Progressive lenses OK for pilots?

[skyfish]

I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
let alone the bottom part.

2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
are far enough apart to require a head turn.

3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
will be out of focus.

4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
looking out the window or at my instruments.

Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[Dave Stadt]

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I don't leave home without them. Haven't since they became available. They
beat the bi/tri focal alternative all to heck. I have none of the problems
you mention. Sounds like you have a lousy set of optics.

[Greg Farris]

You say you "want to try" progressives, then you list a series of disadvantages
that are of concern to you. It is not clear (to me) whether you already use
progressives, and you want to try them in flying, or if the disadvantages you
list are simply things you have heard, or are wondering about.

You will hear many opinions for and against, so it's a personal issue. For my
part, I use them in flying and driving, and I find them to be a good solution
to the near/far requirement of VFR flying (charts/distant view). I am not
bothered by any of the specific concerns you list.

Two things though : Apparently there are significant differences in quality of
products available, and this affects the size of the "useful" area. Get good
progressives, and don't go for tiny little sliver lenses to look cool - it's
impossible to make good progressives with these lens shapes.

Secondly, it does not appear to be your case, but it's probably not a good idea
to learn to fly and to learn to wear progressives at the same time. This will
slow down the expensive training, because progressives take a significant
amount of getting used to. Just WALKING the first time can be an experience!

I am moderately myopic. I don't wear glasses for reading, and I read the
instrument panel comfortably without glasses. I need glasses to drive or fly
safely (though I do practice landings, with safety pilot, without glasses as
well). For me, progressives are an excellent solution, because, like you I
would otherwise have to take my glasses of to easily read a chart on my knee.

GF

[Greg B]

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.

My personal experience:
After almost 48 years, I finally had to get glasses. I can see at distance
fine but anything closer than about 3 feet, I can't focus on. I tried the
no-line bifocals (progressives?) for about a month but couldn't get use to
them. The field of view (in focus) was narrow and I had to turn my head more
than I was use to. I did try flying with them and didn't have any problems
with reading charts, gauges, scanning for traffic or landing...

I took the no-line bifocals back and got regular tri-focals now and they
work great, for me, for reading, working on the computers, driving and
flying. The top major part of these trifocals is mostly clear. The first
magnification works well for reading the computer monitors at about arms
length. The bottom is for reading closer up.

-Greg B.

[J. Severyn]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> snip
> Two things though : Apparently there are significant differences in
> quality of
> products available, and this affects the size of the "useful" area. Get
> good
> progressives, and don't go for tiny little sliver lenses to look cool -
> it's
> impossible to make good progressives with these lens shapes.
>
> snip
> GF
>

I've been using progressives for close to 20 years (pilot for 23 years). I
tried bifocals about 10 years ago (bought a set of progressives and a set of
bifocals with the same hi-lo focal lengths). I wore the bifocals for about
2 hours and went back to the progressives immediately. I do agree with
Greg: It is impossible to get good progressive performance if the lenses are
small in the vertical dimension. The change in focal length over the
diameter of the pupil is just too great....and my eyes cannot adjust. So
just avoid the short vertical lenses.

My 2cents,
John Severyn
@KLVK

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:01:29 -0600, Greg B wrote:
> I took the no-line bifocals back and got regular tri-focals now and they
> work great, for me, for reading, working on the computers, driving and
> flying. The top major part of these trifocals is mostly clear. The first
> magnification works well for reading the computer monitors at about arms
> length. The bottom is for reading closer up.

It kind of depends upon your prescription and what your typical viewing
tasks might be... I had the progressives on my last prescription... The
problem that I encountered was that the prescription needed for looking at
a computer monitor was down towards the bottom of the lenses and as such,
I would spend most of the day with my head tilted back... For me, this
tended to result in a strain in the neck muscles towards the rear of the
head near the shoulders... I had a large set of lenses, so I had plenty of
glass to work with for the variation in the prescription as it goes
from the top of the lense to the bottom... When you first get them, you
will find your head going up and down as you try to find the sweet spot
for focus... After awhile, you don't notice yourself doing it anymore --
that doesn't mean that you don't do it, but it gets more automatic so you
don't notice it... These days, I have two prescriptions for two sets of
glasses... For one, it is a moderate prescription that is best for
computer monitor distances... For the other, it is for far vision... For
really close vision, I can just take my glasses off and see ok... My
eyesight hasn't gotten so bad that I need a '+' diopter for my near vision
at least... Sometimes I forget and wear the wrong glasses when I'm
driving... Things are a bit more blurry at a distance, but it's better
than not having any glasses on...

