel is a little farther away and
night viewing is more difficult. Actually, I got a pair of 'lighter'
reading glasses for computer work, because the screen is further away
when my posture is not appropriately set in my chair. But, I have to
keep switching glasses/

Ross

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>I wore contacts for 10 years, and grew to really hate the routine, as
>>>well as what hay fever, dust, and air conditioning did to my eyes while
>>>wearing them.
>>
>>How long ago was that? Today's lenses are much more oxygen-permeable. For
>>many people, the "routine" now consists of wearing the lenses for a week,
>>taking them out, throwing them away, and putting in a new pair.
>
>
> Over 10 years ago. Erg...gad. More like 20! Dang, how does this keep
> happening to me? What seems like last week is now in the 1980s!
>
> Anyway, I've spoken with folks about the new contacts, and how wonderful it
> is to just throw them away when they get uncomfortable. It all sounds much
> better than when I wore them.
>
> But I still don't want to mess with them.

[Randy Aldous]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses.


Jay - I ended up with bifocals after enjoying a couple of years that I
technically didn't even need glasses - after needing them to see
farther than about 6 ft, for about the last 30+ years. Even passed the
driver's license "eye exam" without them the last time around. So it
was a bit of a change, to say the least, to go the bifocal route. I,
too, picked the progressive lens.

Be prepared to get accustomed to them for a week or three or more.
Going back to your old pair "just for this one thing..." will just make
it take longer to get used to the new ones.

The first time I walked out of the eye doctor's office with them on, I
just about got motion sickness (and I am not one prone to such things.)
- every horizontal line, from sidewalk curb to dashboard in my truck
appeared curved and varied in curvature as I moved my head. The
curvature distortion went mostly away (still can see it, if I look, but
I think my brain has built a "filter" for it for the most part.)

Periphial vision is still fuzzy - I have to turn my head way farther to
the right or left and adjust the elevation of my head to make out
detail to the side. I am not a pilot (wish I were....) but just the
simple act of looking at my gps mounted on top of my truck dash tells
me that I wouldn't want to fly a plane with this particular pair of
glasses.

I expressed these concerns to my eye doctor, who said that next time,
he'll adjust the ratio of near to far lens and how fast they
transition, to address my complaints.

You may have a completely different experience, so I relate my
experience so you won;t be surprised if things look strange.

Best Regards,

Randy

[Jay Honeck]

> Periphial vision is still fuzzy - I have to turn my head way farther to
> the right or left and adjust the elevation of my head to make out
> detail to the side.

Thanks, Randy -- but this doesn't make sense to me. The "progressive"
part of the reading lens starts below the half-way point down the lens
-- so why would they have ANY effect on peripheral vision?

Well, unless you're looking down, I suppose?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Periphial vision is still fuzzy - I have to turn my head way farther to
>>the right or left and adjust the elevation of my head to make out
>>detail to the side.
>
>
> Thanks, Randy -- but this doesn't make sense to me. The "progressive"
> part of the reading lens starts below the half-way point down the lens
> -- so why would they have ANY effect on peripheral vision?
>
> Well, unless you're looking down, I suppose?

Jay, I'm not Randy, but I'll reply as I have progressive lenses. Mine
don't have the prescription in the bottom uniformly across the bottom as
with more conventional bifocals. The different presecription is more of
a circular shape and things read through the lower half of the lens are
only clear if nearly centered in the lens. The prescription on the elft
and right sides of the lower halves of my lens is about the same as the
prescription on the top half of the lens. So, my peripheral vision,
whether looking through the top half or the bottom half, is through my
distance prescription.


Matt

[vincent p. norris]

>Over 10 years ago. Erg...gad. More like 20! Dang, how does this keep
>happening to me?

Jay, you wan't to keep that happening to you! As long as it keeps
happening, you 're alive. When it stops happening, you got a problem.

vince norris

[Randy Aldous]

Jay,

Poked around and found these links - seemed to have some good
explaination....


http://www.allaboutvision.com/over40/progressive.htm

http://www.eyeglasses.com/progressive_lenses.page
(Scroll down aways. Gets into how to read a prescription, too.)

