Contact lens and medical

[Andrew Sarangan]

I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
experiences?

[Dale]

In article m>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
> should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
> anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
> ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
> your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
> some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
> the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
> 24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
> me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
> experiences?
>


I've always had my eyes checked for vision both uncorrected and
corrected (when I wore glasses).

There are restrictions on what you're uncorrected vision can be,
regardless what it is corrected to.

The suggestion to not wear the contacts for 24 hours prior is to allow
the eye to adjust to not having them in. Not sure with newer lenses,
but with hard lenses they reshape the eye somewhat.

[Kev]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.

FAA Medical Examiner Guide:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/

Kev

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
> should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
> anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
> ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
> your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
> some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
> the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
> 24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
> me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
> experiences?

You did the right thing. The FAA would have sent you a letter soon
afterwards telling you that your medical was invalid and that you need
to send supporting evidence to describe the procedure that caused your
vision to become corrected and your reaction, recovery etc. You must
supply documentation evidence to remove glasses/contact restrictions.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Dale wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

>
> I've always had my eyes checked for vision both uncorrected and
> corrected (when I wore glasses).
>
> There are restrictions on what you're uncorrected vision can be,
> regardless what it is corrected to.
>
> The suggestion to not wear the contacts for 24 hours prior is to allow
> the eye to adjust to not having them in. Not sure with newer lenses,
> but with hard lenses they reshape the eye somewhat.

I've never been asked to take my contacts out during my medical exam.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Kev wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> > limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> > corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> > certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
>
> FAA Medical Examiner Guide:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/

I don't see anywhere in there where it says you must take our your
contacts or conduct a vision exam uncorrected. I wonder if that's
another urban legend. Interestingly, I did a private with a student
last year that wore the monocular correction (one near, one distant
contacts). She had no problem getting her 3rd class but the link above
indicates that that is not allowed.

-Robert

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
> should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
> anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
> ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
> your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
> some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
> the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
> 24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
> me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
> experiences?
>

I used to have that issue. I do not understand the corrected and
uncorrected. I finally told the doctor that I cannot see the chart, much
less the letters on it without correction. He stopped the uncorrected
testing. I have worn contacts >20 years.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[[email protected]]

Dale wrote:
>
> There are restrictions on what you're uncorrected vision can be,
> regardless what it is corrected to.
>

Dale-

Go read the FARs on this. Next time you post a statement like that, do
us all a favor and make sure you know what you're talking about.

Here's a nice little summary for you to see the exact requirements for
each class of certificate:
http://www.leftseat.com/FAAforms.htm

I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."

All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).

[FLAV8R]

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
> The suggestion to not wear the contacts for 24 hours prior is to allow
> the eye to adjust to not having them in. Not sure with newer lenses,
> but with hard lenses they reshape the eye somewhat.

I don't know if it was coincidence or if the contacts caused me to lose
a considerable amount of distance vision.
Before I wore contacts I could see clearly up to a distance of 30ft
away and right after I started wearing contacts (early 80's) my clear
vision dropped to arms length and has stayed that way ever since.
I'm over 40 now and still wear the same prescription for distance
viewing and I still don't require any correction for reading, go figure.

I also find that I can spot things at a distance much quicker than my
non-correct vision pilot friends... What's up with that?

David 8 )

[Kev]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > FAA Medical Examiner Guide:
> > http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/
>
> I don't see anywhere in there where it says you must take our your
> contacts or conduct a vision exam uncorrected. I wonder if that's
> another urban legend.

It's hard to find in there. Go to #51, Near and Intermediate Vision.
Then Examination Techniques. Even though it doesn't seem to matter
what it is uncorrected, so why test it?

> Interestingly, I did a private with a student
> last year that wore the monocular correction (one near, one distant
> contacts). She had no problem getting her 3rd class but the link above
> indicates that that is not allowed.

Strange. I also had no problem when I was using monocular five or so
years ago. Or perhaps he forgot to ask :) Can't recall. Switched
to progressives anyway.

