Anyone have vision issues?

[Emily[_1_]]

Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.

My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
set in.

I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
going to start having issues with this.

I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate). The
prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
(part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"

Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment? Am I being unrealistic
to expect help in getting 20/20 vision? I have a third opinion
scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
important this is?

(and yes, I'm aware I don't even need a medical to instruct, but CAP
requires it and frankly I'm tired of living in an astigmatism-blurred
world)

[Aluckyguess]

Why cant you get the Lasik? My son had bad vision with a high stigmatism. 4k
later and he needs no glasses.
"Emily" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>
> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> set in.
>
> I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
> toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
> eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
> with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
> managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
> and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
> going to start having issues with this.
>
> I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
> they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate). The
> prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
> (part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
> take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
> explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
> don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"
>
> Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment? Am I being unrealistic
> to expect help in getting 20/20 vision? I have a third opinion
> scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
> important this is?
>
> (and yes, I'm aware I don't even need a medical to instruct, but CAP
> requires it and frankly I'm tired of living in an astigmatism-blurred
> world)
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>
> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> set in.
>
> I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
> toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
> eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
> with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
> managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
> and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
> going to start having issues with this.
>
> I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
> they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate).

Two doctors recommend it even though you're not a candidate? Could you
elaborate on that?



>The
> prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
> (part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
> take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
> explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
> don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"
>
> Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment?

Treatment, as in LASIK?

> Am I being unrealistic
> to expect help in getting 20/20 vision?

No, not if LASIK is an option. I know quite a few four-eyes that looked like
they were viewing the world through Coke bottles, and they're all 20/20 now,
and one person very dear to my heart, is now 20/15, coming from
20/200something.

> I have a third opinion
> scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
> important this is?

Just tell him IT IS YOUR LIVLIHOOD.

>
> (and yes, I'm aware I don't even need a medical to instruct, but CAP
> requires it and frankly I'm tired of living in an astigmatism-blurred
> world)

It certainly sucks!

Good luck however you go about it.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>> I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
>>> they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate).
>>
>> Two doctors recommend it even though you're not a candidate? Could you
>> elaborate on that?
>
> I phrased it poorly. The two doctors suggested I get a consultation, I
> did so, and found out my corneas are too thin for LASIK (I can have PRK).
> The problem with PRK is that my correction is so strong, it's likely I
> won't get 20/20 out of it - in my case, 20/40 would be a success and has
> an 80% chance - and an increased risk of halos and night and all that
> great stuff.
>
>>> prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
>>> (part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
>>> take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
>>> explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
>>> don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"
>>>
>>> Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment?
>>
>> Treatment, as in LASIK?
>
> No, being treated like an idiot by doctors. I know I'm not the only pilot
> out there with poor uncorrected eyesight, so I can't figure out what I'm
> doing wrong in trying to get it fixed.

Have you considered going to a AME for initial consulation rather than bozos
that think pilots are akin to what they saw in "Airplane"? :~)

>
>>> I have a third opinion
>>> scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
>>> important this is?
>>
>> Just tell him IT IS YOUR LIVLIHOOD.
>
> Problem is, it's not. They seem to think because I'm flying "for fun"
> that I'm not one of those pilots that needs 20/20 vision. It almost makes
> me wish people still thought all pilots need 20/20 to fly.

It may not be your career, but it is a big part of your life.

>
> Maybe I just lie next time.

Never a good idea. Take your time, avoid the medical dingdongs, and do it
right.

As I said, maybe an AME has some pratitioners that can do more than general
practitioners (even various eye doctors that are used to treating people
that want to watch TV without glasses).

Best!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Emily > wrote in news:1188525088.200757.46160
> I had ICL on both eyes about 6 months ago and haven't looked back. If they
> can figure out how to orient the lense then ICL should become fairly
> common
> (and preferred) for astigmatism as well as high myopia corrrection.

What's ICL and how is it different? (First I've heard of it, not that I've
been paying attention...)


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Emily wrote:
> I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
> toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
> eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
> with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
> managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
> and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
> going to start having issues with this.

