Any vision challenged pilots that can give some advice?

[Kirk Ellis]

Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
only about 140 hours total. I have not been able to afford to fly as
much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
getting ready to transition from the Archer III which I last flew
more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
some catchin' up to do.

Now to the real reason of the post. For the last 5 years I have been
good with distant and intermediate vision albeit I have had a
restriction to carry glasses for up close reading. But these last 5
years have seen a slight decline in my distant vision as well as the
intermediate due to both presbyopia and astigmatism. Now I need
correction for all three vision distances, close up, intermediate and
infinity.

I have been to an optometrist who speciallizes in vision correction
for pilots and he has suggested progressive lenses to handle all 3
vision tasks. However, what he is prescribing is contrary to the AOA
information I see online that warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
flying due to distortion affects. I understand about the distortion
because I have been using progressives for over a year for other
tasks.

I asked about bifocals, but the eye doc said that's not a good thing
because of glare coming off the separation line and yet the AOA
recommends bi-focals and even tri-focals as the preferred solution for
pilots. I hear from some people that tri-focals are very annoying and
bifocals work better.

But how do you resolve the need for 3 focal distance with only
bifocals?

What I found interesting in the 3rd class vision requirements is that
if your far sight is not at least 20/40 you HAVE to wear glasses. If
your near sight (16 inches) is not at least 20/40 you just have to
carry the glasses with you. But there is no requirement for the
intermediate vision at around 30' - 32" which is right where the glass
panels sit in the DA40.

Seems that with glass cockpits becoming the norm the intermediate
distance is much more important. I still don't completely undersand
why the intermediate with a third class did not have any restrictions.
I assume they thought the hands on the standard analog instruments
where easy enough to see.

But the glass displays have so much digital information on them, that
it's not so easy for me to see the smaller print in focus without some
correction. I will need 3 way correction, but I am not all that
enamored of using trifocals. I think I can live with Bi-focals unless
the glare, as my doc mentioned, is a real problem. But they would have
to be set for intermedaite and distance to make sense to me in a glass
cockpit. However, what about the times you need to focus at the 16"
distance to read sectionals and charts? Perhaps an extra set of
bifocasl that has distance and near and you just switch.

It doesn't seem there is any optimal solution to this delimma and
those 2 pair is the only way I can figure to solve the problem. It's
just double the money and I am still concerned about the glare aspect
of bifocals the doc mentioned.

So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
cockpit era?

Kirk



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

[Big John]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:40:30 -0400, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:

>
>Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
>background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
>got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
>55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
>only about 140 hours total. I have not been able to afford to fly as
>much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
>getting ready to transition from the Archer III which I last flew
>more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
>some catchin' up to do.
>
>Now to the real reason of the post. For the last 5 years I have been
>good with distant and intermediate vision albeit I have had a
>restriction to carry glasses for up close reading. But these last 5
>years have seen a slight decline in my distant vision as well as the
>intermediate due to both presbyopia and astigmatism. Now I need
>correction for all three vision distances, close up, intermediate and
>infinity.
>
>I have been to an optometrist who speciallizes in vision correction
>for pilots and he has suggested progressive lenses to handle all 3
>vision tasks. However, what he is prescribing is contrary to the AOA
>information I see online that warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
>flying due to distortion affects. I understand about the distortion
>because I have been using progressives for over a year for other
>tasks.
>
>I asked about bifocals, but the eye doc said that's not a good thing
>because of glare coming off the separation line and yet the AOA
>recommends bi-focals and even tri-focals as the preferred solution for
>pilots. I hear from some people that tri-focals are very annoying and
>bifocals work better.
>
>But how do you resolve the need for 3 focal distance with only
>bifocals?
>
>What I found interesting in the 3rd class vision requirements is that
>if your far sight is not at least 20/40 you HAVE to wear glasses. If
>your near sight (16 inches) is not at least 20/40 you just have to
>carry the glasses with you. But there is no requirement for the
>intermediate vision at around 30' - 32" which is right where the glass
>panels sit in the DA40.
>
>Seems that with glass cockpits becoming the norm the intermediate
>distance is much more important. I still don't completely undersand
>why the intermediate with a third class did not have any restrictions.
>I assume they thought the hands on the standard analog instruments
>where easy enough to see.
>
>But the glass displays have so much digital information on them, that
>it's not so easy for me to see the smaller print in focus without some
>correction. I will need 3 way correction, but I am not all that
>enamored of using trifocals. I think I can live with Bi-focals unless
>the glare, as my doc mentioned, is a real problem. But they would have
>to be set for intermedaite and distance to make sense to me in a glass
>cockpit. However, what about the times you need to focus at the 16"
>distance to read sectionals and charts? Perhaps an extra set of
>bifocasl that has distance and near and you just switch.
>
>It doesn't seem there is any optimal solution to this delimma and
>those 2 pair is the only way I can figure to solve the problem. It's
>just double the money and I am still concerned about the glare aspect
>of bifocals the doc mentioned.
>
>So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
>cockpit era?
>
>Kirk
>
>
>
>Kirk
>PPL-ASEL