Regards, Kev

[FLAV8R]

> wrote in message ...
> I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
> unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
> hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
> airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
>
> All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
> to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
> have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).
>

I have been working for the same airline for 20 years now and I can
tell you that when I first started with my company they did not hire
pilots with corrected vision.
It wasn't till sometime later that I noticed a few pilots with glasses.
I asked those pilots how they got hired with corrected vision and
all of them said the same thing, they were hired with perfect vision
and with age they needed glasses.
So apparently my company discriminated against pilots with glasses
and choose not to hire them, even though they did have pilots that
eventually would need glasses due to old age.

Yes, I still work for the same company but I sometimes wonder
if my career would have been a different one if I would not have
listened to those that told me that the airlines as a whole do not
hire pilots with corrected vision.

Lately I am considering pursuing a late commercial pilot career
as a second job, just to say I did it.

Let this be a lesson to you younger pilots with career aspirations.
Don't let anyone tell you that you can't just because they couldn't.

David - Proud Private Pilot (age: 44)

[[email protected]]

FLAV8R wrote:
>
> I have been working for the same airline for 20 years now and I can
> tell you that when I first started with my company they did not hire
> pilots with corrected vision.>

Yes, and airlines also didn't hire women pilots awhile back either. I
just get really annoyed these days when I see people like Dale make
these very outdated claims about vision requirements. The fact is that
the FAA has been basing distant vision requirements on corrected vision
for a LONG time. Was there ever a time when they weren't I wonder?

The airlines have been hiring people with corrected vision for a long
time now too - this didn't just happen last year. I'd guess at least
15 years or longer?

>
> Let this be a lesson to you younger pilots with career aspirations.
> Don't let anyone tell you that you can't just because they couldn't.
>
> David - Proud Private Pilot (age: 44)

Yes!! One could argue that more research would've been prudent when I
was younger, but the idea of having to have natural "eagle eye" vision
and join the military to be a pilot is (still) so prevalent among the
general population that I didn't even see the point. When I was a
teenager, to me the idea of being a commercial pilot was as far fetched
as becoming an astronaut.

Luckily I figured it out when I was still in my mid-20s. I'm on track
to be a CFI right about the time I turn 30 next spring. I am SO glad I
didn't just give up on the idea when I was younger.

Unfortunately I have talked to other people that did give up on the
idea because they "wore glasses" and are now in situations (age,
family, job, debt, etc.) that won't allow them to pursue their old
dream (at least in their way of thinking).

[Darkwing]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dale wrote:
>> In article m>,
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>>
>> I've always had my eyes checked for vision both uncorrected and
>> corrected (when I wore glasses).
>>
>> There are restrictions on what you're uncorrected vision can be,
>> regardless what it is corrected to.
>>
>> The suggestion to not wear the contacts for 24 hours prior is to allow
>> the eye to adjust to not having them in. Not sure with newer lenses,
>> but with hard lenses they reshape the eye somewhat.
>
> I've never been asked to take my contacts out during my medical exam.
>
> -Robert
>

I have taken out my contacts every time, they checked it corrected and
uncorrected. I don't know what the limit on uncorrected vision is but I know
I can't see a damn thing without glasses or contacts.

-----------------------------------
DW

[[email protected]]

Darkwing wrote:
>
> I have taken out my contacts every time, they checked it corrected and
> uncorrected. I don't know what the limit on uncorrected vision is but I know
> I can't see a damn thing without glasses or contacts.
>
> -----------------------------------
> DW

There is not limit, he was incorrect in his statement - see the FARs
yourself.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
> unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
> hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
> airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
>
> All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
> to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
> have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).

To get new hired you generally need 20/20.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>Dale wrote:
>>
>>>I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
>>
>>unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
>>hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
>>airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
>>
>>All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
>>to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
>>have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).
>
>
> To get new hired you generally need 20/20.

Not the case at all. You just need to be able to pass a class 1.

[BT]

requirements change as the size of the pilot pool and the demands of the
airlines for those pilots vary.

with all the approaching 60-65 pilots ready to retire.. the requirements
will change.. all you need is to pass a Class 1 with corrected vision.