One additional thing that I have noticed though is that the older glasses
were better for riding a motorcycle since the larger lenses blocked more
of the wind from hitting your eyes... My new glasses have lenses that are
probably half as high as the previous glasses...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

[mike regish]

I have progressives, but they are for reading. My far vision is fine, but my
arms have gotten shorter over the years. ;-)

The only problem I had at first was, since the bottom of my glasses magnify,
my view of the runway on landing appeared closer than it actually was. I was
flaring too high. Not much, but enough to make a bumpy landing. I also feel
about a foot taller when I take them off.

Yours might be a little more problematic, but I think you will adapt over
time. My brother-in-law has progressive trifocals. Talk about a PITA. You
get used to them after a while.

mike

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>

[Matt Whiting]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I got my progressive lens three years ago. Yes, they are a pain for all
of the reasons you mention, but you get used to them and they aren't a
big limitation for flying. I find them more annoying for general
reading where you are constantly scanning lines in a book or magazine.
Keep in mind that your peripheral vision is typically not very high
acuity anyway and is mostly motion sensitive. I haven't found the
distortion in the periphery to be a big handicap in that regard. I can
still pick up motion in the periphery and then turn to view it.

I do find reading approach charts at night to be more difficult with
these glasses, but then I can still read up close reasonably well
without my glasses so I usually just look over or under them to read the
find details.

It took me several weeks to adapt to the progressives and I still don't
like them much, but I think they are better than the alternatives.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Yours might be a little more problematic, but I think you will adapt over
> time. My brother-in-law has progressive trifocals. Talk about a PITA. You
> get used to them after a while.

He either has trifocals or progressives, but not both. Trifocals have
three distinct lens whereas progressives blend continuously and thus
have theoretically an infinite range of powers.

Matt

[Ron Natalie]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I have exactly the same problem. I have progressive bifocals that
pretty much just take out the distance correction in the near vision
part.

The only problem I have is that the first pair I got had the break point
where the near/far transition occurs in an inconvenient place. You
should find an optician with a clue to set this appropriately.

I've been flying with them for a year now without problems.
My old single vision I'd have to lift up to look at the chart
(and as a matter of fact, I'd put them up on my head when in
IMC (nothing to look at in the distance anyway).

[Ron Natalie]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I have exactly the same problem. I have progressive bifocals that
pretty much just take out the distance correction in the near vision
part.

The only problem I have is that the first pair I got had the break point
where the near/far transition occurs in an inconvenient place. You
should find an optician with a clue to set this appropriately.

I've been flying with them for a year now without problems.
My old single vision I'd have to lift up to look at the chart
(and as a matter of fact, I'd put them up on my head when in
IMC (nothing to look at in the distance anyway).

[Dan Luke]

"skyfish" wrote:

>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens ...

I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
[snip specifics about progressive lenses]

I almost flunked my last medical due to not having bifocals. I finally
went to the eye-doctor and got some, but when I mentioned I am a pilot
he told me he dosen't recommend progressive bifocals for pilots. He
cited several of the concerns you did about distortion of peripheral
vision, etc. I got normal bifocals and have been fine. They do take
some getting used to, not least of which is that I don't have to take
my glasses off to read something. It's a habit that I've been working
at breaking.

Hope that helps,
John Stevens
PP-ASEL

[Bushy Pete]

Instead of progressive lenses, go for normal, old style bifocal lenses. The
progressive style means there is no nasty line to be seen by your friends in
your face, but you loose an area in the lens that has no useful vision for
flying as the lens changes from near to far vision in a gradual change.