Kirk

My experience.

I flew for years with USAF tri focals.

1. Distance on top
2. Instrument panel in middle
3. Read maps, etc on bottom

NEVER had any problem with the lines. With the tri focals I had the
best of all worlds.

You can get a pair of sun glasses made this way and also a clear pair
for overcast, night or instrument flying where you are not fighting
the sun.

I tried the progressive and they made me dizzy when I moved my head
:o(

Transition to Tri focals was quick and easy for me.

Best of luck.

Big John

[quietguy]

I second Big John's endorsement of non-blended trifocals. I've used
them for about a year (and bifocals for seven years before that) and
have had no serious problems with glare or with having to position my
head just so. Just make sure that the lens segments are approximately
equal in height; mine are a bit skimpy on height in the middle
segment, which I'll have corrected the next time I buy glasses. I
didn't buy trifocal sunglasses; instead I bought lightweight non-
prescription clip-ons that use a spring-loaded expandable nose-bridge
and small end-clips to grip the lenses. They're lighter (and less
dorky) than the center-clip flip-ups, although reflections off the
front lenses can be bothersome when in bright sunlight from behind.
That's been a problem only under the bubble canopy of a friend's RV-8.

[Paul kgyy]

I've flown my Arrow for 7 years with progressives, got my IR with
them, never a problem.

However, my distance adjustment is very slight; YMMV

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Big John" wrote:

>>
>>So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
>>cockpit era?
>>
>>Kirk
>>
>>
>>
>>Kirk
>>PPL-ASEL
>
>
> Kirk
>
> My experience.
>
> I flew for years with USAF tri focals.
>
> 1. Distance on top
> 2. Instrument panel in middle
> 3. Read maps, etc on bottom
>
> NEVER had any problem with the lines. With the tri focals I had the
> best of all worlds.

Amen.

I fly a glass panel 182. Trifocals work great.

--
Dan

T-182T at 4R4

[Bob F.]

I got Lasik a few year ago. The procedure I selected was monocular (one
eyes near, the other far). Then I got glasses just so I could pass the
medical. I can see better without the glasses but can't quite pass without
them, so the regs say I have to wear them...) anyway, make sure you read the
most recent medical standard for the level you want. The new regs call for
a longer distance for the near reading then before and certainly longer then
the eye doctor normally corrects for reading. So bring the reg, show the
Dr. and make sure he follows that requirement, if you do that.

