Sunglasses for soaring

[[email protected]]

I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
Thanks,
Jim

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

I have always been xtremely pleased with the performance of Revo lenses.

If you have a chance, I highly recommend giving them a try. I swore by
Serengeti until my instructor passed his Revos to me up front one day and I
was amazed.

Admittedly a little pricey ($250) but I place at least that much value in the
ability to see and avoid and the UV protection for my eyes.
wrote:
>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>Thanks,
>Jim

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

[AlexBerberich]

I'm a huge fan of Serengetis, don't think you can go wrong with those.

[Nyal Williams]

If they are local, why not go there and try out a pair?
I've used nothing else since they hit the market and
were reviewed in Soaring back in the mid-80s. They
can even do tri-focals! You can probably find Serengetis
locally, also. Try them both before you decide.

At 17:18 14 September 2007,
wrote:
>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses
>work well for
>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th
>busiest airport in
>the world, anything that will increase my chances of
>seeing another
>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of.
> It also turns out
>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>Thanks,
>Jim
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.

Since sunglass type has only a marginal effect on detecting threatening
aircraft, I'm curious: is this the start of a search for improved
separation from other aircraft, or near the end of it, because your
glider already has in it a transponder, Zaon MRX, and a pilot
well-trained in scanning techniques, ATC communications, and
arrival/departure paths?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 2:06 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> > soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> > the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> > aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> > that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> > Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>
> Since sunglass type has only a marginal effect on detecting threatening
> aircraft, I'm curious: is this the start of a search for improved
> separation from other aircraft, or near the end of it, because your
> glider already has in it a transponder, Zaon MRX, and a pilot
> well-trained in scanning techniques, ATC communications, and
> arrival/departure paths?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Even a small effect may be helpful. I have been working on improving
my scanning habits, (which are similar but not identical to scanning
required to stay alive riding a motorcycle, which I've been doing for
36 years) but still often visually pick up traffic that is already
closer than I'd like. One of the local pilots (25 years working
McCarren tower) is also trying to help me learn which directions the
threats are most likely to appear from in what location at which
altitudes.
To answer your question, radio monitoring yes, MRX and Transponder no.
I will add both if and when I can afford to.
Also, I need new sunglasses and thought this would be a good time to
'ping' the RAS for recommendations.

[Peter Nyffeler]

In article om>, wrote:
>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>Thanks,
>Jim
>

My eyeglasses for soaring have Zeiss Skylet Fun glass.
They have a somewhat different spectral transmission to normal sunglasses,
designed by the German soaring pilot and professor for electro optics Obermeier,
see webpage
zeiss.de/4125680f0053a38d/Contents-Frame/59dab48462214477c1256ac70023f799
I use them also for car driving because the dynamic range is excellent. While
driving trough a tunnel, I don't need to take them of.
It would be interesting to compare the spectral transmission with other
recommended sunglasses.

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 18:13, wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.

Are Sun Tigers the very bright orange ones? If so, I have heard that
they are good for spotting clouds but that they can make field
selection difficult as crop colours - and hence maturity - are
difficult to distinguish.

I have a couple of pairs of Cloudmasters which I bought after
discussions here years ago: I understand they have excellent UV
protection (which is why I wear them, really) and they are very good
for cloud spotting with little colour distortion.

Ian

[[email protected]]

On Sep 17, 4:32 am, Ian > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 18:13, wrote:
>
> > I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> > soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> > the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> > aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> > that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> > Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>
> Are Sun Tigers the very bright orange ones? If so, I have heard that
> they are good for spotting clouds but that they can make field
> selection difficult as crop colours - and hence maturity - are
> difficult to distinguish.
>
> I have a couple of pairs of Cloudmasters which I bought after
> discussions here years ago: I understand they have excellent UV
> protection (which is why I wear them, really) and they are very good
> for cloud spotting with little colour distortion.
>
> Ian

Field selection isn't much of an issue here. We mostly grow rocks and
sage brush!

[Henryk Birecki]

(Peter Nyffeler) wrote:

>In article om>, wrote:
>>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>>Thanks,
>>Jim
>>

I've been using Suntigers for at least 10 years now. For me they work
great. In spite of blue being black, color distorsion never got in my
way. It is amazing how well the brain compensates. I wear bifocals.
Suntiger just makes them to my prescription (I did send them a frame
and a drawing where to put the split). I also have nothing but
positive things to say about how they deal with customers.