I'm not sure whether I understand your problem correctly, but just in case:

I know there are contact lenses available, which can correct astigmatism.
The trick is, they use some sort of built in tiny weight, which makes them
rotate themselves to the correct orientation.

all the best,
Friedrich

[Charles Felton]

I went to Canada in '93 for PRK (wasn't approved in US then). Corrected from
20/400 to 20/20 although no astig. Took a little time to heal but 100%
success (no halos or stars).
Get a Doc who has done thousands of eyes and if you're worried just do one
eye at a time.
Charles

"Emily" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>
> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> set in.
>
> I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,

[Allen[_1_]]

She already has the weighted (toric) lenses. My AME is also an eye doctor,
that is why I go to him. I have had problems with a retinal tear, still
have a second class medical.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Emily wrote:
> > I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
> > toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
> > eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
> > with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
> > managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
> > and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
> > going to start having issues with this.
>
> I'm not sure whether I understand your problem correctly, but just in
case:
>
> I know there are contact lenses available, which can correct astigmatism.
> The trick is, they use some sort of built in tiny weight, which makes them
> rotate themselves to the correct orientation.
>
> all the best,
> Friedrich
>
>

[Ash Wyllie]

Emily opined

>Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.

>My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
>set in.

>I have bad eyes.

IIUC, you wear contacts? Why not use old-fashioned glasses?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> I'd do that in a heartbeat if it corrected astigmatism. I'm sure it's a
> lot less painful than the PRK I've been relegated to, plus it's reversible.

Check your eyelids. If you have heavy eyelids, the pressure from them can
slightly deform the cornea and produce refraction errors that manifest as
astigmatism. If this is the cause, minor plastic surgery on the eyelids can
reduce their pressure on the cornea and correct the error. Monocular
diplopias can be caused in this way.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Emily wrote:
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>> Why cant you get the Lasik? My son had bad vision with a high
>> stigmatism. 4k later and he needs no glasses.
>
> Corneas are too thin. PRK is an option, but I'm scared of the pain,
> and with only a 50/50 chance of seeing 20/20, I don't see it as a
> good risk. Might be good for someone who just wants to be able to
> drive without glasses, but too risky for someone (me) who holds a
> second class medical.

But would the PRK not pring your unaided vision up to the point where it
could then be corrected to 20/20 with glasses?

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> The question I always get. :-) I have a fairly strong correction (-7
> and -8). My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses and since the
> focal point (?) is slightly in front of my eyes, there's a fair amount
> of distortion and depth perception problems. I can't remember exactly
> why the distortion happens, but it does with glasses. I wear them
> around the house, but can't even drive in them, especially at night.
> Flying - at least landing - is out of the question with glasses.

Custom-designed glasses that correct these issues might be worth
investigating. I doubt if they'd cost any more than LASIK or the like. Depth
perception isn't necessary for flying. Peripheral vision is important but
since all peripheral vision is blurry by definition, all you need is a clear
view, not a sharp one. If you need to see something clearly, you turn your
head, with or without glasses.

[El Maximo]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> How would you know anything about vision or what's needed for flying,
> since you're not an ophthalmologist or a pilot?
>
> Anthony Atkielski- self proclaimed expert in----everything.
>

Using his surgery simulator:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=game+operation&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 07:36:15a, Emily
> wrote:

> I'd do that in a heartbeat if it corrected astigmatism. I'm sure it's
> a lot less painful than the PRK I've been relegated to, plus it's
> reversible.

The only thing that is truly reversible is wearing glasses. Plus, they
serve the added benefit of working as safety glasses when you're doing
something that might result in eye damage.

They make some prescription sunglasses in the skull fitting style like
you see popular with some of the guys riding motorcycles. They wrap
around and don't allow any air to catch them so that they are less
likely to get blown off your head if you turn your head perpendicular to
the prevailing wind. I've never tried them, but you might want to check
them out to see if the prescription wraps around the whole lense also.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

El Maximo wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How would you know anything about vision or what's needed for flying,
>> since you're not an ophthalmologist or a pilot?
>>
>> Anthony Atkielski- self proclaimed expert in----everything.
>>
>
> Using his surgery simulator:
>
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=game+operation&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
>
>


Now THAT'S funny! 8^)

[[email protected]]

Emily > wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
> > Emily opined
> >
> >> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
> >
> >> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> >> set in.
> >
> >> I have bad eyes.
> >
> > IIUC, you wear contacts? Why not use old-fashioned glasses?

> The question I always get. :-) I have a fairly strong correction (-7
> and -8). My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses and since the
> focal point (?) is slightly in front of my eyes, there's a fair amount
> of distortion and depth perception problems. I can't remember exactly
> why the distortion happens, but it does with glasses. I wear them
> around the house, but can't even drive in them, especially at night.
> Flying - at least landing - is out of the question with glasses.