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/f-51.html
(way more info than you or I need, but skimming though some of the
posts, I learned there are many different types of progressive lenses
and they all have their pros and cons. (high-wing vs. low-wing/ side
stick vs. yoke kind of thing...)

FWIW

Randy

[Prime]

"Jay Honeck" > posted the exciting message
oups.com:

> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
>
> So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
> from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
> I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
> viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
> distance).
>
> So, I ordered them.
>
> Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
> progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
> thanks to the eternally variable prescription!
>
> So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
> you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
> LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
> them, yet), so I can change my mind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

I got my first pair a few years ago. I found them nauseating. I put them
away and continued to do without for a year or so. Then I got another
pair, thinking the first pair had been made wrong. I adjusted after a few
days, and even found that the original pair was OK. I've been wearing
them for about 3 years and they are fine. I fly with them so I can see
the charts and distance.

Moral (at least for me) - you can adjust but you may find them difficult
at first. Stick with them.

[Jay Honeck]

Great stuff, Randy -- thanks.

I guess I don't understand this part:
************************************************** *******************************
Progressive lens design
In order to create a no-line progressive lens, there are two large areas of
the lens that you cannot see through. Imagine what an hourglass looks like.
This is the shape of the area of the progressive lens that you can see
through. Objects seen through the areas of the lens to the left and right of
the narrow middle section are highly distorted and you cannot see through
them.

************************************************** *******************************

Why would the areas to the left and right of the middle section be "highly
distorted"? Why aren't those areas simply made to your "distance"
prescription?

Any eye doctors here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roy Smith]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Great stuff, Randy -- thanks.
>
>I guess I don't understand this part:
>************************************************** *******************************
>Progressive lens design
>In order to create a no-line progressive lens, there are two large areas of
>the lens that you cannot see through. Imagine what an hourglass looks like.
>This is the shape of the area of the progressive lens that you can see
>through. Objects seen through the areas of the lens to the left and right of
>the narrow middle section are highly distorted and you cannot see through
>them.
>
>************************************************** *******************************
>
>Why would the areas to the left and right of the middle section be "highly
>distorted"? Why aren't those areas simply made to your "distance"
>prescription?

I don't fully understand the optics, but that's exactly what my
optician (who's a fellow pilot) explained to me, and when I got my
progressives, that's exactly what I experienced. I couldn't stand it,
and had him re-make the lenses as lined bifocals (which I'm still
struggling to get used to).

[Cary Mariash]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Great stuff, Randy -- thanks.
>
> I guess I don't understand this part:
> ************************************************** *******************************
> Progressive lens design
> In order to create a no-line progressive lens, there are two large areas of
> the lens that you cannot see through. Imagine what an hourglass looks like.
> This is the shape of the area of the progressive lens that you can see
> through. Objects seen through the areas of the lens to the left and right of
> the narrow middle section are highly distorted and you cannot see through
> them.
>
> ************************************************** *******************************
>
> Why would the areas to the left and right of the middle section be "highly
> distorted"? Why aren't those areas simply made to your "distance"
> prescription?
>
> Any eye doctors here?
Jay, I have stayed out of this subject but thought that I would now add
some of my experience if you are still considering progressives. I
started with bifocals but after a few years tried progressives. I found
them to be better (for me) than the bifocals. About 8 months ago I got a
new prescription and had the lenses made at LensCrafters. They never
worked very well (the hour glass was too narrow and so peripheral vision
was very restricted). I had a new pair made, but this time I told them
to use Varilux lenses and not their in house brand (my initial
progressives were Varilux). I am now happy again with my new
progressives. There was a recent article (Aviation Consumer Volume 36,
Number 2, 2006) that discussed the differences between the lens
manufacturers of progressive lenses, and offered their opinion about
which lenses to get.