Cheers,
Henryk Birecki

[Ian]

On 17 Sep, 15:50, wrote:

> Field selection isn't much of an issue here. We mostly grow rocks and
> sage brush!

Perhaps you need to carry rose tinted spectacles as well, then?

Ian

[01-- Zero One]

" > wrote in
message :

> (Peter Nyffeler) wrote:
>
> >In article om>, wrote:
> >>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> >>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> >>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> >>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> >>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> >>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
> >>Thanks,
> >>Jim
> >>
>
> I've been using Suntigers for at least 10 years now. For me they work
> great. In spite of blue being black, color distorsion never got in my
> way. It is amazing how well the brain compensates. I wear bifocals.
> Suntiger just makes them to my prescription (I did send them a frame
> and a drawing where to put the split). I also have nothing but
> positive things to say about how they deal with customers.
>
> Cheers,
> Henryk Birecki



Interesting, Henryk,



My experience was not so good. I bought a pair a couple of years ago.
Used them very little. Recently they broke, obviously from a defective
solder joint. I contacted them and they refused to do anything except
repair or replace them for the cost of new ones.



I am not satisfied.



Larry

[Doug Hoffman]

Ian wrote:

> Are Sun Tigers the very bright orange ones? If so, I have
> heard that
> they are good for spotting clouds

They are good for that and more.
STs significantly improve visual clarity in both bright and hazy
light.
You can see better, which includes the ability to pick out small
objects
at a distance.

I can't comment on how STs compare to Cloudmasters in those
respects
as I have never worn CMs.

--
Regards,
Doug


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ramy]

On Sep 17, 7:59 am, Henryk Birecki > wrote:
> (Peter Nyffeler) wrote:
> >In article om>, wrote:
> >>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> >>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> >>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> >>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> >>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> >>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
> >>Thanks,
> >>Jim
>
> I've been using Suntigers for at least 10 years now. For me they work
> great. In spite of blue being black, color distorsion never got in my
> way. It is amazing how well the brain compensates. I wear bifocals.
> Suntiger just makes them to my prescription (I did send them a frame
> and a drawing where to put the split). I also have nothing but
> positive things to say about how they deal with customers.
>
> Cheers,
> Henryk Birecki

There are couple of types on their web site http://www.suntiger.com/,
with and without polarization and anti reflecting coating. Which one
is most suitabe?

Ramy

[Paul Hanson]

Anyone have any thoughts on Eagle Eyes Sunglasses,
which seem to be made on the same principal as the
Sun Tigers?
http://eeo.com/ It seems that that group of NASA (or
JPL) guys formed TWO rival sunglasses businesses after
discovering the secrets in the eye of birds of prey,
which was an amber fluid that blocked not only UV A/B,
but also blue and violet. Although only available with
polarized lenses, Eagle Eyes have many more frame options,
some of which actually look cool.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

[Peter Nyffeler]

In article >, (Peter Nyffeler) wrote:
>In article om>,
> wrote:
>>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>>Thanks,
>>Jim
>>
>
>My eyeglasses for soaring have Zeiss Skylet Fun glass.
>They have a somewhat different spectral transmission to normal sunglasses,
>designed by the German soaring pilot and professor for electro optics
> Obermeier,
>see webpage
>zeiss.de/4125680f0053a38d/Contents-Frame/59dab48462214477c1256ac70023f799

Put www. in front of zeiss to see the page.

Has anyone transmission spectra of the other sunglasses discussed here?

Peter Nyffeler
Y7 HB-1689

[ContestID67]

The correct clickable link for Zeiss Skylet lenses is;

http://www.zeiss.de/4125680f0053a38d/Contents-Frame/59dab48462214477c1256ac70023f799

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 14, 10:13 am, wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.


I have flown with them for about 20 years. I like them. I had
prescription lenses made to fit my frames and sent them to Sun Tiger
to be tinted. Even if you don't need prescription lenses that still
lets you choose your own frames and get ones that fit. The color (or
colour) shift is significant but I have not found it to be a safety
concern.

I heard BGA took exception to them because of problems with crop
recognition but in Arizona cotton looks like cotton, and rocks still
look like rocks. When you first wear them you'll be amazed how bright
young green vegetation looks.

Check the archives. They have been discussed before.