Has anyone you've consulted concidered contacts and glasses together?

One person I know has sever problems (details unkown) and the solution
was a set contacts and glasses for specific tasks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Clark" > wrote

> Did you train my oral surgeon? :-) I'll swear that he used a 3 pound
> mallet
> to knock a hole in my jaw one day. He said it was a 6 oz'er but his
> assistant had to hold my head in place so I'm thinking it was a bigger
> hammer...

And you were awake for this???

No way anyone is going to be hitting me with ANY sized hammer, and me
knowing abut it, without expecting an ass kicking in return! <g>

Pass the nitrous oxide, please! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Yes, the cataract IOL's have been around forever. To me, it sounds a little
> aggressive to remove a perfectly good lens (albeit somewhat stiff and
> non-compliant, like my aging ones) and replace it with a plastic one.
>
> Messing around with the cornea can have it's own set of complications that
> can be devastating, but intraocular problems can be much, much worse.
>
> Of course, this is my impression as an orthopaedic surgeon, where my
> favorite tools are the three pound mallet and the two foot long Sear's bolt
> cutter.


Heh heh... I had a plate and screws removed from my forearm while I was under a
regional block once. Apparently, the plate didn't want to let go so the doc had
to put some ass on it to get it to turn loose. BAM BAM BAM!!!!

"Jeez... what the hell's going on over there?", I asked. I couldn't feel it but
I sure could hear it. Sounded like he was using a 10 pound sledge. Now I know
I wasn't far off.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

Emily > wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:

> >> I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
> >> they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate).
> >
> > Two doctors recommend it even though you're not a candidate? Could you
> > elaborate on that?

> I phrased it poorly. The two doctors suggested I get a consultation, I
> did so, and found out my corneas are too thin for LASIK (I can have
> PRK). The problem with PRK is that my correction is so strong, it's
> likely I won't get 20/20 out of it - in my case, 20/40 would be a
> success and has an 80% chance - and an increased risk of halos and night
> and all that great stuff.

> >> prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
> >> (part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
> >> take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
> >> explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
> >> don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"
> >>
> >> Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment?
> >
> > Treatment, as in LASIK?

> No, being treated like an idiot by doctors. I know I'm not the only
> pilot out there with poor uncorrected eyesight, so I can't figure out
> what I'm doing wrong in trying to get it fixed.

> >> I have a third opinion
> >> scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
> >> important this is?
> >
> > Just tell him IT IS YOUR LIVLIHOOD.

> Problem is, it's not. They seem to think because I'm flying "for fun"
> that I'm not one of those pilots that needs 20/20 vision. It almost
> makes me wish people still thought all pilots need 20/20 to fly.

> Maybe I just lie next time.

Do you have some condition that requires treatment such that you need
to go to an opthalmologist or are you just trying to get a corrective
device, which only requires a decent optometrist?

I've been going to the same optometrist for decades because he listens
to what you are trying to do and comes up with glasses customized for
that.

I can't shoot skeet with my flying glasses and can't fly with the
skeet glasses, but both work perfectly for what they were intended
for.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

wrote:
>> The question I always get. :-) I have a fairly strong correction (-7
>> and -8). My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses and since the
>> focal point (?) is slightly in front of my eyes, there's a fair amount
>> of distortion and depth perception problems. I can't remember exactly
>> why the distortion happens, but it does with glasses. I wear them
>> around the house, but can't even drive in them, especially at night.
>> Flying - at least landing - is out of the question with glasses.
>
> Has anyone you've consulted concidered contacts and glasses together?


At -8, I'd have considered a seeing eye dog. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Allen wrote:
> She already has the weighted (toric) lenses.

Ah, I didn't know the english name for it, thanks.

Friedrich

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> High myopes (near sighted) would end up with correspondingly thinner
> corneal flaps for lasik, so correction becomes more difficult.
>
> Working in a medical school with a very strong ophthalmology program, I
> have asked about lasik as well as the IOL. Lasik does look promising, but
> there is a lot less long term data on the IOL. For now, I'm sticking with
> glasses and contacts.