BT

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
>>>
>>>unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
>>>hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
>>>airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
>>>
>>>All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
>>>to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
>>>have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).
>>
>>
>> To get new hired you generally need 20/20.
>
> Not the case at all. You just need to be able to pass a class 1.

[BT]

I wear contacts.. I have since the AirForce approved contact wear for
aircrew in the early 90s. For my civilian medical I have never been asked to
remove them. I have told the AME I have them in. My Class II says,
corrective lenses required for distant vision.

It is recommended that you keep a pair of regular specticals handy (within
reach) while flying, just in case you have to take one out. I only had to do
that once while flying in the Air Force.

The Air Force flight docs would want me to come in wearing my contacts,
check my vision, remove them and put on the specs and check it again. I had
to be able to go from 20/20 or better with contacts to 20/20 or better with
my glasses.

One year, my glasses were out of date, my vision was good with contacts but
not the glasses. I got a waiver from the Command Cheif Medical examiner to
fly until my new glasses arrived. I was the only qualified and current
navigator in the wing after a recent stand down. I was the last to fly
before the stand down so I had the most recent flight currency date.

Needless to say, the normal 2 week wait for new glasses turned into 4 days.

BT

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
> should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
> anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
> ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
> your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
> some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
> the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
> 24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
> me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
> experiences?
>

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> wrote:
> > Dale wrote:
> >> I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
> > unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
> > hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
> > airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
> >
> > All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
> > to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
> > have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).
>
> To get new hired you generally need 20/20.

Robert,

Yes, 20/20 corrected vision. Here's how it works Robert: to get hired
as an ATP pilot you have to pass a class 1 medical. To fly as a
commercial pilot you have to pass a class 2 medical.

Apparently the link I provided earlier is proving too complicated to
understand. Do you happen to own an FAR book? Look up the following:
FAR 67.203.

Ok, part 2 - The mythical airline requirement for uncorrected vision of
some sort:

Here's a sample of hiring requirements at airlines that are considered
very desireable to work for, and have a HUGE list of candidates to pick
and choose from:

Frontier Airlines:
Requirements:

* Total fixed wing time to exceed 2,500 hours
* Multi-engine fixed wing time in excess of 1,500 hours
* 500 hours pilot in command
* 500 hours jet (turbo-jet or turbo prop)
* ATP
* FCC license
* Authorized to work in the United States
* Must be able to travel in and out of the U.S. to all
cities/countries served by Frontier Airlines
* Current FAA First Class medical
* Ability to work weekends, nights, shifts, holidays and overnight
trips
* Ability to relocate
* Possess a U.S. passport

Continental Airlines:
The following are the minimum qualifications to apply for a pilot
position:

* 1,500 hours fixed-wing total flight time
* 1,000 hours fixed-wing PIC time, or 500 hours PIC time and 500
hours SIC time in a turbojet
* 1,000 hours fixed-wing turbine time
* 1,000 hours fixed-wing multi-engine time (civilian or military)
or 1,000 hours single-engine military fighter jet time
* A current ATP written exam
* A current first class FAA medical
* A current passport
* A Bachelor's degree is highly desired



Federal Express:
Typical qualifications for consideration as a FedEx pilot.

* Commercial Pilot Certificate with Multi-engine and Instrument
rating (without limitations)

* Current ATP Certificate or written

* Current FE Turbojet Rating or written (FEX or Basic/turbojet)

* Must pass FAA mandated drug screen

* Recency and type of experience is considered

* Meet requirements for and currently hold First Class Medical
certification

* College Degree from an accredited college or university

* Eligibility for rapid visa issuance, issued by offices in the
United States to fly to any FedEx destination.