Andy

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Peter Nyffeler wrote:
>Has anyone transmission spectra of the other sunglasses discussed here?
>
>Peter Nyffeler
>Y7 HB-1689

http://www.revo.com/

A rather annoying web page (stupid animated text) but if you choose the
"technology" button, it will describe how you can actually choose spectral
transmission properties in Revo lenses.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

[Henryk Birecki]

"01-- Zero One" > wrote:

>
" > wrote in
>message :
>
>> (Peter Nyffeler) wrote:
>>
>> >In article om>, wrote:
>> >>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>> >>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>> >>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>> >>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>> >>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>> >>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Jim
>> >>
>>
>> I've been using Suntigers for at least 10 years now. For me they work
>> great. In spite of blue being black, color distorsion never got in my
>> way. It is amazing how well the brain compensates. I wear bifocals.
>> Suntiger just makes them to my prescription (I did send them a frame
>> and a drawing where to put the split). I also have nothing but
>> positive things to say about how they deal with customers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Henryk Birecki
>
>
>
>Interesting, Henryk,
>
>
>
>My experience was not so good. I bought a pair a couple of years ago.
>Used them very little. Recently they broke, obviously from a defective
>solder joint. I contacted them and they refused to do anything except
>repair or replace them for the cost of new ones.
>
>
>
>I am not satisfied.
>
>
>
>Larry
>

When I got my first pair of glasses from Suntiger they had some
serious internal problems due to employee caused fraud. I did not hear
from them for a while after placing order, and could not find them
when I tried. Let's say I was not happy about that. At this point I do
not remember details, but after a while they found me. Explained what
happened and provided me with glasses. Since then I had no problems
what so ever either with quality or service.

Cheers,
Henryk

[Henryk Birecki]

Ramy > wrote:

>On Sep 17, 7:59 am, Henryk Birecki > wrote:
>> (Peter Nyffeler) wrote:
>> >In article om>, wrote:
>> >>I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
>> >>soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
>> >>the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
>> >>aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
>> >>that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
>> >>Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Jim
>>
>> I've been using Suntigers for at least 10 years now. For me they work
>> great. In spite of blue being black, color distorsion never got in my
>> way. It is amazing how well the brain compensates. I wear bifocals.
>> Suntiger just makes them to my prescription (I did send them a frame
>> and a drawing where to put the split). I also have nothing but
>> positive things to say about how they deal with customers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Henryk Birecki
>
>There are couple of types on their web site http://www.suntiger.com/,
>with and without polarization and anti reflecting coating. Which one
>is most suitabe?
>
>Ramy

Ones I am using are not polarized. Personally (and others will
disagree) I do not like polarized glasses in cockpit. Too many
artifacts with displays and even canopy.

Cheers,
Henryk Birecki

[S52]

I am quite happy with my Serengetis because of the following features:

- automatic adjustment (darkening) to light intensity, also useful for
tunnel driving

- increased contrast, this enables you to spot distant moving objects
earlier, and also to see more cloud details

Due to the different other technologies applied in the glasses, the
sunglasses are very relaxing to your eyes.


wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
> Thanks,
> Jim
>

[Brent Mayes]

I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
polarized lenses better for soaring?

Brent Mayes

[01-- Zero One]

They are not better, Brent. In fact, polarized ones are better because
they allow you to see haze domes and other gliders with greater
definition and contrast. See this thread for a few caveats about older
canopies, etc. But all in all, polarized is the way to go, IMNSHO.



Larry

"zero one"

USA









"Brent Mayes" > wrote in
message :

> I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
> polarized lenses better for soaring?
>
> Brent Mayes

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

On Sep 14, 1:13 pm, wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
> Thanks,
> Jim

I buy safety glasses at Wal-Mart for $4.79 ... lens colors range from
yellow, light orange, and dark orange ... I typically bring yellow and
one of the orange pairs in the ship depending on how much cu I
expect ... material is polycarbonate so they absorb 100% of UV and
offer impact protection ... they are light weight and temples are
adjustable and the frames are camy colored so they look ok for the
style conscious ... I add stick on magnifiers to assist reading ...
price is so cheap so I have a half dozen backups ... I went the
expensive sunglass route prior - fine if you have a demanding optical
requirement or ego - but this works out great on a bunch of levels.
Your experience may differ.

http://www.msu.edu/~aslocum/sun/sunglasses.htm

KK

[Forest Baskett]

At 15:48 19 September 2007, Brent Mayes wrote:
>I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
>polarized lenses better for soaring?
>
>Brent Mayes
>
>
>
>
Polarized lenses will give better contrast between
clouds and blue sky. They also filter out the polarized
reflections from horizontal wings. I prefer to see
those flashes from the wings of other planes so I don't
use polarized lenses in the air. I used to use them
for driving until I got a car with a heads up display.
Now I just use than on the water, where they are wonderful.