See your eye doctor to check your current script and get a set made to suit
the aircraft you like to fly, so you can see the dash and out the window
without turning your head. Measure the distance from your eyes to the dash
to allow your doc to get the distance set right for you. A good eye doc will
do a second check using his test lenses with your eyes set to this distance
rather than just calculating a standard adjustment to the main script. He
will also allow for different positions of the lens for close work and
distance work, for example for me the distance between the centre of the
lens for distance is 64 mm and for close work is 62 mm. Just due to
different angles to the subject. When fitting the new frames they can mark,
with a felt pen, the centre of your eyes on the dummy lens they put in the
display glasses so the prescription lens can be accurately placed when
making them. This method is better than just measuring "inter-ocular
distance", and a decent glasses provider will do this for you.

You want to have normal vision of the outside world and your ASI and Tacho
and so on when you want it without having to change focus with your eyes.
You want to be able to see both without thinking about it so you can easily
control your plane's speed, revs and where it is on landing.

You may want to draw a rough outline of where the dash is on your old pair
of glasses with a whiteboard marker pen which can be rubbed off later. Sit
in your plane and then walk round looking like an idiot with black lines on
your specs. I know I got few funny looks, but the end result has been worth
it. The final glasses were made to suit me and have a small area of close
correction focussed perfectly at the dash and plenty of look outside at the
real world vision.

I also have a pair of close work glasses made for computer work as a full
screen view without any distance correction. Allows me to work the computer
and read the paper easily. I tend to use these for pre-flight planning when
doing lots of map work etc..

A cheap framed second pair of glasses for the cockpit is cheap insurance for
those moments that a screw falls out......

I have the modern antireflection coating and find it helps, and also suggest
you spend the extra $5.00 per lens to have the edges polished as this
reduces the glare around the edge of your vision.

Transition tint lenses that change with the available light help me, but if
you fly a high wing plane (or other with a roof) you won't have as much UV
light that causes the tint to darken, so just like when driving the car,
they won't go to full darkness.

I changed eye docs on a pilot friend's recommendation, and the new one gives
a better script with all his fancy modern gear compared to the previous one
with his fingerprint and dust covered test lenses.

Hope this helps,
Pete

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Edwin Johnson]

On 2006-11-17, skyfish > wrote:

> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would

> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for

> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.

I've had progressive lens for many years now and would never buy anything
else. I fly (VFR and IFR), play the piano and organ, as well as the usually
activities requiring different focal lengths and have no problem with any of
them.

If you wear glasses now, there may be an adjustment period, since your head
must move a very small amount for the correct portion of the lens, but this
will become unnoticed in a short period of time.

However, you should be aware that many companies produce several grades of
these progressive lens. The less expensive lens of several companies reduce
the width of the close focus range which is located at the bottom of the
lens. This might give a problem with the narrow focus range you mentioned.
But the more expensive of the range (I know a company who produces 3
different lens.) widens this area and you notice very little distortion at
the edges. This is a very important point!

The other important point is that they mark the correct pupil distance
before grinding the lens. This, fortunately, is done by most companies with
an electronic device and rather correct. My first pair was done with a
grease pencil and the results were less than favorable!

Some people can't adapt to these lens, as atested by some of the posts here,
but others, like me, really have no problem. Find a company who will
guarantee the lens and will exchange for a standard bi/trifocal set if you
are unsatisfied.

....Edwin
--
__________________________________________________ __________
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return."-da Vinci http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/d/edwinljohnson

[Jose[_1_]]

I have the same problem (lack of accomodation). My solution is to have
a single vision lens (distance) in the left eye, and a bifocal in the
right eye (distance and sort-of-near).

Mainly I want good distance vision. I make a lot of use out of the High
Resolution Wraparound Plexiglass display common to most spam cans, and
distance vision is what is best there. The only reason I use near
vision is to see my charts. I have it set up so that the line is a few
millimeters lower than normal, and I do =not= put my reading
prescription there, but rather, a prescription for whatever it takes to
see the charts ON MY LAP. A stronger lens (bigger difference between
near and distance) makes an annoying visual break at the line, and my
approach plates are probably in my lap anyway.