--
BobF.
"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" wrote:
>
>>>
>>>So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
>>>cockpit era?
>>>
>>>Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kirk
>>>PPL-ASEL
>>
>>
>> Kirk
>>
>> My experience.
>>
>> I flew for years with USAF tri focals.
>>
>> 1. Distance on top
>> 2. Instrument panel in middle
>> 3. Read maps, etc on bottom
>>
>> NEVER had any problem with the lines. With the tri focals I had the
>> best of all worlds.
>
> Amen.
>
> I fly a glass panel 182. Trifocals work great.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> T-182T at 4R4
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 3:40*pm, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:
> Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
> background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
> got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
> 55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
> only about 140 hours total. *I have not been able to afford to fly as
> much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
> getting ready to transition from the *Archer III which I last flew
> more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
> some catchin' up to do.
>
> Now to the real reason of the post. For the last 5 years I have been
> good with distant and intermediate vision albeit I have had a
> restriction to carry glasses for up close reading. But these last *5
> years have seen a slight decline in my distant vision as well as the
> intermediate due to both presbyopia and astigmatism. Now I need
> correction for all three vision distances, close up, intermediate and
> infinity.
>
> I have been to an optometrist who speciallizes in vision correction
> for pilots and he has suggested progressive lenses to handle all 3
> vision tasks. However, what he is prescribing is contrary to the AOA
> information I see online that warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
> flying due to distortion affects. I understand about the distortion
> because I have been using progressives for over a year for other
> tasks. *
>
> I asked about bifocals, but the eye doc said that's not a good thing
> because of glare coming off the separation line and yet the AOA
> recommends bi-focals and even tri-focals as the preferred solution for
> pilots. I hear from some people that tri-focals are very annoying and
> bifocals work better.
>
> But how do you resolve the need for 3 focal distance with only
> bifocals?
>
> What I found interesting in the 3rd class vision requirements is that
> if your far sight is not at least 20/40 you HAVE to wear glasses. If
> your near sight (16 inches) is not at least 20/40 you just have to
> carry the glasses with you. But there is no requirement for the
> intermediate vision at around 30' - 32" which is right where the glass
> panels sit in the DA40.
>
> Seems that with glass cockpits becoming the norm the intermediate
> distance is much more important. I still don't completely undersand
> why the intermediate with a third class did not have any restrictions.
> I assume they thought the hands on the standard analog instruments
> where easy enough to see.
>
> But the glass displays have so much digital information on them, that
> it's not so easy for me to see the smaller print in focus without some
> correction. I will need 3 way correction, but I am not all that
> enamored of using trifocals. I think I can live with Bi-focals *unless
> the glare, as my doc mentioned, is a real problem. But they would have
> to be set for intermedaite and distance to make sense to me in a glass
> cockpit. However, what about the times you need to focus at the 16"
> distance to read sectionals and charts? Perhaps an extra set of
> bifocasl that has distance and near and you just switch.
>
> It doesn't seem there is any optimal solution to this delimma and
> those 2 pair is the only way I can figure to solve the problem. It's
> just double the money and I am still concerned about the glare aspect
> of bifocals the doc mentioned.
>
> So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
> cockpit era?
>
> Kirk
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

I wear progressives. No problems.

But each patient is different. You have to decide for yourself. My
glasses cost less than two hours in a C182. Maybe even less than 2
hours in a 172.

At those costs you can try both and decide for yourself.

[BT]

I've read the posts on Progressive lenses and Bi / Tri focal lenses. And I
have both.
I need glasses for distant vision correction and have since my early teen
years. For years I flew in the USAF with prescribed contact lenses, or
regular single prescription lenses to correct for distant vision and the
younger eyes can adjust just fine for up close work.
But we age, and now I have to correct for near vision.

The eyes are too old to make that forced correction on their own and can no
longer adjust from the distant to near with my "distant" corrective lenses..
For most of my work, I wear the contacts and keep reading glasses handy for
computer and reading. Now the time has come that I cannot read a VFR chart
or a standard sized approach chart without reading glass assistance if I
have my contacts on.

I know many pilots that have fine distant vision, but use the half high
reading glasses in the cockpit.

I have used bifocals and find them workable, I am able to read the glass
cockpit panels with no problems at the intermediate range.
I have progressives, I have found from driving a car with the progressive
lenses that the periphery vision is blurred.. not as clear as looking out
the sides of my bifocal lenses. This gives me concern that if flying with my
progressive lenses that distant objects (aircraft) in the periphery will not
be clear and in focus and could easily be missed. I find that I have to look
directly at what I want to see and then adjust my view vertically with the
progressive to find the clearest picture. Not what I want to be dealing with
while flying.

A fellow pilot prefers the bi focal, with the line, he knows which part of
the lenses he is using to see out the window, and to see his instrument
panel. His glasses are adjusted, so that at normal sitting position, the
line of his bifocal is right at the line of the glare shield.

