Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By tomshep
#1704276
Mine went out of round after measles, aged eight. I have always, since then worn glasses. Now I am older, my close up vision is moving further away to the extent that I read at normal distance without them.
So I tried an experiment. Car, 75 feet away. Yep, got his number.
So I meet the driving test standard.
I don't need glasses.

I do.

The improvement in my vision through wearing them is huge.
Without them, I would not drive.
But lots of people must be driving with vision like mine. And flying.
That is scary.
You wouldn't know the difference.
If you fly on self certification, think about having an eye test. You might be doing yourself a favour.
Smaragd liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1704288
Having a regular eye test is always a good move as a fair few medical conditions cause changes to the eye which are not giving any symptoms until you are a fair way down the way of having damage.
gaznav, PaulB, kanga and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1704293
I've had mild short sight since University, when in the course of three years I had to move from the back of the massive Biochem Dept auditorium (where we traditionally sat for last lecture of the morning so we could get to pub quickly for pie and beans), to the front row so i could read the blackboard (well it was the early 60s.

As Ive got older , my distance vision has improved markedly and I can read the smallest print on the card without glasses.

Its the one situation where certain low correction myopics benefit from the ageing process

But I too wouldn't drive/fly without them.

Or would I? Last summer in bright sunlight I drove to the strip, got the a/c ready and took off without them: I realised at the top of the climb out they were still in my chest pocket and put them on. The f-stop effect of bright light on my pupils gave me near perfect vision and I didn't notice they weren't on.

Indeed a couple of years ago when the visual acuity goalposts were moved,(FD will know what I'm talking about) my AME found I no longer needed specs: I urged him not to rock the boat and to leave the 'must wear specs ' on my medical and two years later I did indeed require specs again.

I find they sharpen up the numbers a treat from overhead at 2000ft......

Peter
User avatar
By kanga
#1704313
PeteSpencer wrote:..

I find they sharpen up the numbers a treat from overhead at 2000ft......

Peter


more importantly, do they sharpen up the Signals Square ? :)

[myopic needing glasses since age 14, useful presbyopic effects from mid-50s, use varivocals all day including for flying]
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1704341
Tomshep

The improvement in my vision through wearing them is huge.
Without them, I would not drive.
But lots of people must be driving with vision like mine. And flying.
That is scary.


This is why I think more likely to have a collision on the roads than in the air.
Sheer volume of traffic on the roads, and regardless of age, a lot of variation in eyesight ability that meets the test standard with a wide variety of weird and wonderful prescriptions for those that do go to the opticians, so no surprises when so many motorists pull out of junctions/roundabouts when they really should have waited to avoid a lot of near misses and collisions.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that someone that may not be legally required to have corrected vision but may help themselves see better for driving/flying if they did, that is not always the case....

This year I had a very unpleasant experience with a high street optician where I paid very good money for the new varifocal prescription but they were so awful they were not fit for any purpose and returned asap. To cut a long story short it took 2 months of dragging their heels before they coughed up a full refund, with some movement once I got the credit card company involved.
I won't be going there again.

At my last flying medical my AME said I do not need glasses but would not remove VNL from my medical certificate. The optician confirmed my eyesight has improved since then (so even more of a mystery how they got the prescription so badly wrong), so at my next flying medical, if my my eyesight continues to be better than required I will ask the AME to remove VNL from my medical certificate as I would be visually (and financially) better off with standard sunglasses than prescription sunglasses.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1704380
@GAFlyer4Fun

VNL = shall have available

For near vision, readers, not distance. Did you have Rx sunglasses for reading?
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1704412
The UK driving test has got harder, without doubt. However the eyesight requirement is antediluvian in its assessment. Given the cost of lessons, it would not be a hardship to require an optician’s report, and given the cost of other aspects of running a car, a repeat at the 10 year renewal would not be excessive.
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1704415
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@GAFlyer4Fun

VNL = shall have available

For near vision, readers, not distance. Did you have Rx sunglasses for reading?


Yes, as varifocal sunglasses. An existing weak prescription was sufficient when VNL was first required and for the next class 2.

Since then my eye sight improved. My most recent eye sight tests, Sept 2018 (Class 2 medical) and Feb 2019 (optician), both proved I did not need reading glasses. My reading was last recorded as 6/5 and the optician said he was very impressed with that for my age.

So what is the point of keeping VNL on a class 2 certificate when optically I no longer needed reading glasses to pass the most recent class 2 test?
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1704425
Jim Jones wrote:The UK driving test has got harder, without doubt. However the eyesight requirement is antediluvian in its assessment. Given the cost of lessons, it would not be a hardship to require an optician’s report, and given the cost of other aspects of running a car, a repeat at the 10 year renewal would not be excessive.


Some people will be using EU/foreign driving licences and some have no driving licence.

Also some cyclists and pedestrians might not pass the UK driving eyesight test so they are still a risk for cycling/stepping out into the path of traffic they have not seen/heard.

Eyesight for the users of roads appears a much larger scale problem than eyesight of PPL's in class G airspace.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1704437
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:...pedestrians might not pass the UK driving eyesight test...

Eh, pedestrians should pass the driving test sight standard? :? :scratch:
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1704441
Is that the tablet that ran out of power or had a thermal shutdown when you needed it most? :wink:
What about the traffic that has transmitter failure so wont be detected?
What about the traffic that has had the transmitter stolen so wont be detected?

Still need to look out the window 8)
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1704443
Miscellaneous wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:...pedestrians might not pass the UK driving eyesight test...

Eh, pedestrians should pass the driving test sight standard? :? :scratch:


Not what I meant.

Jim Jones was suggesting that mandatory eye tests for drivers at the 10 year licence renewal would sort out some of the SMIDNSY problems.

My point is cyclists and pedestrians dont have to have an eye sight test at all to cycle on the road or walk across the road..... so even if a car driver that met the eye sight test standard saw the cyclist/pedestrian just at that minimum distance, that wont help the sample of cyclists/pedestrians that have poorer eyesight and dont see/hear that car and so cycle or step out into the path of the car and have a collision.

Curiously cyclists seem to be allowed to have bright white strobe lights to make themselves seen (and/or dazzle the car driver?), but cars are not allowed to have bright white strobe lights so that cyclists see the cars.

Some GA aircraft have white strobe lights, but I am not convinced I see their strobe lights before any other part of the airframe when it is airborne in daylight hours as they tend to be so far away.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1704448
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Curiously cyclists seem to be allowed to have bright white strobe lights to make themselves seen (and/or dazzle the car driver?), but cars are not allowed to have bright white strobe lights so that cyclists see the cars.


I don't think they are allowed to just have the strobe, as many do. I think legally they must have a continuous white light it's just that, being cyclists, they neither know nor care - same as with all other rules of the road or common decency. :D
Charles Hunt, seanxair liked this