* Ability to obtain clearance from United States Postal Service for
handling or access to U.S. mail, which includes FBI fingerprint check,
and candidate must have resided in the United States for the last five
consecutive years (except for U.S. military assignments)

* Eligibility for issuance of US Security Clearance

* 1500 hours total fixed-wing time as pilot-in-command (PIC) or
second-in-command in multi-engine turbo-prop A/C or jet A/C or
combination thereof, including a minimum of 1000 hours total fixed-wing
pilot-in-command in multi-engine turbo prop A/C or jet A/C or
combination thereof.
Note: PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft
Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls.
Note: FedEx considers only pilot time in fixed wing aircraft
toward minimum qualifications. This does not include simulator,
helicopter, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, RIO, EWO, WSO, NFO,
or Special Crew.

* All certificates and ratings required to be U.S.A. FAA issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've posted my evidence, what say you Robert and Dale's of the aviation
world?

[Newps]

Which is what I just said, the ability to pass a class 1.



BT wrote:

> requirements change as the size of the pilot pool and the demands of the
> airlines for those pilots vary.
>
> with all the approaching 60-65 pilots ready to retire.. the requirements
> will change.. all you need is to pass a Class 1 with corrected vision.
>
> BT
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
>>>>
>>>>unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale. I remember
>>>>hearing so many times that "Professional pilots have to be 20/20, Major
>>>>airlines only hire people with 20/20 natural vision, etc."
>>>>
>>>>All total BS. To get a 3rd class medical, you have to be correctable
>>>>to 20/40 (distant vision, each eye). To get a 1st or 2nd class, you
>>>>have to be correctable to 20/20 (distant vision, each eye).
>>>
>>>
>>>To get new hired you generally need 20/20.
>>
>>Not the case at all. You just need to be able to pass a class 1.
>
>
>

[Dale]

In article . com>,
wrote:


> Dale-
>
> Go read the FARs on this. Next time you post a statement like that, do
> us all a favor and make sure you know what you're talking about.

Well hell, I thought I did. My apologies if I misled anyone.


>
> I wasted several years getting into professional aviation because of
> unsubstantiated statements made by people like Dale.

I think perhaps you wasted several years because you relied on what
people said instead of putting out the effort to get the facts yourself.
Don't blame me or people like me when it was you that screwed the pooch.
<G>
>

[[email protected]]

Dale wrote:
>
> I think perhaps you wasted several years because you relied on what
> people said instead of putting out the effort to get the facts yourself.
> Don't blame me or people like me when it was you that screwed the pooch.
> <G>
> >

Which is what I said (although it was kind vaguely put, I admit)...
You're right, I have only myself to blame for missing out on a couple
of years. Fortunately I didn't miss out on too much. But I've seen
others that have and I think it is very unfortunate.

The reason why I jump all over people that so easily hand out incorrect
information on this topic is that it is so prevalent - thus making it
less likely that someone with an interest in commercial aviation will
go for it if they wear glasses.

If even people like yourself, who are current pilots, so easily accept
the incorrect notion that there is some mythical requirement than
pilots have a certain uncorrected vision requirement than perhaps you
can understand how those with no aviation experience can so easily
"screw the pooch" as you say. After all, if it is a given that you
can't become a pilot, why research it?

[Mxsmanic]

FLAV8R writes:

> I don't know if it was coincidence or if the contacts caused me to lose
> a considerable amount of distance vision.

It depends on the type of correction the contacts provide. If they
compensate for poor accommodation (e.g., presbyopia), their constant
presence may encourage the loss of accommodation power since your eyes
need no longer strain to see objects at certain distances. When you
remove the correction, you find that things that might have been clear
before without contacts/glasses no longer are.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

If the FAA felt that a change in distant vision lenses is a cause for
rejection, then that question should be asked in the application form.
The FAR does not ask for it, the application form does not ask for it,
and the AME does not ask for it. So, how is the applicant supposed to
know that this is something that they need to explain. If I were a new
student going for a medical, I would never have questioned this, and
would have simply walked away with a medical that had no limitations.



Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> > limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> > corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> > certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> > The response was "You wear contacts? Well, that changes everything. You
> > should have told us about the contacts". The FAA form does not ask
> > anything about wearing lenses (except near vision), and they did not
> > ask me about it during the exam either. I thought all that mattered was
> > your corrected vision, not uncorrected vision. In the end we had to do
> > some extra stuff to get that fixed, and I got another certificate with
> > the correct statement. She said that I should stop wearing contacts for
> > 24 hours before coming to the medical exam, and bring the lenses with
> > me. I have never heard of this before. Anyone else had similar
> > experiences?
>
> You did the right thing. The FAA would have sent you a letter soon
> afterwards telling you that your medical was invalid and that you need
> to send supporting evidence to describe the procedure that caused your
> vision to become corrected and your reaction, recovery etc. You must
> supply documentation evidence to remove glasses/contact restrictions.
>
> -Robert

[Andrew Sarangan]

I regained quite a bit of my distant vision by wearing reading glasses
on top of my contacts when working on a computer or reading a book.
The next time I went for the eye exam, the power had dropped by 0.5.
This makes sense to me. Reading things up close with distant vision
glasses is putting the same strain on the eyes that caused you to
become nearsighted in the first place.



FLAV8R wrote:
> "Dale" > wrote in message ...
> > The suggestion to not wear the contacts for 24 hours prior is to allow
> > the eye to adjust to not having them in. Not sure with newer lenses,
> > but with hard lenses they reshape the eye somewhat.
>
> I don't know if it was coincidence or if the contacts caused me to lose
> a considerable amount of distance vision.
> Before I wore contacts I could see clearly up to a distance of 30ft
> away and right after I started wearing contacts (early 80's) my clear
> vision dropped to arms length and has stayed that way ever since.
> I'm over 40 now and still wear the same prescription for distance
> viewing and I still don't require any correction for reading, go figure.
>
> I also find that I can spot things at a distance much quicker than my
> non-correct vision pilot friends... What's up with that?
>
> David 8 )

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

There are in fact limits for vision beyond just being correctable. If a
person requires high correction they may in fact need a SODA. The FAA exam
form requires examination with and without correction.

So, just correction to acceptable limits is not enough.

JN, MD
FAA AME

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> Reading things up close with distant vision
> glasses is putting the same strain on the eyes that caused you to
> become nearsighted in the first place.

Myopia is not caused by eyestrain.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Reading things up close with distant vision
> glasses is putting the same strain on the eyes that caused you to
> become nearsighted in the first place.

It's not clear to me that becoming nearsighted is related to "strain" on
the eyes. My understanding is that it is due to the eyeball being the
wrong shape, and that presbyopia (needing reading glasses as we age) is
due to the lens hardening (and becoming unable to change its focal length).

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> It's not clear to me that becoming nearsighted is related to "strain" on
> the eyes. My understanding is that it is due to the eyeball being the
> wrong shape, and that presbyopia (needing reading glasses as we age) is
> due to the lens hardening (and becoming unable to change its focal length).

Yes. Hyperopia and myopia are usually associated with asymmetry in
the shape of the eyeball. Presbyopia is presumed to be due to
hardening of the lens, although there is still some debate about this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RST Engineering]

Interesting, the whole thread. Evidently a requirement from the 1970s has
been dropped. Back in those days, for a first class medical you had to have
a waiver (and I've got both of them in front of me as I type just to be
sure) if your UNcorrected vision is worse than 20:200.

I guess I can forget about filling in the "do you have a waiver" box on the
application form from now on.

Jim




"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I just got my new medical. When I got the certificate I saw that under
> limitations it said "None". My previous medical used to say "must wear
> corrective lenses". I should have simply walked away with the
> certificate, but instead I asked them why that limitation was missing.
> The response was "You wear contacts?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> There are in fact limits for vision beyond just being correctable. If a
> person requires high correction they may in fact need a SODA. The FAA exam
> form requires examination with and without correction.
>
> So, just correction to acceptable limits is not enough.
>
> JN, MD
> FAA AME

Where is that in the FAR?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am not an optometrist, but it is not very convincing to me that
wearing lenses intended for distant vision is perfectly fine for
close-up work too. I like to think of it like supplemental oxygen. Just
because we need it for flying at high altitudes, doesn't mean we should
use it all the time for ordinary activities.