Forest

[Greg Arnold]

Forest Baskett wrote:
> At 15:48 19 September 2007, Brent Mayes wrote:
>> I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
>> polarized lenses better for soaring?
>>
>> Brent Mayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Polarized lenses will give better contrast between
> clouds and blue sky.

Also better contrast between gliders and the blue sky.

They also filter out the polarized
> reflections from horizontal wings. I prefer to see
> those flashes from the wings of other planes so I don't
> use polarized lenses in the air. I used to use them
> for driving until I got a car with a heads up display.
> Now I just use than on the water, where they are wonderful.
>
> Forest
>
>
>

[Bryan[_4_]]

> I buy safety glasses at Wal-Mart for $4.79 ... lens colors range from
> yellow, light orange, and dark orange ... I typically bring yellow and
> one of the orange pairs in the ship depending on how much cu I
> expect .
> KK

Do the Wal-Mart safety glasses fit over prescription glasses and how does
expected cu help you decide which color to use when flying?

Bryan

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

On Sep 19, 2:16 pm, "Bryan" > wrote:
> > I buy safety glasses at Wal-Mart for $4.79 ... lens colors range from
> > yellow, light orange, and dark orange ... I typically bring yellow and
> > one of the orange pairs in the ship depending on how much cu I
> > expect .
> > KK
>
> Do the Wal-Mart safety glasses fit over prescription glasses and how does
> expected cu help you decide which color to use when flying?
>
> Bryan

On blue days I wear the dark lenses ... the yellow when I expect to be
under widespread cu or over development ... the medium lenses offer
some more flexibility.

They are probably too small to go over prescription glasses ... plus
they wrap around the sides. Here is a photo:

http://www.pgcsoaring.org/kk/glasses.jpg

I also stopped by a different Wal-Mart today ... and they did not seem
to carry the item, so I expect they are not available in all stores
for some reason. They are called SafetyVu Safety Glasses.

Here is a link to the manufacturer ...

http://www.greattechvision.com/

KK

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 1:13 pm, wrote:
> I have heard from time-to-time that Sun Tiger sunglasses work well for
> soaring. Since I fly within 30 miles of the 1/10th busiest airport in
> the world, anything that will increase my chances of seeing another
> aircraft is something I want to take advantage of. It also turns out
> that Sun Tigers are local, and not particularly expensive.
> Opinions either pro or con are welcomed.
> Thanks,
> Jim

Hi Jim - I recommend Sun Tiger. Mine are custom bifocal which
they tinted. Polarized would be better if it didn't highlight canopy
distortions and make some instruments unreadable, so go with
unpolarized.

Best Regards, Dave "YO"

PS: Miss August posted 3rd longest flight on OLC Sunday,
using Sun Tiger glasses certainly helped read the clouds:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=288978033

[Pete Brown]

Brent Mayes wrote:
> I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
> polarized lenses better for soaring?


Getting involved in this fight on this news group is about as productive
as debating the merits of a 2-33 but, for the record, many organizations
actively discourage the use of polarized sunglasses for flight operations.

From the FAA:

"The use of polarized sunglasses should be discouraged, since they can
reduce or effectively eliminate the visibility of instruments that
incorporate anti-glare filters or can interfere with visibility through
an aircraft windscreen due to striations in some laminated materials."

From: Flight Safety Foundation

www.flightsafety.org/hf/hf_jul-aug90.pdf

From NASA

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_205.htm

In the old days (at least decade ago) I know that U.S. Navy issue
sunglasses specs specified non-polarized lenses. I have no idea if that
has been updated or if the USAF had different ideas.


--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

[Greg Arnold]

Pete Brown wrote:
> Brent Mayes wrote:
>> I guess this is a stupid question, but why are non
>> polarized lenses better for soaring?
>
>
> Getting involved in this fight on this news group is about as productive
> as debating the merits of a 2-33 but, for the record, many organizations
> actively discourage the use of polarized sunglasses for flight operations.
>
> From the FAA:
>
> "The use of polarized sunglasses should be discouraged, since they can
> reduce or effectively eliminate the visibility of instruments that
> incorporate anti-glare filters or can interfere with visibility through
> an aircraft windscreen due to striations in some laminated materials."