I've tried it with the stronger lens... no go.

It takes a little getting used to the half and half thing (and my
optician wouldn't do it at first - I had to get my doctor to
specifically say on my prescription that I could get what I wanted).

I then have a =separate= pair of glasses for computer distance vision,
and had a set of clip-on +2 lenses made for reading. They were more
expensive than another set of glasses just for reading, but they are
much easier to carry around.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

Oh, one other thing. Big lenses.

Don't get little lenses. You need all the room you can get.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[pgbnh]

Maybe this should be its own topic, but anyone have any success with either
an AME or the FAA getting approval for monovision lenses? (For those non
familiar, monovision implies correcting one eye for distance, one eye for
close. After several days, the brain 'figures it out'. ) I have
lived/functioned for about 6-7 years wearing one contact lens (to correct
distance). I think monovision can work equally well with either glasses or
contacts.

IIRC, about ten years ago there was an accident involving a plane which
crashed on final. It was blamed on the pilot's use of monovision. The FAA at
that time said 'no' to monovision. But also since that time doctors have
gotten better & smarter about its use. It seems the perfect solution for the
'mature' pilots who are losing distance vision, can correct for it, but then
once corrected, can no longer read (without further correction - bifocals or
switching glasses).

I wonder if those in the aviation medical community have caught up.
"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Ron Natalie]

pgbnh wrote:

>
> IIRC, about ten years ago there was an accident involving a plane which
> crashed on final. It was blamed on the pilot's use of monovision. The FAA at
> that time said 'no' to monovision. But also since that time doctors have
> gotten better & smarter about its use. It seems the perfect solution for the
> 'mature' pilots who are losing distance vision, can correct for it, but then
> once corrected, can no longer read (without further correction - bifocals or
> switching glasses).

Monovision contacts are still right out as far as the FAA is concerned.
Monovision LASIK (and the like) are OK.
I don't know how the FAA would feel about a monocle.

Margy got LASIK'd a while back, she now has bifocal reading glasses
(clear on top, reading correction on bottom).

[Don Tabor]

>I wonder if those in the aviation medical community have caught up.
>"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>>
>> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
>> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
>> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>>
>> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
>> let alone the bottom part.
>>
>> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
>> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
>> are far enough apart to require a head turn.


All progressive lens are not created equal. Many of the low cost store
brands like you would get at the major chains have a very narrow mid
range corridor. The Varilux brand has a much wider corridor, though
the more correction you need, the narrower it gets.

Don

[[email protected]]

My experience is that the progressives are fine as long as you put the
money out for quality lens. There's a big difference in quality between
the cheap and the pricier lens. Also, if your lenses are really thick
there may be too much distortion, it depends on that.

ncoastwmn

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[cjcampbell]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.

Some of it is just getting used to the glasses. The size and shape of
the lenses is a big factor, too. The popular small-lens glasses today
can be difficult to work with. Your optometrist can probably recommend
frames that will minimize your problems.

Having said that, I use very small frame progressive lenses.
Technically, my distance vision is good enough to fly without them, but
I have corrected it to 20/15, which makes spotting other aircraft a lot
easier. But my peripheral vision is good enough without glasses that I
don't have to worry about it. Mostly I use them for reading when I am
not flying.

[mike regish]

OK. They are progressives with 3 different focal lengths.

Now do you know what I meant?

I'm not a freakin' optician.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Yours might be a little more problematic, but I think you will adapt over
>> time. My brother-in-law has progressive trifocals. Talk about a PITA. You
>> get used to them after a while.
>
> He either has trifocals or progressives, but not both. Trifocals have
> three distinct lens whereas progressives blend continuously and thus have
> theoretically an infinite range of powers.
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "skyfish" wrote:
>
>
>>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>>are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>>makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>>
>>I figured I would try a progressive lens ...
>
>
> I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
> some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
> with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.
>

I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with.
It sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

Matt

[pgbnh]

Ron - I do not understand "Monovision contacts are still right out as far as
the FAA is concerned."
Are you saying the FAA approves of disapproves of monovision?

