Vision requirements in other countries

[schaloner]

Could anyone tell me the minimum vision requirements for the following countries?:

USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

TIA.

[Golden Monkey]

I would also be very interested to hear about this. I am based in the UK and, as far as I am aware, am unable to pursue any sort of professional aviation career in the UK because my (uncorrected) vision is a woeful -4.75. Corrected with lenses or glasses, my eyesight is pretty much perfect.

I have done all my flying to this point in Canada (due to finance as much as anything else) - as far as I'm aware from what I've been told, I COULD pass a commercial medical in both Canada and the States without any problem. I stand to be corrected, however.

I would be interested in hearing what the standards are in NZ and Australia. I'm prepared to up sticks to pretty much anywhere in pursuit of a viable flying career.

Thanks.

[schaloner]

Golden Monkey, I have been doing some investigations and it would appear that in the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia and RSA, you can pass a Class 1 medical as long as you have 6/6 corrected and that you wear your spectacles when flying.

My eyes are so bad (-9d and -9.5D with over 3D astigmatism) that I cannot even pass a Class 2 medical here in the UK. So it looks like I'll be forced to go abroad for my flying and (hopefully) future career.

[Golden Monkey]

Thanks, that confirms my suspicions. Silly, ain't it. I think it odd that there are probably hundreds of pilots bringing heavy aircraft into the UK on a daily basis on foreign licenses who wouldn't pass a commercial medical in the UK. But hey, that's my own pet gripe.

If you have any desire to learn in Canada I can recommend an excellent flight school in Vancouver. I won't post this on the board but if you want more info just mail.

[batu]

Hi!

In Europe the medical standard is -3/+3 (JAR-FCL). The CAA has also an other rule that's that if your 25 or older your eyes may be -5/+3. The USA, Canada ==> they don't have a eye standard! You can be a pilot wit -12 or wit +.25 it doesn't matter! They have a shortage on pilots so....it's a good place to go! Australia and New Zealand do also not have the eye limit stuff....but they have plenty of pilots!

Batu

[Crowe]

CZBB

You can get a JAR class 1 in the UK if you're over 25 - the limit is then -5 for initial, and they won't fail you in future if your eyesight deteriorates a little over the -5 mark, as long as it's not due to disease. I know this from a long chat with the guys at Gatwick!

Mail me if you have any questions, and good luck

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Crowe ]

[Golden Monkey]

Thanks chaps, that's really useful.

Certainly food for thought as I am actually 25 years of age and my eyes are -4.5 / -5.0. However this is not changing or deteriorating and has been stable for about seven years.

Perhaps I should take a fresh look at UK sponsorship programmes - however I can't realistically see a 25 year old with a foreign PPL and borderline eyesight being very high up the list :)

I had a semi-feasible plan with regard to foreign certification but this has certainly made me think! Hmm . . .

[stator vane]

what would be interesting is some sort of conversion from the UK numbers into US numbers for eyes.

perfect vision in US is 20/20. if your contacts correct to that-bingo. of course some have 20/10 which is better than required. (they can see at 20 feet what you should see at 10 feet-or so i was told a long time ago.) after certain ages, the near vision can take a hit and the standard relaxes a little, though i am not sure what those numbers are.

what do the UK numbers mean in relation to the US?

[inverted flatspin]

Converting from the US numbers to European is easy the US no's are in Feet and the European no's are in meters so if I remember correctly 1m = 3.3 ft 6 X 3.3=19.8ft so 6m is 20ft give or take. my guess is that the metric eye charts have got slightly different sized letters to the US ones so that 6/6 is exactly equivalent to 20/20.

Incidentally The Diopter measurement has got no direct correlation with how good or bad your eyesight is, while it does usually follow that the higher the number the worse your uncorrected eyesight is it is not true in many cases. In fact individuals with very high prescriptions often have two, one for glasses and another with a different diopter number for contact lenses. The diopter has only one purpose and that is simply to make sure that the guy who makes your glasses does exactly what the optician tells him.

Visual Acuity, corrected or uncorrected, is measured by the eye chart not the prescription.

Setting a cutoff limit based on Diopters is very bad Science. For example take the case of two would be aviators.

