# The woes of glasses as an air cadet & the possible non-LASIK salvation.



## ohmygodlah (8 Feb 2007)

Hello, although i am relatively new with the fourms and haven't got a chance to introduce myself, i will go straight to the problem.

I am an active 3rd year sergant of the Air branch, and as all of you should know, glasses and flying don't really mix.

At least for now it does. But since i wish to continue my career as a regular pilot, i began searching for any possible non-lasik treatment for my cursed, cursed mynopia.

These are my results.
http://www.program-for-better-vision.com/?gclid=CMXhqreilYgCFQYgYQodDFtsCA
http://www.mercola.com/products/natural_vision_cd/index.htm
http://www.rebuildyourvision.com/

It makes sense to me, but olde mr. Skepticism has set in with me. so before i plunk down a saturday and $45 to talk to my eye doctor, I would like to have fellow cadets opinions outside my squadron.

Has anyone ever tried these programs?

What do you guys know about the William Bates program? what's the success rate?

I DEEPLY appreciate any discussions or opinions in this thread.
Thanks,


----------



## geo (8 Feb 2007)

Dr Jacks snakebite medicine.....

If you believe this..... I have some land in the Everglades for you to buy.....

2 chances of this stuff working
- Fat chance!
- No chance!!!


----------



## Burrows (8 Feb 2007)

Looks pretty hokey to me.


----------



## ohmygodlah (8 Feb 2007)

Well, thanks for the quick reply...

by the way, look what i found

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hpTwGsvlPmA

4 seconds in

Is that guy WEARING GLASSES IN A JET!?!?


----------



## Burrows (8 Feb 2007)

Yes.

He isn't Canadian though.


----------



## ohmygodlah (8 Feb 2007)

Canadian or not, isn't that still highly hazardous?


----------



## Burrows (8 Feb 2007)

I'm not a flying expert, nor am I an expert on the Singaporean Air Force.  I'm sure whatever standards they have - he meets.


----------



## condor888000 (8 Feb 2007)

ohmygodlah said:
			
		

> Canadian or not, isn't that still highly hazardous?


Depends on their standards, if they say its alright for their pilots, well theres the end of that argument.

As to the links....well they looks pretty interesting, but I agree with the above, odds of it actually working are near zero. If it was so effective, wouldn't it be taught in medical schools and the like? Wouldn't it have been immediately recommended by your eye doctor upon your diagnosis?

While I feel for you, less than 20/20 vision sucks I know, but why waste your cash on something like this that you have no solid proof will work? All you've got is some internet sources that could be put up by anyone who felt like it. By all means, if you want to talk to your eye doctor go ahead, but I wouldn't expect much other than him saying its a load of bull and nothing has been proven. 


EDIT: And contacts or glasses are in no way a problem in air cadets. I know, I wear them and completed 6 years in air cadets with both sets of wings. Glasses don't matter in cadets.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Feb 2007)

You can wear glasses and be a Fighter Pilot in Canada.  When you enroll, you must be 20/20.  After you start flying training, you vision can go down a bit and still be able to fly.  If you are fully qualified and a few years into the job, I doubt they will kick you out for your sight (in fact, I've guys in Bagotville flying with glasses...)

Max


----------



## Lerch (9 Feb 2007)

So basically he's bunged since he already lacks the 20/20 eh?


----------



## condor888000 (9 Feb 2007)

At the moment, yes. So? Not like hes alone, far from it.


----------



## ryanmann356 (12 Feb 2007)

well if you had glaucoma..... ;D j/k
I also have a friend who wants to get his wings in the airforce before becoming a civilian pilot however it seems that they wont let you fly a military kite if you have glasses, and those solutions are hoookeyyyyy!


----------



## Bergeron 971 (13 Feb 2007)

don't those toys fly them selves these days? ;D He's just in for the ride.


----------



## Sh4d0w212 (14 Feb 2007)

The William Bates Method works, I personally have had myopia since I was 13. I began investigating alternate methods for my vision and I eventually came across this. Just so you know those websites you listed are pretty shady, don't bother with them.  http://www.amazon.ca/Relearning-See-Improve-Your-Eyesight-Naturally/dp/1556433417/sr=8-1/qid=1171495809/ref=pd_ka_1/701-1446391-1442717?ie=UTF8&s=books

This book here is the one that I purchased that has actually worked it is well worth the money. You might be able to check this book out at the local library or find a copy at Chapters. Give it time and practice and it will work.