B


"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
> background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
> got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
> 55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
> only about 140 hours total. I have not been able to afford to fly as
> much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
> getting ready to transition from the Archer III which I last flew
> more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
> some catchin' up to do.
>
> Now to the real reason of the post. For the last 5 years I have been
> good with distant and intermediate vision albeit I have had a
> restriction to carry glasses for up close reading. But these last 5
> years have seen a slight decline in my distant vision as well as the
> intermediate due to both presbyopia and astigmatism. Now I need
> correction for all three vision distances, close up, intermediate and
> infinity.
>
> I have been to an optometrist who speciallizes in vision correction
> for pilots and he has suggested progressive lenses to handle all 3
> vision tasks. However, what he is prescribing is contrary to the AOA
> information I see online that warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
> flying due to distortion affects. I understand about the distortion
> because I have been using progressives for over a year for other
> tasks.
>
> I asked about bifocals, but the eye doc said that's not a good thing
> because of glare coming off the separation line and yet the AOA
> recommends bi-focals and even tri-focals as the preferred solution for
> pilots. I hear from some people that tri-focals are very annoying and
> bifocals work better.
>
> But how do you resolve the need for 3 focal distance with only
> bifocals?
>
> What I found interesting in the 3rd class vision requirements is that
> if your far sight is not at least 20/40 you HAVE to wear glasses. If
> your near sight (16 inches) is not at least 20/40 you just have to
> carry the glasses with you. But there is no requirement for the
> intermediate vision at around 30' - 32" which is right where the glass
> panels sit in the DA40.
>
> Seems that with glass cockpits becoming the norm the intermediate
> distance is much more important. I still don't completely undersand
> why the intermediate with a third class did not have any restrictions.
> I assume they thought the hands on the standard analog instruments
> where easy enough to see.
>
> But the glass displays have so much digital information on them, that
> it's not so easy for me to see the smaller print in focus without some
> correction. I will need 3 way correction, but I am not all that
> enamored of using trifocals. I think I can live with Bi-focals unless
> the glare, as my doc mentioned, is a real problem. But they would have
> to be set for intermedaite and distance to make sense to me in a glass
> cockpit. However, what about the times you need to focus at the 16"
> distance to read sectionals and charts? Perhaps an extra set of
> bifocasl that has distance and near and you just switch.
>
> It doesn't seem there is any optimal solution to this delimma and
> those 2 pair is the only way I can figure to solve the problem. It's
> just double the money and I am still concerned about the glare aspect
> of bifocals the doc mentioned.
>
> So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
> cockpit era?
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

[Bob Fry]

Wow, can't believe all the pilots that use tri-focals. I tried 'em
once and threw them away as far as they would go. I've been wearing
progressives for several years now and will never go to a discrete
lens. When I first started using them it took a few days for the brain
to adapt to the distorsion but after that I've never noticed it. But
you have to have good progressives; I forget which brand mine are but
brand makes a huge difference.
--
In all affairs, it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
~ Bertrand Russell

[[email protected]]

BT > wrote:
> I've read the posts on Progressive lenses and Bi / Tri focal lenses. And I
> have both.
> I need glasses for distant vision correction and have since my early teen
> years. For years I flew in the USAF with prescribed contact lenses, or
> regular single prescription lenses to correct for distant vision and the
> younger eyes can adjust just fine for up close work.
> But we age, and now I have to correct for near vision.

> The eyes are too old to make that forced correction on their own and can no
> longer adjust from the distant to near with my "distant" corrective lenses..
> For most of my work, I wear the contacts and keep reading glasses handy for
> computer and reading. Now the time has come that I cannot read a VFR chart
> or a standard sized approach chart without reading glass assistance if I
> have my contacts on.

> I know many pilots that have fine distant vision, but use the half high
> reading glasses in the cockpit.

> I have used bifocals and find them workable, I am able to read the glass
> cockpit panels with no problems at the intermediate range.
> I have progressives, I have found from driving a car with the progressive
> lenses that the periphery vision is blurred.. not as clear as looking out
> the sides of my bifocal lenses. This gives me concern that if flying with my
> progressive lenses that distant objects (aircraft) in the periphery will not
> be clear and in focus and could easily be missed. I find that I have to look
> directly at what I want to see and then adjust my view vertically with the
> progressive to find the clearest picture. Not what I want to be dealing with
> while flying.

I tried progressives. The Optometrist said most people take a week or
two to adjust and some never do.

I'm one that didn't, the distortion was just too great and agravated
by looking at things with parallel lines.