1.Uncorrected vision 20/50 prescription -3.5
Corrected vision 20/20

2.Uncorrected vision 20/100prescription -2.75
Corrected vision 20/20

Number 2 has no problems geting a JAA medical but what if that incident that the JAA are so afraid of happens that the pilot somehow loses his specs in flight and can't find them or the spare pair. Which one of the two above has got better eyesight in that case?

This whole JAR FCL 3 is only going one place, the courts where the authors of this nonsense should be made defend their work. Above all else there are many many pilots flying in and out of Europe every day that the JAA would not issue a medical to in any circumstance. What is so dangerous about these pilots? If they did pose a risk we would certainly see it in the accident statistics.

The attitude of the FAA is that you should fly unless there is some very serious reason that can clearly be shown to compromise flight safety.

The attitude of the JAA on the other hand is very different. Basically you should not under any circumstance fly unless you happen to fit exactly the medical/physical profile that they prefer even if you do not pose a flight safety risk.
As for those foreigners well they are quite welcome to fly CAT III into the busiest airports in Europe with One eyed Captains who have Colour deficient F/O's wearing spectacles with a prescription of -12. Just don't let the local boys do the same thing.

Rant mode to OFF.

[stator vane]

inverted spin;

i am well aware of the limitations of vision weaknesses. that is the reason i have been blocked out of the majors in the USA. mine is very poor uncorrected but with contacts correct to better than 20/20.

with contacts, i have a spare set of glasses in cockpit with me.

i have never had a rapid D, or a bird come in through the window, but it may happen yet. only then would i think that contacts might be added to the long list of sudden difficulties.

this is another reason it would be next to impossible for me to get a UK license, however that word is spelled in different countries.

even now applying for contracts with Asian airlines, they send minimum vision requirements that are hard to decipher.

oh well, i can always go back to alaska and fly the little birds.

[Constable Clipcock]

stator vane:

With the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1993, the elimination of all uncorrected visual acuity requirements from FAR Part 67 in 1996, the fact that there's never been a refractive error limit here in the US in the first place, plus the requirement — due to ADA — that air carriers may no longer use any pre-employment medical standard other than the FAA First-/Second-Class Airman Medical Certificate itself, you cannot lawfully be denied employment by a major due solely to your eyesight.

I presume your experiences of rejection by US majors occured before the so-called "company physical" was outlawed?

[BlipOnTheRadar]

To all concerned,

I too am hoping to live the dream, although sadly I can't do it here, at home in the UK.

I'm over 25, have errors of +4.75 balance/ +4.75 (which has not changed in 33 years) and the CAA say that had I not already held a class 3, I would not be issued with a class 2. Class 1 is a definate no go.

However, I did manage to pass an FAA class 1 with no problem. (for all UK based wannabees I had the medical at Airport Medical Services, Gatwick. e-mail me for phone number)

Now I'm in the process of finding a reputable flying training establishment to do my CPL/ATPL in the States. The horror stories I've heard about the ones I had thought were reputable have made me very wary.

My plan is to get the FAA ATP and convert it to a CAA/JAA CPL. However to start the FAA ATP course you need 1500 and to build up those hours you really need an instructors job, but you're not allowed to work on a visa, you need a green card. You can get a J1 visa which will allow you to gain practical experience but that only lasts for 24 months and that includes the time on your course!

To get a green card you need to have already been offered a job, to get a job you need a green card.... catch 22 anybody??

I'm sure it'll all work out in the end :)

Safe flying

BOTR

[schaloner]

Blip,

To convert from an FAA ATPL to a CAA/JAA ATPL, do you not have to pass a CAA/JAA Class 1? or am I wrong (oh please let me be wrong)?

[Apollo]

Canada......

Yes we are desparate for pilots.
Yes we DO have eyesight stadards


Good luck. You'll need it
Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/regserv/carac/CARS/carst42402e.htm)

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Apollo ]

[MANOMAN]

HI!

Try this link it tells you most things about the vision requirements for the CAA (UK), FAA (USA), SOUTH AFRICA AND CASA (AUSTRALIA).

Also other fundamental requirements for the different medical classes.
www.avasp.com/world/medical.shtml (http://www.avasp.com/world/medical.shtml)

HOPE THAT HELPS!

;)


MANOMAN!! :D