----------



## ohmygodlah (19 Feb 2007)

Thanks for the input guys.  ;D


----------



## ohmygodlah (19 Feb 2007)

But just to set the record straight, aided 20/20 vision is a-okay when working with Air Canada and other commercial airline cooperations, right?


----------



## condor888000 (19 Feb 2007)

Correct. You can obtain your GPL, PPL, CPL, or ATPL with corrected vision. Just the military is different.


----------



## wartide (20 Feb 2007)

The military is different?   Ugh... My vision is barely off 20/20.   While Air Canada would let me fly a multi-million dollar aircraft... I can't fly a CF-18.   It's utter crap is what it is.   My vision, uncorrected is better than a good many current Canadian Air Force Pilots.   The military demands 20/20 during the application process, but after your initial testing, you're in the clear for your vision to slip a little.    It's crap.   The military is losing so many potential applicants to the perfect vision guideline it's not even funny.   My whole life I wanted to fly a CF-18 with the forces.  (yeah, Top Gun definitely encouraged me   ) Now I'm stuck with my second choice, ArmO.   Which is still awesome, but I don't see any Leopard's going in excess of Mach.   As a former Air Cadet, trust me glasses won't hamper you in any way, shape, or form.   The current rumours going through CF pilots I've been talking to is that the guidelines may soon be loosened a bit for non-fighter pilots (read: Herc/Heli pilots) as the forces are losing a lotta good applicants to the 20/20 thing.   These are only rumours I've heard while talking with drunken pilots mind you


----------



## ark (20 Feb 2007)

ohmygodlah said:
			
		

> Hello, although i am relatively new with the fourms and haven't got a chance to introduce myself, i will go straight to the problem.
> 
> I am an active 3rd year sergant of the Air branch, and as all of you should know, glasses and flying don't really mix.
> 
> ...



I have not really looked at the links you have provided but it may be possible to improve you vision without going for any refractive surgery. What you should do is go visit an optometrist (or better yet an ophthalmologist if the waiting is not too long) and ask for manifest and cycloplegic refractions.

Manifest refraction will tell you what is your current day to day refraction while the cycloplegic refraction (using eye drops to eliminate accommodation) will tell you what is your real refraction. The younger you are, the more you will accommodate meaning that you will tend to go towards the minus (myopia) more than you should.

For example, after an eye exem your prescription using manifest refraction may look something like this:
-0.50 (sph) -0.25 (cyl) X 180 (your visual acuity will be around 20/25)

while your cycloplegic refraction could be:
+0.25 (sph) -0.25 (cyl) X 180 (your visual acuity should be 20/20 or better)

The difference of 0.75 you see could be due to pseudomyopia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomyopia which means temporary myopia. It seems to be induced with close work (a lot of time spent in books and/or in front of a computer screen) and some other factors. There seems to be a controversy on how to reverse it from what I see (I am far from being an expert). 

While you age you will accommodate less meaning your manifest refraction will go closer to your cycloplegic refraction but this may take years and in the mean time you may develop other problems. I can't find any scientific study on the impact of those so called eye exercises and if they can help you relax your accommodation.

Good luck, before you start any regimen I would highly advise you consult with an eye specialist.


----------



## ark (20 Feb 2007)

Wartide said:
			
		

> The military is different?   Ugh... My vision is barely off 20/20.   While Air Canada would let me fly a multi-million dollar aircraft... I can't fly a CF-18.   It's utter crap is what it is.   My vision, uncorrected is better than a good many current Canadian Air Force Pilots.   The military demands 20/20 during the application process, but after your initial testing, you're in the clear for your vision to slip a little.    It's crap.   The military is losing so many potential applicants to the perfect vision guideline it's not even funny.   My whole life I wanted to fly a CF-18 with the forces.  (yeah, Top Gun definitely encouraged me   ) Now I'm stuck with my second choice, ArmO.   Which is still awesome, but I don't see any Leopard's going in excess of Mach.   As a former Air Cadet, trust me glasses won't hamper you in any way, shape, or form.   The current rumours going through CF pilots I've been talking to is that the guidelines may soon be loosened a bit for non-fighter pilots (read: Herc/Heli pilots) as the forces are losing a lotta good applicants to the 20/20 thing.   These are only rumours I've heard while talking with drunken pilots mind you



Are both of your eyes worst than 20/20? As long as you have one eye that is 20/20 or better you may still be able to meet initial standards. What are your refractive readings?


