Eyesight Req- Why?

[thehoop]

If the RAF allows serving pilots to have corrective vision then why does it prevent new recruits from wearing glasses?

The top brass in the British military have long had a big question mark over many of their decisions, and this appears to be another one.

At the end of the day, if they are swamped with wannabe pilots then they are right to choose those with perfect vision. However, there is said to be a shortage of them at the moment so it seems strange to me that they are black listing thousands of potential recruits even before they have had a chance to show what they can do.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind it. The USAF allows pilots with corrected vision so why shouldn't the RAF? The fact that the RAF allows serving pilots to wear glasses shows that they don't seem to have a problem with them.

I'm obviously biased (as well as blind :D) so I'd like to hear your views on the subject!

[MajorMadMax]

I really don't understand the reasoning behind it. The USAF allows pilots with corrected vision so why shouldn't the RAF? The fact that the RAF allows serving pilots to wear glasses shows that they don't seem to have a problem with them.

:confused: :confused: :confused: Where did you hear that rumor? Much like the RAF, only after pilot training can USAF pilots go blind and still fly! :ok:

Cheers! M2

[willbav8r]

Actually the USAF and USN will accept candidates within a certain parameter (of blindness :O ).

Must be correctable to 20/20 of course.

[Brakes...beer]

When I PVR'd as a scribbly 4 years ago, I was told in my departure interview with a 4-star that he believed that the Air Force's eyesight requirements were now the same as the CAA's.

[Cpl Plod]

If the RAF allows serving pilots to have corrective vision then why does it prevent new recruits from wearing glasses?

At the end of the day, if they are swamped with wannabe pilots then they are right to choose those with perfect vision. However, there is said to be a shortage of them at the moment so it seems strange to me that they are black listing thousands of potential recruits even before they have had a chance to show what they can do.

It costs money to train people; if your eyes start going when you’re in training it’s cost effective to allow you to correct your vision.

If you’ve got dodgy eyes when you start it’s a gamble and there’s not enough money to waste.:(

PS Try more than one post on each thread otherwise you will confuse me.:confused:

PPS This sounds like a good thread to start:

The top brass in the British military have long had a big question mark over many of their decisions, and this appears to be another one.

Please enlighten us:ok:

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Who said there was a shortage of applicants? I thought they were still fighting tooth and nail over each slot out of OASC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought traditionally the problem was stopping them popping out the other end after 12 years....?

They can afford to be picky, I guess that'll always stand. If someone's got failing vision after 10 years service then it's worth correcting, why waste time correcting someone at the beginning when you could replace them with someone with perfect eyes?

[John Eacott]

Having been the lucky one who got in via a loophole in the regs, I wholeheartedly agree that, as long as it's correctable to 6/6, eyesight shouldn't be a limiting factor to selection.

The RN accepted helicopter pilots with 6/18 when I applied, and the examining doc took some convincing, even after reading the regs. DCI came out when I was at BRNC, upping the requirement to 6/6. After 35 years and oodles of hours, eyesight hasn't been an issue.

Unless there is an unknown reason, I can't see why eminently suitable applicants should be rejected from the mil because of (correctable) dodgy eyesight.

[MajorMadMax]

Willbav8r

You're right...

The Air Force has lowered their vision requirements to 20/70 with no near sightedness or laser correction.

I was surprised to see laser surgery is not accepted, especially as so may aircrew are having PRK done, but I checked AFI 48-123 atch 7 and found:

"History of radial keratotomy (RK) or any other surgical or laser procedure, such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) accomplished to modify the refractive power of the cornea or for any other reason, such as phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK), are not waiverable."

Learn something new every day...

Thanks! M2

[thehoop]

The top brass in the British military have long had a big question mark over many of their decisions, and this appears to be another one.

I am going on the old saying 'lions led by donkeys'! The top dogs of the British military are often there because of who their dads are, rather than on merit or intelligence! Steriotypical viewoint of course!