In a video store looking at the racks I got vertigo so bad I could barely
stand up.

> A fellow pilot prefers the bi focal, with the line, he knows which part of
> the lenses he is using to see out the window, and to see his instrument
> panel. His glasses are adjusted, so that at normal sitting position, the
> line of his bifocal is right at the line of the glare shield.

That's what I wound up with. You get the frames with plain glass, sit in
the cockpit and put a piece of tape on the glass where you want the line,
and take them back. Also the Optometrist had me measure the distance from
my nose to the nearest and farthest parts of the panel and set the lenses
for the mid distance so the entire panel is clear.

The most important thing is to have an Optometrist that is willing to
listen and work with you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[akjcbkJA]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
...
> I've flown my Arrow for 7 years with progressives, got my IR with
> them, never a problem.

Progressives do the job for me

[Bob Gardner]

I had no problem flying with trifocals. My eye doc was a pilot, which
probably helped..."Look at the approach plate...set the altimeter...scan for
traffic..."

Bob Gardner

"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
> background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
> got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
> 55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
> only about 140 hours total. I have not been able to afford to fly as
> much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
> getting ready to transition from the Archer III which I last flew
> more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
> some catchin' up to do.
>
> Now to the real reason of the post. For the last 5 years I have been
> good with distant and intermediate vision albeit I have had a
> restriction to carry glasses for up close reading. But these last 5
> years have seen a slight decline in my distant vision as well as the
> intermediate due to both presbyopia and astigmatism. Now I need
> correction for all three vision distances, close up, intermediate and
> infinity.
>
> I have been to an optometrist who speciallizes in vision correction
> for pilots and he has suggested progressive lenses to handle all 3
> vision tasks. However, what he is prescribing is contrary to the AOA
> information I see online that warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
> flying due to distortion affects. I understand about the distortion
> because I have been using progressives for over a year for other
> tasks.
>
> I asked about bifocals, but the eye doc said that's not a good thing
> because of glare coming off the separation line and yet the AOA
> recommends bi-focals and even tri-focals as the preferred solution for
> pilots. I hear from some people that tri-focals are very annoying and
> bifocals work better.
>
> But how do you resolve the need for 3 focal distance with only
> bifocals?
>
> What I found interesting in the 3rd class vision requirements is that
> if your far sight is not at least 20/40 you HAVE to wear glasses. If
> your near sight (16 inches) is not at least 20/40 you just have to
> carry the glasses with you. But there is no requirement for the
> intermediate vision at around 30' - 32" which is right where the glass
> panels sit in the DA40.
>
> Seems that with glass cockpits becoming the norm the intermediate
> distance is much more important. I still don't completely undersand
> why the intermediate with a third class did not have any restrictions.
> I assume they thought the hands on the standard analog instruments
> where easy enough to see.
>
> But the glass displays have so much digital information on them, that
> it's not so easy for me to see the smaller print in focus without some
> correction. I will need 3 way correction, but I am not all that
> enamored of using trifocals. I think I can live with Bi-focals unless
> the glare, as my doc mentioned, is a real problem. But they would have
> to be set for intermedaite and distance to make sense to me in a glass
> cockpit. However, what about the times you need to focus at the 16"
> distance to read sectionals and charts? Perhaps an extra set of
> bifocasl that has distance and near and you just switch.
>
> It doesn't seem there is any optimal solution to this delimma and
> those 2 pair is the only way I can figure to solve the problem. It's
> just double the money and I am still concerned about the glare aspect
> of bifocals the doc mentioned.
>
> So what do other pilots opt for in vision correction in this glass
> cockpit era?
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:20:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>warn pilots to NOT use progressives for
>> flying due to distortion affects.

Human eyesight is truly astonishing in its ability to adjust. Whatever
change you make, you will need an adjustment period. (My father was a
carpenter. He got bifocals at age 48. The first day he wore them, he
was on a scaffolding. He glanced down, took a step, and stepped
between the planks. Gave himself a hernia recovering.) Once you
adjust, you will scratch your head wondering what the problem was!

Years ago, test subjects were given prism glasses that turned the
world upside down. Within a few hours or days, their eyes switched
over and they saw the world rightside-up. And of course when they took
the prism glasses off ... the world was upside down again!