Speaking of LASIK, this is interesting:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/seeing_is_belie.html

I wonder how that data holds up today, nearly three year later.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>
> Messing around with the cornea can have it's own set of complications that
> can be devastating, but intraocular problems can be much, much worse.
>
> Of course, this is my impression as an orthopaedic surgeon, where my
> favorite tools are the three pound mallet and the two foot long Sear's
> bolt cutter.

So that's what my dad was talking about when he referred to doctors as "saw
bones".

Hey, if you need a construction job, I can fit you in! Gotta have your own
tools, but it seems your well equipped! :~)

Reminds my of a shrink I know whose tool of choice is a ballpeen hammer!
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Yes, the cataract IOL's have been around forever. To me, it sounds a
>> little
>> aggressive to remove a perfectly good lens (albeit somewhat stiff and
>> non-compliant, like my aging ones) and replace it with a plastic one.
>>
>> Messing around with the cornea can have it's own set of complications
>> that
>> can be devastating, but intraocular problems can be much, much worse.
>>
>> Of course, this is my impression as an orthopaedic surgeon, where my
>> favorite tools are the three pound mallet and the two foot long Sear's
>> bolt
>> cutter.
>
>
> Heh heh... I had a plate and screws removed from my forearm while I was
> under a regional block once. Apparently, the plate didn't want to let go
> so the doc had to put some ass on it to get it to turn loose. BAM BAM
> BAM!!!!
>
> "Jeez... what the hell's going on over there?", I asked. I couldn't feel
> it but I sure could hear it. Sounded like he was using a 10 pound sledge.
> Now I know I wasn't far off.
>
When the compressor motor kicked on is when you should have balked.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Really-Old-Fart" > wrote in message
.. .
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 07:36:15a, Emily
> > wrote:
>
>> I'd do that in a heartbeat if it corrected astigmatism. I'm sure it's
>> a lot less painful than the PRK I've been relegated to, plus it's
>> reversible.
>
> The only thing that is truly reversible is wearing glasses. Plus, they
> serve the added benefit of working as safety glasses when you're doing
> something that might result in eye damage.
>
> They make some prescription sunglasses in the skull fitting style like
> you see popular with some of the guys riding motorcycles. They wrap
> around and don't allow any air to catch them so that they are less
> likely to get blown off your head if you turn your head perpendicular to
> the prevailing wind. I've never tried them, but you might want to check
> them out to see if the prescription wraps around the whole lense also.

Are you assuming she flies in an open cockpit?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo wrote:
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How would you know anything about vision or what's needed for flying,
>>> since you're not an ophthalmologist or a pilot?
>>>
>>> Anthony Atkielski- self proclaimed expert in----everything.
>>>
>>
>> Using his surgery simulator:
>>
>> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=game+operation&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
>
>
> Now THAT'S funny! 8^)

I keep remembering Jethro Bodine wanting to be a brain surgeon.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> How would you know anything about vision or what's needed for flying, since
> you're not an ophthalmologist or a pilot?

How would you know, since you're (apparently) an orthopedic surgeon?

As hard as it may be to accept, it is perfectly possible to know a great deal
about something even without any credentials. Louis Pasteur was a chemist,
not a biologist, and Charles Goodyear ran a hardware store and yet still
managed to discover how to vulcanize rubber. And the Wright brothers were not
even licensed pilots when they designed their first aircraft.

[Peter Dohm]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in news:u%WBi.24$Py5.15
> @newsfe05.lga:
>
> >
> > "Clark" > wrote
> >
> >> Did you train my oral surgeon? :-) I'll swear that he used a 3 pound
> >> mallet
> >> to knock a hole in my jaw one day. He said it was a 6 oz'er but his
> >> assistant had to hold my head in place so I'm thinking it was a bigger
> >> hammer...
> >
> > And you were awake for this???
> >
> > No way anyone is going to be hitting me with ANY sized hammer, and me
> > knowing abut it, without expecting an ass kicking in return! <g>
> >
> > Pass the nitrous oxide, please! ;-)
>
>
> You betcha I was awake for it. It gave me one heck of a headache but how
else
> was I gonna keep an eye on them?
> --
> ---
You said a mouthfull there!

Peter

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:05:47 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
> wrote:

>The only thing that is truly reversible is wearing glasses.

I have worn glasses since I was two years old. I have worn bifocals
since I was oh 45. I am effectively blind in one eye, I am
near-sighted, I have astigmatism, and now I am developing cataracts. I
carry a magnifying glass in my flying vest in case I have to study a
chart.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims that he or she can't
land a plane while wearing glasses. Sounds like vanity to me. Or at
best, lack of practice. (I've had 73 years' practice.)