I guess it depends upon the glider. I have never had any problem with
polarized glasses -- the instruments are clear (302, Dittel radio, B50)
as long as you keep your head upright, and there has never been any
effect on visibility through the canopy. The polarized glasses sure
make it a lot easier to see clouds, though.

The only time I have noticed a problem is in my car, where I can't read
the display on the radio without tilting my head to the right.



>
> From: Flight Safety Foundation
>
> www.flightsafety.org/hf/hf_jul-aug90.pdf
>
> From NASA
>
> http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_205.htm
>
> In the old days (at least decade ago) I know that U.S. Navy issue
> sunglasses specs specified non-polarized lenses. I have no idea if that
> has been updated or if the USAF had different ideas.
>
>

[Michael Ash]

Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> "The use of polarized sunglasses should be discouraged, since they can
>> reduce or effectively eliminate the visibility of instruments that
>> incorporate anti-glare filters or can interfere with visibility through
>> an aircraft windscreen due to striations in some laminated materials."
>
> I guess it depends upon the glider. I have never had any problem with
> polarized glasses -- the instruments are clear (302, Dittel radio, B50)
> as long as you keep your head upright, and there has never been any
> effect on visibility through the canopy. The polarized glasses sure
> make it a lot easier to see clouds, though.
>
> The only time I have noticed a problem is in my car, where I can't read
> the display on the radio without tilting my head to the right.

I also use polarized sunglasses, not because of any particular preference
but just because the ones I got with my regular glasses happened to be
that way. I have also noticed no real problems. Sometimes I have to tilt
my head to get a clearer look at the GPS, but I don't do that very often
anyway. Another poster's comment about it masking the flashes off of other
aircraft's wings is has given me some pause though. In any case they don't
seem to be terribly beneficial either, although the added sky contrast is
nice.

Where they're really handy is driving. There's a lot of glare coming off
of horizontal surfacaes there, whether it's your hood, other people's
hoods, or the road, and the polarization stops all of that. They do make
funny colors and shades come off my car GPS but it's still readable.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Pete Brown wrote:

>
>Getting involved in this fight on this news group is about as productive
>as debating the merits of a 2-33 but, for the record, many organizations
>actively discourage the use of polarized sunglasses for flight operations.
>
> From the FAA:
>
>"The use of polarized sunglasses should be discouraged, since they can
>reduce or effectively eliminate the visibility of instruments that
>incorporate anti-glare filters or can interfere with visibility through
>an aircraft windscreen due to striations in some laminated materials."
>
Hmm. Didn't look to me like anyone was fighting.

In any case I have noticed the artifacts that polarized lenses produce on my
PDA but it is enough to simply lean my head little if necessary to make them
go away.
It doesn't interfere enough to be a big deal.

Up to this point I have been so absolutely pleased with the Revos that it
seemed unnecessary to seek further.
This discussion has encouraged me to go out and try some of the other names
I've read here.
Thanks all for the input.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

[01-- Zero One]

"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
:

<snip>

> I also use polarized sunglasses, not because of any particular preference
> but just because the ones I got with my regular glasses happened to be
> that way. I have also noticed no real problems. Sometimes I have to tilt
> my head to get a clearer look at the GPS, but I don't do that very often
> anyway. Another poster's comment about it masking the flashes off of other
> aircraft's wings is has given me some pause though.









Actually, I think the result is just the opposite...



How often are a distant gliders wings "horizontal"?... almost never!



And the increase in contrast between the glider and the sky or clouds
while circling or on the run are substantial.





Larry

"zero one"

[Paul Hanson]

And how often are the other aircraft (that are much
heavier, much faster, probably have their pilots eyes
glued to their panels, and much likely to hit you than
another glider, especially one at a distance) flying
with 'their' wings level...

Almost always!

Paul


>Actually, I think the result is just the opposite...
>
>
>
>How often are a distant gliders wings 'horizontal'?...
>almost never!
>
>
>
>And the increase in contrast between the glider and
>the sky or clouds
>while circling or on the run are substantial.
>
>
>
>
>
>Larry
>
>'zero one'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sep 20, 10:11 am, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
> And how often are the other aircraft (that are much
> heavier, much faster, probably have their pilots eyes
> glued to their panels, and much likely to hit you than
> another glider, especially one at a distance) flying
> with 'their' wings level...
>
> Almost always!
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> >Actually, I think the result is just the opposite...
>
> >How often are a distant gliders wings 'horizontal'?...
> >almost never!
>
> >And the increase in contrast between the glider and
> >the sky or clouds
> >while circling or on the run are substantial.
>
> >Larry
>
> >'zero one'- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

..... Copy all. I have been using polarized sunglasses not
specifically made for soaring, and have noted all that pretty much all
the drawbacks associated with them ARE at least minor factors in my
old Speed Astir. Blotches in the canopy, difficulty reading the iPAQ,
and most notably, not visually picking up other acft as well as my
naked eyes.
I will give the un-polarized Sun Tigers a shot and see how well they
work for me. Thanks to one and all for the input.