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:25:04 GMT, wrote:

>he Optometrist had me measure the distance from
>my nose to the nearest and farthest parts of the panel and set the lenses
>for the mid distance so the entire panel is clear

You might start out asking for "computer lenses". That's what I have
in the bottom half of my bifocals. (I don't want to mess with
trifocals, and a few years back they stopped making progressive lenses
for the bifocal portion. I can't wear progressives because my RX is
too radical.)

I have reading glasses at home that are also bifocal, with the
computer RX in the top half and the book-reading RX in the bottom
half. This works for me because I spend most of my day on the puter.

When flying, I carry a magnifying glass in the right pocket of my
flying vest, for when I need to read a chart really close. This met
the requirements of my medical (when I had one). It didn't say I had
to WEAR glasses for reading, only that I HAVE them. So I carried my
reading glasses in the left pocket of my vest.



Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[[email protected]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:25:04 GMT, wrote:

> >he Optometrist had me measure the distance from
> >my nose to the nearest and farthest parts of the panel and set the lenses
> >for the mid distance so the entire panel is clear

> You might start out asking for "computer lenses". That's what I have
> in the bottom half of my bifocals. (I don't want to mess with
> trifocals, and a few years back they stopped making progressive lenses
> for the bifocal portion. I can't wear progressives because my RX is
> too radical.)

Why?

By doing the measurement and then sitting in his machine with the
numbers dialed in, the lenses came out exactly right the on the
first try.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Vaughn Simon]

I have been flying with progressives for some ten years. I never had a problem
adapting to the progressives, and am at a loss to understand why anyone would
want to deal with lines in their vision if they didn't have to.

There is one tiny issue that I have noticed with my flying, but find it more of
a curiosity than a problem. After I first roll out on final, I have had more
than one CFI complain that I was not lined up with the center line. (I always
arrive in the right place @ the numbers, so I see this as a non-problem.) In
fact, I think that the issue may have disappeared completely as I have learned
to concentrate on an imaginary extension of the center line as my cue and not
the apparent angles of the runway.

Vaughn

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Vaughn Simon > posted:

> I have been flying with progressives for some ten years. I never had
> a problem adapting to the progressives, and am at a loss to
> understand why anyone would want to deal with lines in their vision
> if they didn't have to.
>
The reason may be due to a person's prescription. I can't stand
progressives because, for my prescription at least, there is almost no
peripheral vision. To see anything a few degrees off-center, I had to turn
my head. When reading a book (or worse, a chart), only a few words in a
paragraph were in focus. With my "hard line" bifocals, I have normal
peripheral vision for both distance and reading, and the hard line is not
in my "distance" field of view. Of course, I had them custom made by
someone familiar with the tasks associated with flying.

Different strokes...

Neil

[Frank[_5_]]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> I've read the posts on Progressive lenses and Bi / Tri focal lenses. And I
> have both.
> I need glasses for distant vision correction and have since my early teen
> years. For years I flew in the USAF with prescribed contact lenses, or
> regular single prescription lenses to correct for distant vision and the
> younger eyes can adjust just fine for up close work.
> But we age, and now I have to correct for near vision.
>
> The eyes are too old to make that forced correction on their own and can
> no longer adjust from the distant to near with my "distant" corrective
> lenses.. For most of my work, I wear the contacts and keep reading glasses
> handy for computer and reading. Now the time has come that I cannot read a
> VFR chart or a standard sized approach chart without reading glass
> assistance if I have my contacts on.
>
> I know many pilots that have fine distant vision, but use the half high
> reading glasses in the cockpit.
>
> I have used bifocals and find them workable, I am able to read the glass
> cockpit panels with no problems at the intermediate range.
> I have progressives, I have found from driving a car with the progressive
> lenses that the periphery vision is blurred.. not as clear as looking out
> the sides of my bifocal lenses. This gives me concern that if flying with
> my progressive lenses that distant objects (aircraft) in the periphery
> will not be clear and in focus and could easily be missed. I find that I
> have to look directly at what I want to see and then adjust my view
> vertically with the progressive to find the clearest picture. Not what I
> want to be dealing with while flying.
>
> A fellow pilot prefers the bi focal, with the line, he knows which part of
> the lenses he is using to see out the window, and to see his instrument
> panel. His glasses are adjusted, so that at normal sitting position, the
> line of his bifocal is right at the line of the glare shield.
**************************************************
I was using trifocals, both regular and blended. Once I got used to it, the
blended was, at least for me much superior.
Then I got a slight case of cataracts, and elected to have the Crystalens
implanted. This basaicaly replaces the original, no longer flexible natural
lens with an accomodating lens that focuses both near and far - the lens
actualy moves back and forth in your eye.
After about 3 months of training I don't need glasses at all. I am very
happy with the results.