----------



## ohmygodlah (20 Feb 2007)

Thanks for the tip ark, gonna check that out with my eye doctor.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Feb 2007)

Wartide said:
			
		

> The military is different?   Ugh... My vision is barely off 20/20.   While Air Canada would let me fly a multi-million dollar aircraft... I can't fly a CF-18.   It's utter crap is what it is.   My vision, uncorrected is better than a good many current Canadian Air Force Pilots.   The military demands 20/20 during the application process, but after your initial testing, you're in the clear for your vision to slip a little.    It's crap.   The military is losing so many potential applicants to the perfect vision guideline it's not even funny.   My whole life I wanted to fly a CF-18 with the forces.  (yeah, Top Gun definitely encouraged me   ) Now I'm stuck with my second choice, ArmO.   Which is still awesome, but I don't see any Leopard's going in excess of Mach.   As a former Air Cadet, trust me glasses won't hamper you in any way, shape, or form.   The current rumours going through CF pilots I've been talking to is that the guidelines may soon be loosened a bit for non-fighter pilots (read: Herc/Heli pilots) as the forces are losing a lotta good applicants to the 20/20 thing.   These are only rumours I've heard while talking with drunken pilots mind you



They might loose potential candidate, but I don't think they are short of applicants for pilot.  So I don't think they will have "worst" pilots...  Second, the nature of the work with Air Canada and with the Forces is totally different (how many times do you fly at 500 ft off the deck, Mach 1+ with a 767?)  I think the intent behind that is that if you take someone with good eyes, there is more chances that his vision will degrade more slowly.  

Max


----------



## wartide (25 Feb 2007)

ark said:
			
		

> Are both of your eyes worst than 20/20? As long as you have one eye that is 20/20 or better you may still be able to meet initial standards. What are your refractive readings?




Yeah, both my eyes are just off 20/20.   I forget the actual numbers, but the Doctor that handles all aviation medicals in my area said my eyes were just barely below standard.




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> They might loose potential candidate, but I don't think they are short of applicants for pilot.  So I don't think they will have "worst" pilots...  Second, the nature of the work with Air Canada and with the Forces is totally different (how many times do you fly at 500 ft off the deck, Mach 1+ with a 767?)  I think the intent behind that is that if you take someone with good eyes, there is more chances that his vision will degrade more slowly.
> 
> Max



I didn't say they were getting the worst pilots, I was saying that they could be losing some damn good pilots just because of their vision being only *just* below standard.   I also didn't say flying a CF-18 was anything near to flying a commercial liner, they're two totally different things. Having vision just off 20/20 would not really going to affect that much, I can see everything well enough while I'm a few thousand feet up.   Higher speed doesn't affect your vision, what's more of a concern "at 500 ft off the deck" is reaction time because being  able to see that tiny bit better isn't going to mean squat if you see an obstacle but are too damned slow to react.


----------



## condor888000 (25 Feb 2007)

But if you can't see an obstacle at all because your vision is crap, your reaction time won't matter.

In effect, there has to be a line somewhere, if you're just below 20/20, why should they let you fly and not the guy just below you? A minimum is needed, and rightly or wrongly, the CF decided that minimum is 20/20 uncorrected. Deal with it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Feb 2007)

Wartide said:
			
		

> Yeah, both my eyes are just off 20/20.   I forget the actual numbers, but the Doctor that handles all aviation medicals in my area said my eyes were just barely below standard.
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were getting the worst pilots, I was saying that they could be losing some damn good pilots just because of their vision being only *just* below standard.   I also didn't say flying a CF-18 was anything near to flying a commercial liner, they're two totally different things. Having vision just off 20/20 would not really going to affect that much, I can see everything well enough while I'm a few thousand feet up.   Higher speed doesn't affect your vision, what's more of a concern "at 500 ft off the deck" is reaction time because being  able to see that tiny bit better isn't going to mean squat if you see an obstacle but are too damned slow to react.



You vision will affect your reaction time.  Someone with a better vision will see something from a greater distance than someone with vision problems.  On the merge in Hornet, both planes are closing at 800+ kts, which is 1 mile every 4.5 seconds.  Provided you can start seeing a small fighter about 10 miles away, that's 45 seconds to react.  I hope you can see how you vision can affect your performance.  

The standards are the standards.  You have to deal with it.  As it has been said earlier, they must draw the line. That line is 20/20.  

Max


----------