Cary

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>Great stuff, Randy -- thanks.
>>
>>I guess I don't understand this part:
>>************************************************** *******************************
>>Progressive lens design
>>In order to create a no-line progressive lens, there are two large areas of
>>the lens that you cannot see through. Imagine what an hourglass looks like.
>>This is the shape of the area of the progressive lens that you can see
>>through. Objects seen through the areas of the lens to the left and right of
>>the narrow middle section are highly distorted and you cannot see through
>>them.
>>
>>************************************************** *******************************
>>
>>Why would the areas to the left and right of the middle section be "highly
>>distorted"? Why aren't those areas simply made to your "distance"
>>prescription?
>
>
> I don't fully understand the optics, but that's exactly what my
> optician (who's a fellow pilot) explained to me, and when I got my
> progressives, that's exactly what I experienced. I couldn't stand it,
> and had him re-make the lenses as lined bifocals (which I'm still
> struggling to get used to).

The above certainly does NOT describe my progressives.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>>Great stuff, Randy -- thanks.
>>>
>>>I guess I don't understand this part:
>>>************************************************** *******************************
>>>Progressive lens design
>>>In order to create a no-line progressive lens, there are two large areas
>>>of the lens that you cannot see through. Imagine what an hourglass looks
>>>like. This is the shape of the area of the progressive lens that you can
>>>see through. Objects seen through the areas of the lens to the left and
>>>right of the narrow middle section are highly distorted and you cannot
>>>see through them.
>>>
>>>************************************************** *******************************
>>>
>>>Why would the areas to the left and right of the middle section be
>>>"highly distorted"? Why aren't those areas simply made to your
>>>"distance" prescription?
>>
>>
>> I don't fully understand the optics, but that's exactly what my
>> optician (who's a fellow pilot) explained to me, and when I got my
>> progressives, that's exactly what I experienced. I couldn't stand it,
>> and had him re-make the lenses as lined bifocals (which I'm still
>> struggling to get used to).
>
> The above certainly does NOT describe my progressives.
>
> Matt

It does not apply to the dozens of progressives I have had over the decades
either. Sounds like another OWT. Maybe they need to reconsider where they
purchase their eye wear.

[Jay Honeck]

> them to be better (for me) than the bifocals. About 8 months ago I got a
> new prescription and had the lenses made at LensCrafters. They never
> worked very well (the hour glass was too narrow and so peripheral vision
> was very restricted). I had a new pair made, but this time I told them to
> use Varilux lenses and not their in house brand (my initial progressives
> were Varilux). I am now happy again with my new progressives.

Thanks, Cary. My family has used Lenscrafters for many years, but they DO
have a problem with quality control.

A couple of prescriptions back, they made a lens that had a "wave" in it
that drove me nuts. I eventually had them re-make it. My current glasses
came in earlier this week, but one of the lenses was scratched, so they are
re-making it. (They discovered this before I did, thankfully.)

Of course, given all the glasses they have made for us over the years (we
now ALL wear prescription glasses, with Mary "joining the fun" with her
reading glasses), that's a small -- but measurable -- number.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

Just thought I'd chime in with what I do... I am nearsighted,
astigmatic, and now presbyopic (the old man's eye problem :)

I have a single vision (distance) lens in my left eye (I fly from the
left seat) and a bifocal in the right eye, with the line 2 mm lower than
usual, to read my charts with. This has worked well for a few years,
but now I may need to move the line up so I can read my instrument
panel. The bifocal is just a +1 or so - whatever the least amount they
can put in is. I tried higher amounts but they don't work for me since
I don't like the different sized views I get from each lens (the bifocal
part gives a bigger image).

One optometrist would absolutely not fill my prescription - he didn't
think it was "a good idea". My wife also had a problem with some
glasses she bought (wavy distortions) and he absolutely would not
believe her, nor would he look through the lens himself. Alas, he died a
week later and we got everything straightened out.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> One optometrist would absolutely not fill my prescription - he didn't
> think it was "a good idea". My wife also had a problem with some glasses
> she bought (wavy distortions) and he absolutely would not believe her, nor
> would he look through the lens himself. Alas, he died a week later and we
> got everything straightened out.