Frank

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 5:13 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Vaughn Simon > posted:
>
> > I have been flying with progressives for some ten years. I never had
> > a problem adapting to the progressives, and am at a loss to
> > understand why anyone would want to deal with lines in their vision
> > if they didn't have to.
>
> The reason may be due to a person's prescription. I can't stand
> progressives because, for my prescription at least, there is almost no
> peripheral vision. To see anything a few degrees off-center, I had to turn
> my head. When reading a book (or worse, a chart), only a few words in a
> paragraph were in focus. With my "hard line" bifocals, I have normal
> peripheral vision for both distance and reading, and the hard line is not
> in my "distance" field of view. Of course, I had them custom made by
> someone familiar with the tasks associated with flying.
>
> Different strokes...
>
> Neil

When I was 30ish I got a physical and eye test for my
PPL, and found out I was near-sighted, needed glasses
to fly. I was (still am) a nerdy book-worm type, but I used
eye exercize and now at age 55 don't need glasses to
pass the eye test. I'm also a smoker (since age 12) and
a drinker (since age 30) , which is claimed to be causal
to coronary hardening.

What I did was used a pirates eye-patch to exercise each
eye. I made sure I could focus on distant land scape and
also read the fine print on bottles, with either eye.
However, I still prefer some correction, for exceptional
clarity, but the required correction is reduced, IOW's
my eye's have improved using excercize.

IIRC, there are 6 muscles in the standard eyeball that
distort the lense to produce focus, so by boosting
those muscle stengths one can improve vision.
Ken

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:55:03 GMT, wrote:

> I can't wear progressives because my RX is
>> too radical.)
>
>Why?

Because -- the RX -- is too radical.

Two inches is about the absolute maximum height for a pair of specs,
and those look pretty awful. If the change from distance to close work
is sufficiently radical, you can't get from there to here in just two
inches.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:13:16 -0600, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

> When reading a book (or worse, a chart), only a few words in a
>paragraph were in focus.

Well, that's more radical even than mine! But perhaps it will convince
the folks who don't believe.

But then, I've noticed that folks who don't believe most often don't
want to believe.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Vaughn Simon]

"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Before I ask my question thought I'd throw out a few words on my
> background. After nearly a lifetime of pent up desire to fly I finally
> got my PPL in 1998 at the young old age of 45. Last week I just turned
> 55 and unfortunately in the last ten years I have been able to log
> only about 140 hours total. I have not been able to afford to fly as
> much as I'd like. But that's finally beginning to change and I am
> getting ready to transition from the Archer III which I last flew
> more than 15 months ago to a DA40 with the G1000. Admittedly I've got
> some catchin' up to do.

You know...I shoot for about 50 hours a year, but like too many other pilots
I often manage only half that. I am a renter who pays nearly a thousand
hard-earned dollars a year for renter's insurance. At 25 hours a year, that
works out to something near $40.00 an hour just for insurance. I no longer fly
commercially and am now just a casual pilot, so at some point I am liable to
just give up on solo flight and bring along a CFI every time I fly. That would
transfer all of the liability to the flight school (who carries insurance
anyhow) and would put those dollars into the bank account of the flight school
and the pockets of some struggling new CFI rather than just making some
anonymous insurance company richer.

Am I crazy for considering this? (For reasons we won't discuss, flying
without insurance is not an option for me)

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:55:03 GMT, wrote:

> > I can't wear progressives because my RX is
> >> too radical.)
> >
> >Why?

> Because -- the RX -- is too radical.

> Two inches is about the absolute maximum height for a pair of specs,
> and those look pretty awful. If the change from distance to close work
> is sufficiently radical, you can't get from there to here in just two
> inches.

No; why "try" something instead of taking measurments?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.