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:25:01 GMT, wrote:

>I can't shoot skeet with my flying glasses and can't fly with the
>skeet glasses, but both work perfectly for what they were intended
>for.

Good counsel!

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:36:51 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses

Why would that be? Are they wraparound?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:36:51 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
> >My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses
>
> Why would that be? Are they wraparound?
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

One quick look at a pair of glasses for extreme myopia will explain it--they
are relatively small, very thick at the edges, and heavy. They really do
look like bottle bottoms, and they make me thankfull that my own required
correction is less than -1.5

Peter

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 01:14:27p, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

> Are you assuming she flies in an open cockpit?

No, I'm just pointing out that there are glasses that curve around the head
and they might have a prescription along the edges that would work for her.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:25:01 GMT, wrote:
>
>>I can't shoot skeet with my flying glasses and can't fly with the
>>skeet glasses, but both work perfectly for what they were intended
>>for.
>
> Good counsel!
>
One alternative?

I shoot Sporting Clays with medium amber lenses, and fly with dark grey.
These are magnetic and clip onto my prescription glasses which have titanium
frames.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> "Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:25:01 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >>I can't shoot skeet with my flying glasses and can't fly with the
> >>skeet glasses, but both work perfectly for what they were intended
> >>for.
> >
> > Good counsel!
> >
> One alternative?

> I shoot Sporting Clays with medium amber lenses, and fly with dark grey.
> These are magnetic and clip onto my prescription glasses which have titanium
> frames.

The skeet glasses are single lens, shooting yellow, corrected for objects
at infinity, and the center of correction is slightly up on the lenses
lined up with the eyeball center when my head is down on the stock.

The flying glasses are bifocal lenses, clear, corrected for objects at
infinity on the top, corrected for the mean distance to the panel on
the bottom, and the separation line is adjusted such that it appears
the same place as the very top of the panel when I sit upright so I
don't see the line.

How'd that happen?

For the skeet glasses, he had me hold a stick like I would a shotgun,
got in front of me and marked the blank lenses where the eyeball was
looking.

For the flying glasses, he gave me the frames with blank lenses and
had me measure the distance from my nose to the center of the panel
and put tape on the lenses that lined up with the top of the panel.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

I need -10 correction. Before I even started lessons I did my 3rd
class medical and had no problems passing. I was 20/20 in one eye and
20/30 in the other. Funny thing was when I had my regular exam a few
weeks later, my eye doctor said I was 20/20 in both eyes.

Fortunately my astigmatism is not too bad. I am able to drive with my
glasses, but I do not like to because I lose so much of my peripheral
vision. I do fly with my contacts, but I plan on practicing with
glasses in the event that I have to switch over to them in mid flight.

I am also like you that I can not be corrected to 20/20 with lasik
because of thin corneas. If my astigmatism gets worse I may get
partially corrected anyway. Maybe someday they will get to the point
where they can just clone us some new eyeballs! :)

On Aug 31, 7:36 am, Emily > wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
> > Emily opined
>
> >> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>
> >> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> >> set in.
>
> >> I have bad eyes.
>
> > IIUC, you wear contacts? Why not use old-fashioned glasses?
>
> The question I always get. :-) I have a fairly strong correction (-7
> and -8). My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses and since the
> focal point (?) is slightly in front of my eyes, there's a fair amount
> of distortion and depth perception problems. I can't remember exactly
> why the distortion happens, but it does with glasses. I wear them
> around the house, but can't even drive in them, especially at night.
> Flying - at least landing - is out of the question with glasses.

[Ash Wyllie]

javaguy11111 opined

>I need -10 correction. Before I even started lessons I did my 3rd
>class medical and had no problems passing. I was 20/20 in one eye and
>20/30 in the other. Funny thing was when I had my regular exam a few
>weeks later, my eye doctor said I was 20/20 in both eyes.

When you make a camera out of jelly, it is not very stable.

>Fortunately my astigmatism is not too bad. I am able to drive with my
>glasses, but I do not like to because I lose so much of my peripheral
>vision. I do fly with my contacts, but I plan on practicing with
>glasses in the event that I have to switch over to them in mid flight.