As for 'wasting time' correcting vision, I am sure anyone capable of flying a plane would have little trouble putting their glasses on quickly! :)

Training someone to fly a military aircraft is a time consuming and expensive business and steps should be taken to ensure that candidates are in good physical condition. If there is a good reason why people with less than perfect vision shouldn't be allowed to fly then I would accept it.

However, there doesn't seem to be one. Other airforces, including the most advanced AF in the world, allow corrected vision - so why is the RAF not budging?

I don't know much about flying, but I do know that they are a great many more skills required than being able to read the bottom line of the board without glasses.

My optician said that wearing glasses I have better than perfect vision. So in wearing them I actually have better vision than most of the RAF pilots anyway!

[moggie]

I joined the RAF at age 18 and passed up the opportunity to go to uni because I was worried about my eyesight. I had passed the medical at 15 (sixth form scholarship) but by the age of 17 needed specs (I am not telling you what sent me blind!).

At 17 I was still OK to get in but not by much. So I dumped uni and went straight to Cranwell because I did not want to take the chance of further deterioration over the next 3 years (drinking myself blind).

2 years after joining the RAF (whilst still under training) I was marginal on the eyesight but with some pretty weak corrective specs was back up to 20/20.

Over the next 10 years of service I had the expected age related deterioration but never got so bad that more than just a mild degree of correction was needed. I am now using -1.75 dioptre correction in both eyes - but have no idea how that relates to 6/6 or 20/20 or whatever scale is.


Bottom line for the service is that if your eyesight is less than perfect it will not get better with time. So, if they take someone who needs specs into the system they will need to provide specs for the rest of his acreer and there may come a point where his eyesight will reach a point that he will not be able to continue flying - even with correction. If you take soemone with perfect eyesight then there is no certainty that he will ever need specs - he may still have perfect eyesight at age 55.

It's a numbers game - and there has to be a limit for every physical characteristic: hearing, height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels etc., and some people will be outside the limits.

By the way if the RAF has dropped it's eyesight limits to CAA limits is that old or new CAA limits? I ask because the CAA has had to relax it's limits to come in line with the JAA - so does the RAF now use JAA limits?

My optician said that wearing glasses I have better than perfect vision. So in wearing them I actually have better vision than most of the RAF pilots anyway![/

My eyesight was better with corrected specs than when I joined the RAFD - it was no longer marginal. Don't miss the point here - lots of RAF aircrew wear specs - it's just that very few did when they joined (this is one of the reasons for the annual medical, after all).

[Runaway Gun]

A British newspaper (yeah OK, but it had no Page 3 girls) recently published a story regarding an ex-USN aircrew member who has now gone into the eye-laser surgery business. It went on to mention that certain US aviators and Special Forces guys had been allowed to undertake this laser treatment, and that they had all returned to work with AT LEAST 20/20 vision. Now my memory is fading, but I believe it said that some had 40/20 vision (ie. Twice as good as standard). Any truth to this?

[Jackonicko]

"The top dogs of the British military are often there because of who their dads are, rather than on merit or intelligence! Stereotypical viewoint of course!"

And an infantile and utterly silly viewpoint, too, and one which betrays a complete lack of contact with the said 'Top Dogs'. Britain's armed forces are lucky in having some very high calibre and extremely sharp and impressive blokes at the top - though they do sometimes seem to go from being 'Lions in the Cockpit' to administrative mice - perhaps because the system prevents them from arguing their corner with the political leadership? But I've never noticed any lack of intelligence or ability in any of the senior officers I've met, nor have many of them been notably 'well born'.

On the vision thing, it's to do with being able to be picky, because applications still outnumber vacancies by a huge amount, and its partly down to statistical probabilities. If a bloke needs his eyesight correcting before he's 21, the chances are that his vision will decline further, making him a poor prospect. There are exceptions, but they're not statistically important. Once you've already spent money training someone whose eyesight falls below the entry standard, you might accept the problem, just as you would with someone who is discovered to suffer from mild hayfever, though you'd still try to weed out such candidates at selection.

[willbav8r]

The USN has sponsored PRK for some of its' special forces and aviators.