Jim

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

wrote:

> I will give the un-polarized Sun Tigers a shot and see how well they
>work for me. Thanks to one and all for the input.
>
>Jim

For the first time EVER my glasses made the display of our CAI 302DDV black
out on Sunday. No artifacts at all on the pda, radio, or canopy. Just a black
ring around the needle. Never happened before.

I suspect I can blame you all for bringing it up. ; )

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

[[email protected]]

On Sep 24, 4:14 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> wrote:
> > I will give the un-polarized Sun Tigers a shot and see how well they
> >work for me. Thanks to one and all for the input.
>
> >Jim
>
> For the first time EVER my glasses made the display of our CAI 302DDV black
> out on Sunday. No artifacts at all on the pda, radio, or canopy. Just a black
> ring around the needle. Never happened before.
>
> I suspect I can blame you all for bringing it up. ; )
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

There were some 302s made that had incorrect orientation of the
polarization glass. You might have that, check with Cambridge if they
can fix it for you. I think this may have been mentioned on ras
before.

Darryl

[Nyal Williams]

And which glasses were those?


At 23:18 24 September 2007, Kloudy Via Aviationkb.Com
wrote:
wrote:
>
>> I will give the un-polarized Sun Tigers a shot and
>>see how well they
>>work for me. Thanks to one and all for the input.
>>
>>Jim
>
>For the first time EVER my glasses made the display
>of our CAI 302DDV black
>out on Sunday. No artifacts at all on the pda, radio,
>or canopy. Just a black
>ring around the needle. Never happened before.
>
>I suspect I can blame you all for bringing it up. ;
>)
>
>--
>Message posted via AviationKB.com
>http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1
>
>

[Michael Ash]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> For the first time EVER my glasses made the display of our CAI 302DDV black
> out on Sunday. No artifacts at all on the pda, radio, or canopy. Just a black
> ring around the needle. Never happened before.
>
> I suspect I can blame you all for bringing it up. ; )

It's not fair to blame us. This is clearly *your* fault for letting your
equipment read RAS. It puts ideas into their heads....

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Steve Davis]

There seem to be 3 newer styles of lenses for cataract
surgery.
Crystalens, ReZoom and ReStor all help to restore near
and far vision. The ReZoom and ReStore lenses have
a limitation for commercial and private pilots but
the Crystalens doesn't seem to have this. Any recommendations?

[Steve Davis]

There seem to be 3 newer styles of lenses for cataract
surgery.
Crystalens, ReZoom and ReStor all help to restore near
and far vision. The ReZoom and ReStore lenses have
a limitation for commercial and private pilots but
the Crystalens doesn't seem to have this. Any recommendations?

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Nyal Williams wrote:
>And which glasses were those?
>
Revo 2037
Blue freq. suppression.
polarized.

maybe I can just give the DDV lens a little twist.

I will definitely be looking at non-polar lenses for some variety.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 10:35 am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Nyal Williams wrote:
> >And which glasses were those?
>
> Revo 2037
> Blue freq. suppression.
> polarized.
>
> maybe I can just give the DDV lens a little twist.
>
> I will definitely be looking at non-polar lenses for some variety.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200709/1

Nah. Just tilt your head to one side or the other till it clears up.
Then, make a neck brace that induces a permanent tilt to your head.

[Bullwinkle]

On 9/25/07 10:21 AM, in article , "Steve
Davis" > wrote:

> There seem to be 3 newer styles of lenses for cataract
> surgery.
> Crystalens, ReZoom and ReStor all help to restore near
> and far vision. The ReZoom and ReStore lenses have
> a limitation for commercial and private pilots but
> the Crystalens doesn't seem to have this. Any recommendations?
>
>
>
>
Do your research before getting any of these. Crystallens only accommodates
up to about 1.5 diopters, so if your current cheaters are more than that,
they won't have the range you need for near vision (assuming far vision is
properly corrected).

Basically, these are version 1 of the accommodating intraocular lenses. Wait
until they work through the problems, and refine the designs.