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> pgbnh wrote:
>
>>
>> IIRC, about ten years ago there was an accident involving a plane which
>> crashed on final. It was blamed on the pilot's use of monovision. The FAA
>> at that time said 'no' to monovision. But also since that time doctors
>> have gotten better & smarter about its use. It seems the perfect solution
>> for the 'mature' pilots who are losing distance vision, can correct for
>> it, but then once corrected, can no longer read (without further
>> correction - bifocals or switching glasses).
>
> Monovision contacts are still right out as far as the FAA is concerned.
> Monovision LASIK (and the like) are OK.
> I don't know how the FAA would feel about a monocle.
>
> Margy got LASIK'd a while back, she now has bifocal reading glasses
> (clear on top, reading correction on bottom).
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:40:10 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "skyfish" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>>>are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>>>makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>>>
>>>I figured I would try a progressive lens ...
>>
>>
>> I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
>> some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
>> with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.
>>

I've tried Bi-focals, tri-focals, blended, and progressive.
The first night landing I did with progressives was like the old drunk
who looks up and sees three different roads. When the nose came up in
the flare that is exactly what I saw. Like the drunk I picked the one
in the middle while I was frantically trying to pull the glasses off
and thow them in the back seat. They had worked fairly well during
the day.

I never did manage to sucessfully use tri-focals. No mater how they
ground them, or how I wore them the lines were always in the wrong
place. I finally went back to bifocals. Now some 15 years later I no
longer need glasses at a distance. My distance vision has gone back to
20:20. Now if it'd only go back to 20:10 like it was 25 years ago.

What I need are some "Ben Franklins" for reading the charts.
>
>I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
>the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with.
> It sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

Normally, "for me" they aren't a problem, but I do occasionally need
to readjust the position of the glasses on my nose.

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

[[email protected]]

skyfish wrote:
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

Progressive lenses work great for me. My wife even has progressive
contacts (!), which she swears by. I"ve got to try those someday.

> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the [...]
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn [...]
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. [...]

None of these sound like a progressive lens problem. What else is
wrong with your vision?

Regards, Kev

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
<...>
>Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

This has been covered quite extensivly here recently - a quick google search
should yield lots of opinions.

But, to sum up a few hundred posts -

A) Progressives suck - regular bifocals are better. And,
B) Regular bifocals suck - progressives are better.

Depends on who you ask.

--
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.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
>> some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
>> with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.
>>
>
> I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
> the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with. It
> sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

No. After a short period of adjustment, you don't notice them. I get the
mid-range ground for arm's length.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>> I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
>>> some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
>>> with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.
>>>
>>
>> I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than the
>> progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with. It sounds
>> like this isn't a problem for you??
>
> No. After a short period of adjustment, you don't notice them. I get the
> mid-range ground for arm's length.

Although I have not tried progressives, as a carpenter walking around on stuff
way up in the air, I rather like knowing which range of lens I am looking
through.

The lines do not bother me at all. I do want to get a pair of those glasses
with a bifocal (close in lens) at the top _and_ the bottom, with distance in the
middle, for when you need to work over your head at partial hands reach. It is
sometimes not possible to tilt your head back far enough to get your work into
focus, if you know what I am dealing with. <g>

What was the fancy name of those things again? Anybody?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

pgbnh wrote:
> Ron - I do not understand "Monovision contacts are still right out as far as
> the FAA is concerned."
> Are you saying the FAA approves of disapproves of monovision?
>
Monovision contact lenses are not permitted for flying.
If you wear contact lenses, your AME is supposed to tell you
this.

[BT]

I normally do not wear my progressives. I wear contacts to correct for
distant vision and keep a pair of dime store reading glasses handy for near
vision. Charts etc. I do not need near vision correction for the
instruments, but I do for the fine print tower frequencies on charts.