I thought PRK was "acceptable" but, Lasik a no no. Something to do with +/- G so mebbe a P3 vs F14 driver becomes another issue......

A long time back on PPRUNE there was a thread regarding non surgical methods: essentially over a few weeks an enzyme is squirted in the eye, and progressively different contact lenses are used to re-shape. After the 2 wks or thereabouts, cancel the enzyme, eye(s) harden, and hey presto. Still waiting for that one to surface though.......(obviously I am no expert).

[MajorMadMax]

Runaway
"It went on to mention that certain US aviators and Special Forces guys had been allowed to undertake this laser treatment, and that they had all returned to work with AT LEAST 20/20 vision. Now my memory is fading, but I believe it said that some had 40/20 vision (ie. Twice as good as standard). "
I had PRK done courtesy of the USAF in Dec 2001, and tested 20/15 last Saturday (I think 20/10 would be twice as good as standard, it means you see at 20 feet what the average person sees at 10). Keep in mind I am currently a "young" man of 40 and am not on flying status, but have buds who are and have had the same surgery with similar results and are still qualified. These are fast-mover aircrews as well, F-15Es and B-1s, but they were already on flight status when they had the surgery.

Back when I had my procedure done the USAF was only allowing PRK, but I have heard rumors that either it or LASIK are acceptable. Again I don't know if that is only for the general populous or aircrews, but originally there was concerns over the "flap" that LASIK leaves and PRK doesn't. A Google search on 'PRK versus LASIK' reveals most doctors are favoring the latter, but most likely due to the quicker recovery rate and reduced pain involved. For most people the flap is not an issue...

Cheers! M2

[FFP]

Moggie . . . .. .

No need to tell us what made you suddenly go blind between 15 and 17 . . . .I thought that was just an old wife's tale :O :p :ok:

[Funkie]

thehoop. (Great name by the way)

For what it’s worth, here’s my point of view.

Having gone through the selection process at Cranwell just over a year ago, my application for GD(p) - Pilot - was rejected on the basis of eyesight, not my ‘higher than average aptitude, but sorry’…. -0.5 dioptre in each eye. Nothing. Needless to say, I was gutted and still am.

Not long after my journey to sunny Sleaford, an article ran in the Times implying that the RAF had reviewed their requirements for eyesight, with the standard being reduced civilian requirements. Also that laser correction would be treated as “acceptable” within the coming months for those who apply for GD(p). Great I thought, here’s my ticket, and a letter was drafted and sent off to Cranwell, FAO optometry! I received a phone call the following day from Cranwell, who “Were investigating these rumours, as they held no strength and were completely in accurate.” Bummer!!!! (Checked with the author of the nonsense who got the info from some agency…..journo’s = pricks)

My story, and yes, I’m bitter!!

Anyway, as far as I can make out, the RAF has never had any problem with the number and calibre of people who apply to become pilots, in fact it’s the most common chosen branch. Shockaroonie….. What may however change in the future is the ‘quality’ of applicant.

Poor eyesight is now part of our culture, mainly due to sitting smack-bang in front of the tele, poor quality computer screens and inadequate artificial lighting in offices/schools. Take a look at the number of people who wear spectacles next time our out in George Sq, then think how many others are wearing contacts! If they reject every candidate who has slightly poor vision, I wonder how many of them would have made excellent aviators.

The reasons behind the rules are simple. Every applicant who gets to Cranwell for consideration as a pilot is being considered for their most advanced, technical (expensive, late….) aircraft, the Eurofighter. The theory being, that if you can control the computer… sorry fly it, you can fly anything….!!! Remember, it takes about 3 years and 3 million pounds to train a person to fly some of the best aircraft in the world.

If your eyesight is not up to scratch, you will not be considered for any flying stream within the RAF. They want perfect applicants to conduct a truly profession role.

Funkie;)

ps. I think the laser correct causes excessive visual distortion under G.

[Wingover79]

thehoop,

Did the Police thing not work out or are you just exploring many career options at the moment?

WO79

[Wingover79]

thehoop,

Did the Police thing not work out or are you just exploring many career options at the moment?

WO79