A harsh, but effective, way to clear up a customer service problem... :-)

Well, I'm typing this whilst looking through my new "progressive" lenses.
So far, I am VERY impressed. I have both sharpened my distance vision (the
doc "tweaked" that prescription a notch for me) *and* I can now see up
close.

No nausea or vertigo noted. Going up and down steps is fine. The only
unusual thing I've noted is this:

When sitting at my desk (or a table -- something with a straight edge for
reference), if I look down through the "close" vision part of the lenses
whilst turning my head from side to side, I can make the table "rock" up and
down, back and forth. It's rather disconcerting (and sorta fun, in small
doses), but the effect goes away when I focus through the "distance" part of
the lens -- so I don't anticipate that this will cause me any undo problems.

Thus -- other than my lenses being FAR too thick (like, half again thicker
than my former lenses, supposedly due to the "frameless" style Mary selected
for me) I like 'em a lot!

Thanks to everyone for the input -- it's been very educational.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
> Just thought I'd chime in with what I do... I am nearsighted, astigmatic,
> and now presbyopic (the old man's eye problem :)
>
> I have a single vision (distance) lens in my left eye (I fly from the left
> seat) and a bifocal in the right eye, with the line 2 mm lower than usual,
> to read my charts with. This has worked well for a few years, but now I
> may need to move the line up so I can read my instrument panel. The
> bifocal is just a +1 or so - whatever the least amount they can put in is.
> I tried higher amounts but they don't work for me since I don't like the
> different sized views I get from each lens (the bifocal part gives a
> bigger image).
>
>
> Jose
> --
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article <yY4ig.1012801$xm3.53417@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Thus -- other than my lenses being FAR too thick (like, half again thicker
> than my former lenses, supposedly due to the "frameless" style Mary selected
> for me) I like 'em a lot!

My wife's vision is so bad, I have to go with her to pick out the frames
because she cannot see what she looks like without lenses in the bare
frames.
So that I don't have to hear:
"What were you thinking when you picked these frames for me?"
We now have a digital camera solve that problem.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I have reading glasses (now mandated by my medical...) that have relatively
>> small frames and are very light in weight. When I need them, I simply put
>> them on over my sunglasses and just slip them down my nose to where I look
>> over them to scan outside and can just glance down to read something.
>
>I don't think that's an option for me, as I am incredibly near-sighted.
> I need glasses on ALL the time for distance -- so swapping (or adding)
>glasses in the plane really wouldn't help the situation.
>
>It's really frustrating, as I've got excellent close-vision -- with a
>focal length of about 6 inches from my nose. Thus, removing my glasses
>has become my preferred way of viewing sectionals, but that makes
>maintaining any kind of a scan (inside OR out) impossible.

That sounds a lot like my eyes.

My current glasses are my first bifocals, and I got progressive lenses.
My opthalmologist recommended that I get the mid-grade Varilux lens,
whose model name I can neither recall nor discover. I spend about $300
on the lenses themselves.

I still look over the top for really close work, but the lenses worked
exceptionally well for me. It took mere seconds to adjust to them,
although your mileage may vary. The lower corners of the lenses are
where the correction is imperfect, but I don't find it to be a problem.
Neither do I have problems working at the computer. The far correction
is sufficient for my normal screen viewing distance, so I don't need
to play "lean my head back" games to read the screen.

I suspect that you will find these lenses will take care of your
vision woes without too much pain. You don't want to scrimp on the
lenses, though.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

[Jay Honeck]

> I suspect that you will find these lenses will take care of your
> vision woes without too much pain. You don't want to scrimp on the
> lenses, though.