I am lucky that I can wear my contacts for 14-18 hours per day with no
problems, they come out every night, get cleaned overnight and back in in
the morning. Every two weeks I open a new pair. I keep a pair of reading
glasses in my shirt pocket, a back up pair in the flight bag, plus a back up
pair of perscription bi-focals and perscription sun glasses.

I like downloading the approach charts I need and printing to full 8x11
size.

I did recently drive a car one weekend my my progressives, it took some
getting used to for the perifery, but I did not like it.
Most pilots I know will wear bi-focals with lines, so they know which part
of the lens they are using. Some even had the line set high enough so that
it correspons to the glare shield in a normal sitting position.

Ever see the airline pilots, with tri focals low, and bi-focals over the top
for the overhead panel?

On another note, I just started flying a G-1000 cockpit in the C-T182T, and
I found that my normal sunglasses just do not work well to see the AP
buttons set low in a dark part of the panel (day time ops).

BT


"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[LWG]

I have pretty good (post-laser) vision, but I got some distance lenses to
take me to 20-10. It is hard for me to read charts with them on. I got
some Randolph shooting glasses. They have interchangeable lenses in many
different colors, from yellow to purple. I picked a medium yellow, which
works as sun glasses in the day, and is still usable at night.

The neat feature about these glasses is that the nose bridge can be pushed
down (thus raising the lenses). This is designed to allow you to put your
cheek against the stock of a gun and still be able to look up and track a
target. With the nose bridge pushed down just a little, I can look below
the glasses to read a chart. The lenses are a little high, and I look
through the lenses to see the panel and out the windscreen. It's a neat
little system. When I get aroung to it, I'm going to get some other color
lenses.

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Ron Natalie]

Morgans wrote:

>
> Although I have not tried progressives, as a carpenter walking around on
> stuff way up in the air, I rather like knowing which range of lens I am
> looking through.
I've really not had all that much of a problem...the transition area
isn't that large. For me the key was to get them to put it in the
right place ( a problem that would probably bother me as much with
regular bifocals as well).

Fortunately I can see the panel fine with the reading (or no)
correction, so I don't need trifocals.

As for work, I'm a computer programmer. My entire world consists of
2 20" flat panels about 18" away. I can't wear the bifocals, I take
them off. If my close vision progresses, I'll have to switch to
straight reading glasses for working.

[bsalai]

skyfish wrote:
> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

A number of people have said this, but it is really important that you
tell the eye guy about needing to see the panel. If you don't say
anything, the normal thing they do makes you put your head at an
uncomfortable angle.

Tell him you will use them to fly so he can set them up right for you.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:37:49 -0800, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>skyfish wrote:
>
>> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>>
>> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
>> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
>> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>

Some excellent comments have been made and in particular by 'Bushy
Pete'.
When I first went for the PPL medical I had to wear glasses for the
first time. I had almost mastered landing but with glasses it put me
back about 3-4 days until I got used to them!

I chose progressives (varifocal) with photochromics which after a few
days I got used to them. What I found at this time was I'd had
astigmatism for 48 years without knowing.

About a year later I needed 2 pair of glasses to comply with UK
requirements for a spare and was advised by the UK AME (also a pilot)
that I should use bifocals as they had less distortion.

I still sometimes use them, though that prescription is from some
years ago, but mostly I continue with progressives. I changed optician
and explained in detail the need to read maps, see the panel and
distance with maximum clarity at the sides. I also said I don't want
to tilt my head too high to read close up but still want to see the
PC. Oh! yes and I wanted anti-reflection, maximum darkness in sunlight
and maximum transmission of light at night - otherwise just a pair of
glasses?

About 2 years ago a new lens was on the market which allowed me to
tilt my head only slightly as the vertical range of focus changed
quickly from distance to close-up. The prescription was actually
backed off slightly to that from 2 years previously and I achieved
everything almost perfectly.

What I have learned over the years is photo gray can be made to from
about 2% to 95% transmission compared to normal photochromics only
around 20% to 80% so not as good for night flight.

With progressives the stronger the prescription the narrower the field
of view. If you imagine the clarity is best in the middle of a 'V'
shape the stronger the prescription the closer the sides of the 'V'.

