I have worn contacts for 30 years, and have been wearing reading
glasses for about 5. I tried progressive sunglasses made to order for
flying, but they tended to create so much distortion in the transition
zone from the uncorrected top area to the bifocal area, that they made
me a little queasy. I also didn't trust my depth perception in that
zone. I ended up exchanging them for standard bi-focals, but asked
that the corrected area start a little lower than normal. That way I
have a clear view right above the instrument panel (where most of the
action takes place) and while looking down and to the side. I can
look down my nose a bit or push the glasses up on my nose if I need to
get a larger corrected field of view for the instruments. In a pinch,
you can buy "sunreaders" from the drugstore for $15 also.

I know this one will be controversial, but I also like flying with
polarized bi-focal glasses. You can order them this way, but I have
never found them "off the shelf". They make it much easier to pick out
other traffic against a darker blue sky, and I can still see all
instruments in the cockpit, including my iPaq and L-NAV just fine. I
don't fly power, so that might be different.

Matt Herron Jr.


Graeme Cant wrote:
Kevin Anderson wrote:

I would like to hear back from others on what decision they made on
progressive vs. lined lenses for sunglasses?

I found progressives to be too distorting. The countryside swims at the
edges as you move your head. Also, progressives have a very narrow
width for reading - about the width of a newspaper column.

I've happily flown with bi/trifocals for over 15 years. They're not
hard to get in sunglasses or use magnetic-type clipons over your normal
clear lenses. I found some good Pentax clipons with lenses larger than
the current miniature fashion. Be very particular about where the line
is put. If he doesn't ask, bring up the question yourself.

GC


Thanks
Kevin
SGS 1-26 192