>I am also like you that I can not be corrected to 20/20 with lasik
>because of thin corneas. If my astigmatism gets worse I may get
>partially corrected anyway. Maybe someday they will get to the point
>where they can just clone us some new eyeballs! :)

>On Aug 31, 7:36 am, Emily > wrote:
>> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>> > Emily opined
>>
>> >> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>>
>> >> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
>> >> set in.
>>
>> >> I have bad eyes.
>>
>> > IIUC, you wear contacts? Why not use old-fashioned glasses?
>>
>> The question I always get. :-) I have a fairly strong correction (-7
>> and -8). My peripheral vision is terrible with glasses and since the
>> focal point (?) is slightly in front of my eyes, there's a fair amount
>> of distortion and depth perception problems. I can't remember exactly
>> why the distortion happens, but it does with glasses. I wear them
>> around the house, but can't even drive in them, especially at night.
>> Flying - at least landing - is out of the question with glasses.




-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Tom L.]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:28:28 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>
>That's exactly why not. Cubdriver's giving me the same spiel I get from
>friends and family - you know, the ones with something like -1.0
>correction. Trust me, vanity's on the list, but it's way after the
>vision issues that glasses cause.
>
>Could I learn to land a plane with depth perception off that badly? Of
>course - at the risk of having to relearn to walk every time. It takes
>a tremendous amount of acclimation and isn't something that's real
>practical.
>
>And as far as the peripheral vision goes, well, I kinda need that to see
>traffic. It's something else you don't realize the importance of until
>you don't have it. Wraparound glasses (for myopia) causes an incredible
>amount of distortion on the edges and are practically useless.

My numbers may be similar to yours: - 8 and -8.5 sph, -2.25 cyl, and
+2.25 for reading.

I use glasses made of plastic with higher reafraction coefficient so
they don't have to be very thick and heavy (my glasses together with
the frame weigh only 1 oz) and, because of reduced thickness,
distortion is minimal. That also improves depth perception. I still
have diffuclties hiking downhill - I never know how far is that rock I
want to step on, but my landings are not affected at all.

I also keep lenses reasonably small - nothing extreme, whatever is
fashionable these days, not the big lenses that were common tweny
years ago. That pretty much eliminates my peripheral vision, but that
doesn't bother me - I'd much rather turn my head and actively look for
traffic than wait for it to appear somewhere in the corner of my eye.

What I don't do (and I tried) is use contacts when flying. Contacts
move around. Weighted lenses are self-correcting, not fixed. Which
means that they will move, often exactly when you need perfect vision,
and slowly get back into proper place and orienatation over next 30
seconds or more. That's not acceptable to me. Another problem is that
eyes get drier at higher altitudes - wetting them makes lenses even
less stable.

I talked to two Lasik surgeons and decided against it (at least for
now). When I asked about my chance of ending up with vision worse than
what I have now, the best they could come up with is "chances of
success are much higher than few years back". That's not enough for
me, especially after reviewing this:
http://www.visionsurgeryrehab.org/
I wouldn't be able to fly with some of the problems described there, I
can fly with glasses. I just make sure to always have two spare pairs,
one of them hanging around my neck.

- Tom

[Emily[_1_]]

On Sep 2, 5:02 pm, Tom L. > wrote:
<snip>

> What I don't do (and I tried) is use contacts when flying. Contacts
> move around. Weighted lenses are self-correcting, not fixed. Which
> means that they will move, often exactly when you need perfect vision,
> and slowly get back into proper place and orientation over next 30
> seconds or more.

The reason I'm ok with this is that even when my vision isn't perfect,
it's definitely good enough to function, it's more of as hassle than
anything else. But the headaches from the uncorrected astigmatism?
No thanks. Funny thing is, I've talked to people who have NO issues
with weighted lenses - wish I was one of them.

> That's not enough for
> me, especially after reviewing this:http://www.visionsurgeryrehab.org/
> I wouldn't be able to fly with some of the problems described there, I
> can fly with glasses.

Yikes.

<Strikes PRK from the list of options.>

Third opinion scheduled in a few weeks. Hopefully I can get this
solved and hang onto my medical. Really appreciate everyone's
thoughts on this.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Emily" > wrote

> Yikes.
>
> <Strikes PRK from the list of options.>

No doubt. I have not seen that any of the corrective options are 100% safe,
so until then, I LOVE my glasses. <g>

Well, perhaps that is too strong, but I love them compared to having my
vision ruined!
> Third opinion scheduled in a few weeks. Hopefully I can get this
> solved and hang onto my medical. Really appreciate everyone's
> thoughts on this.