So far, so good. No nausea, and I'm really liking being able to read stuff
without taking my glasses off again...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
> sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
> some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
> dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)
> '
Jay,

I've had progressives for a couple of years now. I have to wear
glasses to pass the distance part of my medical. I can actually
read the charts just fine if I don't look through the glasses.
However, raising them everytime I wanted to look was getting
to be a pain.

The key to the progressives (and probably any bifocal) and
flying is to make sure they set the "line" at the right point.
The first pair I have are set way too low. The second optician
and eye spent some more time tweaking that and they are much
better.

[JJS]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
> I've had progressives for a couple of years now. I have to wear
> glasses to pass the distance part of my medical. I can actually
> read the charts just fine if I don't look through the glasses.
> However, raising them everytime I wanted to look was getting
> to be a pain.
>
> The key to the progressives (and probably any bifocal) and
> flying is to make sure they set the "line" at the right point.
> The first pair I have are set way too low. The second optician
> and eye spent some more time tweaking that and they are much
> better.
>
This has been my experience as well. I tried progressives and didn't like them due to the blurred peripheral vision
that others mentioned. It was especially evident while driving and was very distracting. I went to the lined
bifocals for a year, then gave the progressives another shot with the line moved up. It made all the difference in
the world. Wouldn't go back for nothing,

Joe Schneider
N8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jay Honeck]

>> I've had progressives for a couple of years now. I have to wear
>> glasses to pass the distance part of my medical. I can actually
>> read the charts just fine if I don't look through the glasses.
>> However, raising them everytime I wanted to look was getting
>> to be a pain.

I have had NO problems adjusting to the progressives, from the very first
moment I got them last week.

Yet others complain of nausea, blurry peripheral vision, etc. Why?

I think I've got it figured out. MY eyes are so bad, distance-vision-wise,
that the "reading" glass portion of my new glasses is really just a weaker
"distance-vision lens", rather than a true "reading glass" lens.
Basically, the lower part of my new glasses is probably the same
prescription as my old distance glasses, circa 1985 -- and they simply allow
me to see the charts farther away than 6 inches from my nose.

This contrasts sharply with Mary, who has perfect distance vision, and
really needs "reading" glasses to force her eyes to focus up-close. I
think it is these folks who have great difficulty with the progressives,
since the lens is basically going from "clear glass" to "magnifying
glass" -- causing great distortion in their peripheral vision at the
"edges".

Guys like me simply have a slightly weaker correction at the bottom of my
lens, and that is not such a dramatic, vision-altering distortion.

Make sense?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> The key to the progressives (and probably any bifocal) and
>> flying is to make sure they set the "line" at the right point.
>> The first pair I have are set way too low. The second optician
>> and eye spent some more time tweaking that and they are much
>> better.
>>
> This has been my experience as well. I tried progressives and didn't like
> them due to the blurred peripheral vision that others mentioned. It was
> especially evident while driving and was very distracting. I went to the
> lined bifocals for a year, then gave the progressives another shot with
> the line moved up. It made all the difference in the world. Wouldn't go
> back for nothing,
>
> Joe Schneider
> N8437R
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[john smith]

In article <Ykzjg.29543$No1.28903@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I think I've got it figured out. MY eyes are so bad, distance-vision-wise,
> that the "reading" glass portion of my new glasses is really just a weaker
> "distance-vision lens", rather than a true "reading glass" lens.
> Basically, the lower part of my new glasses is probably the same
> prescription as my old distance glasses, circa 1985 -- and they simply allow
> me to see the charts farther away than 6 inches from my nose.

Lucky you!
My left eye is farsighted, my right eye is nearsighted.
No way I can flip my glasses upside down as some suggested. :-))

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote

> Lucky you!
> My left eye is farsighted, my right eye is nearsighted.
> No way I can flip my glasses upside down as some suggested. :-))

You might have missed one of my posts on the need for close up work while
looking out of the top of your glasses.

There is actually a type of lens made that has your close-up prescription on
the bottom, *and* the top, for when you can not see your work by looking out
of the bottom of your lens. There is even a name for this configuration,
but I do not remember what it is.
--
Jim in NC