Bi-focals have good lateral clarity but make sure the change does not
occur in the middle of the panel.

In conclusion I almost always use progressives except perhaps at night
then I return to the bi-focals but they were set with the line right
in the middle of the panel. A real pain but I can still see the panel
with either part of the lens.

[Jim Stewart]

skyfish wrote:

> I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

I guess the first question is what are you
currently using? If you have never tried
progressive lenses, you should know that
people generally love them or hate them.
I'm in the second group. They take quite
a bit of getting used to them, but my wife
loved them before she got her LASIK operation.

Personally, I find them an unacceptable
compromise. I have prescription bifocal
sunglasses for flying and that's what works
for me.

[Bob Gardner]

I had a long and happy career wearing bifocals and ultimately trifocals.
Worked for me. My eye doc, who was a pilot, had little good to say about
progressives.

Bob Gardner

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Highflyer]

"skyfish" > wrote in message
0...
>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
> are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
> makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
> I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
> eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
> (less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
> 1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
> let alone the bottom part.
>
> 2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
> every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
> are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
> 3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
> good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
> will be out of focus.
>
> 4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
> looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I got progressives. It is handy because I have a spot for the panel just
below the distance portion of the lense, and then a spot for close work
below that. However, the bifocal strip is indeed very narrow and the
distortion in the corners is considerable. After I started flying with the
durn things it took me a year of flying before I got my altitude right on my
roundout. With the big Stinson Reliant I can't see the airport in front of
me, much less the runway. I always glance down to the left to pickup the
edge of the runway so I can track down the runway when I land. The
distortion made it jump up in my face at a strange angle and I tended to
make beautiful landings about three feet above the runway! I finally got
used to it and now I can't land without the glasses. I tend to hit the
runway way before I expect it and make some very interesting bounces and
bounds! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:05:02 -0600, "Highflyer" > wrote:

<snip>
>However, the bifocal strip is indeed very narrow and the
>distortion in the corners is considerable. After I started flying with the
>durn things it took me a year of flying before I got my altitude right on my
>roundout. With the big Stinson Reliant I can't see the airport in front of
>me, much less the runway. I always glance down to the left to pickup the
>edge of the runway so I can track down the runway when I land. The
>distortion made it jump up in my face at a strange angle and I tended to
>make beautiful landings about three feet above the runway! I finally got
>used to it and now I can't land without the glasses. I tend to hit the
>runway way before I expect it and make some very interesting bounces and
>bounds! :-)

Ad I mentioned before. I had the progressives for a while and was
doing fairly well until my first night landing with them. As I tend
to land quite nose high (if I stretch I can see over the glare shield)
with full flaps. Any thing less than full all I can see it the runway
lights on either side as they go by.

At any rate I started easing the nose up in the flare and suddenly I
had three sets of runway lights. One to the left, one to the right,
and one down the middle. Like the drunk, I picked the one down the
middle, but as I'd move my head that runway would also more around.
The glasses ended up in the back seat, but as I pulled them off with
the big Telex ANRs on I though one of my ears was back there with
them.



>
>Highflyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
>Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:04:09 GMT, skyfish >
wrote:

>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
>I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
>eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
>(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
>1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
>let alone the bottom part.
>
>2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
>every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
>are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
>3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
>good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
>will be out of focus.
>
>4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
>looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
>Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
>would be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance.

There was a lot of useful information in 'rec.aviation.piloting' a
couple of weeks ago under the subject:
"Progressive lenses OK for pilots?"
Maybe you can find via google?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:04:09 GMT, skyfish >
wrote:

>I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
>are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
>makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.
>
>I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
>eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
>(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:
>
>1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
>let alone the bottom part.
>
>2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
>every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
>are far enough apart to require a head turn.
>
>3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
>good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
>will be out of focus.
>
>4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
>looking out the window or at my instruments.
>
>Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
>would be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance.

There was a lot of useful information in 'rec.aviation.piloting' a
couple of weeks ago under the subject:
"Progressive lenses OK for pilots?"
Maybe you can find via google?