What was that third option, or didn't you say what it was, 'cause I couldn't
find it!
--
Jim in NC

[Emily[_1_]]

On Sep 2, 9:02 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> What was that third option, or didn't you say what it was, 'cause I couldn't
> find it!

Third opinion, actually. Going to try to talk him into RGP contacts,
which I wore as a kid and hated. Worth a try again, I think.

[Viperdoc]

I, however, am a pilot, and a physician and do both of these activities on a
daily basis. What's your claim to reality?

[[email protected]]

I typically can't see going to work everyday, so I guess that would
qualify as a vision problem...

[Montblack]

wrote)
> I typically can't see going to work everyday, so I guess that would
> qualify as a vision problem...


LOL!!!


Paul-Mont
Can't see the forest through the trees some days

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You must travel in very lofty company with such a superior intellect.

It isn't necessary to be of superior intellect simply to fraternize with
people of superior intellect. The company I keep is perhaps not lofty, but it
is a significant cut above much of what I see here.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > You must travel in very lofty company with such a superior intellect.

> It isn't necessary to be of superior intellect simply to fraternize with
> people of superior intellect. The company I keep is perhaps not lofty, but it
> is a significant cut above much of what I see here.

Then why don't you just go away?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 30, 7:51 pm, Emily > wrote:
> Not a directly piloting question, but it certainly affects it.
>
> My second class medical expires in December, so panic is starting to
> set in.
>
> I have bad eyes. Theoretically correctable to 20/20, but in reality,
> toric contact lenses aren't much better than a piece of plastic in my
> eye. My correction is so strong that it's difficult for me to drive
> with glasses, and don't ask me to land a plane with them. So far I've
> managed to hang onto my second class by sticking my finger in my eye
> and manually rotating the lens before the test. I'm worried my AME is
> going to start having issues with this.
>
> I've seen two doctors in an attempt to get this taken care of, but
> they both recommended LASIK (I'm not even a candidate). The
> prevailing opinion seems to be that since I'm not flying for a living
> (part time CFI and fly for CAP) that I don't need 20/20 vision and can
> take the risks associated with the surgery. I actually had one guy
> explain to me that "needing 20/20 vision to be a pilot is a myth -
> don't let it stop you if you really want to learn to fly!"
>
> Has anyone experiences this kind of treatment? Am I being unrealistic
> to expect help in getting 20/20 vision? I have a third opinion
> scheduled for next month - how do I make the doctor understand how
> important this is?
>
> (and yes, I'm aware I don't even need a medical to instruct, but CAP
> requires it and frankly I'm tired of living in an astigmatism-blurred
> world)

Emily,

I had severe myopia (20/250 or so) and a 5 diopters of asytmatism. I
was corrected to 20/20 with contact lenses, but decided to do PRK
(photo-refractive keratotomy, the pre-cursor to lasik) in late 1995.
This form of laser surgery removes material from the the surface of
your cornea and does not leave a scar, unlike Lasik. PRK is approved
by the U.S. Air Force for military pilots. My sister had the
procedure done a couple months before I did it with great results. We
both went to the Broadway Eye Center in Vancouver B.C. since it wasn't
approved yet in the USA.

My vision has been 20/15 every since my eyes completely healed
following the procedure (takes a couple of months for the epithelium
to grow back, with steroidal eye drops).

It was worth every penny of the $4000 I spent on it.

Dean

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Viperdoc writes:
>
> > > You must travel in very lofty company with such a superior intellect.
>
> > It isn't necessary to be of superior intellect simply to fraternize with
> > people of superior intellect. The company I keep is perhaps not lofty, but it
> > is a significant cut above much of what I see here.
>
> Then why don't you just go away?

Because I like aviation. I've realized, however, that most people here can't
answer most questions; PPLs aren't nearly as well informed as I had assumed.
I still post some questions, but not as many as before.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > Viperdoc writes:
> >
> > > > You must travel in very lofty company with such a superior intellect.
> >
> > > It isn't necessary to be of superior intellect simply to fraternize with
> > > people of superior intellect. The company I keep is perhaps not lofty, but it
> > > is a significant cut above much of what I see here.
> >
> > Then why don't you just go away?

> Because I like aviation. I've realized, however, that most people here can't
> answer most questions; PPLs aren't nearly as well informed as I had assumed.
> I still post some questions, but not as many as before.

Yeah, right.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.