I can only speak from personal experience, and I have found that my
distant vision at night is significantly better since I started using
reading glasses over my contacts for closeup work. In addition, as I
mentioned earlier, my correction dropped by 0.5 in 6 months after
nearly 15 years of unchanged power. May be it is just coincidence.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
> > It's not clear to me that becoming nearsighted is related to "strain" on
> > the eyes. My understanding is that it is due to the eyeball being the
> > wrong shape, and that presbyopia (needing reading glasses as we age) is
> > due to the lens hardening (and becoming unable to change its focal length).
>
> Yes. Hyperopia and myopia are usually associated with asymmetry in
> the shape of the eyeball. Presbyopia is presumed to be due to
> hardening of the lens, although there is still some debate about this.
>

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Check the previous link that epublishes the guide for aviation medical
examiners.


"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
>> There are in fact limits for vision beyond just being correctable. If a
>> person requires high correction they may in fact need a SODA. The FAA
>> exam
>> form requires examination with and without correction.
>>
>> So, just correction to acceptable limits is not enough.
>>
>> JN, MD
>> FAA AME
>
> Where is that in the FAR?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Check the previous link that epublishes the guide for aviation medical
> examiners.
>

I did, and there's nothing about uncorrected vision requirements. Here
is the section regarding eyesight examination on the link you
suggested:

----------------------------------------

§ 67.103 Eye.

Eye standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:

(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye separately,
with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or
contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the person may be
eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while
exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.

(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16 inches in
each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If age 50 or
older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at both 16
inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective
lenses.

(c) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance
of airman duties.

---------------------------------------------

Again, where is they FARs does is mention uncorrected requirments?
Please post the actual section or FAR number.

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Check the previous link that epublishes the guide for aviation medical
> examiners.
>

Let's put this issue to rest once and for all:

Source:
http://www.aviationmedicine.com/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=41

The visual acuity standards for medical certification by the FAA are
very clear. First and Second Class medical certification require 20/20
vision with correction at distant and 20/40 at near. Third class
certification only requires 20/40 corrected vision at distant and 20/40
at near. Distant vision is measured at the equivalent of 20 feet. Near
vision is measured at 16 inches. For pilots aged 50 years and older,
intermediate vision measured at 32 inches must correct to 20/40 or
better. The previous uncorrected visual acuity standard at distant
(20/100) was dropped in the September 1996 revision of Part 67 of the
FARs. Currently, there are no uncorrected vision standards in the FARs.
This means a pilot's vision at distance could be 20/400, but as long
as it corrects to 20/20 in each eye, the pilot meets the Part 67.103
vision standards for First Class medical certification. See Chapter 4
of the Guide to Aviation Medical Examiners for full details.

Air traffic controller applicants and "on-board" ATCS working in both
Terminals and Centers must demonstrate 20/20 distant vision in each eye
separately, without correction, or distant visual acuity of 20/200 or
better in each eye separtely, with correction to 20/20 in each eye.
Glasses or contact lenses are permitted. For ATCS in Flight Service
Stations there is no uncorrected limit as long as the vision corrects
to 20/20 bilaterally.

For near vision applicants need to be 20/20 as well. Uncorrected near
vision limits are 20/50 or better in each eye that corrects to 20/20 in
each eye. The combination of glasses and contacts is disqualfying.
All on-board ATCS near vision must correct to 20/30 or better

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Check the previous link that epublishes the guide for aviation medical
> examiners.

so, the AME has a standard different than in subpart 67?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

They get details about how to DO the examinations and apply
procedures.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
>,
| "Viperdoc" > wrote:
|
| > Check the previous link that epublishes the guide for
aviation medical
| > examiners.
|
| so, the AME has a standard different than in subpart 67?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> They get details about how to DO the examinations and apply
> procedures.

yeah, but that's not the same thing as testing against a
non-existant standard.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate