glasses in RAAF

[franksnbeans]

I have already asked this question in another forum, but I would like some 'anonymous' advice from someone in the RAAF.

I passed apptitude testing to be a RAAF pilot back in july this year, but I failed the medical because I wear glasses. I have met RAAF pilots who wear glasses/contacts, and the medical staff don't appear to have a medical reason for the restriction.

I have written 2 appeals, but have heard no reply. I also did a little bit of research, and the only reason I could find was something to do with halows around lights (but this only occurs at around -9 diopters from memory, I'm -2.5 in both eyes). [found on the US navy website]

I know this must sound like I'm having a whinge (not a very good officer quality), but this is my dream, and I don't want to get too old having not tried everything in my power to make it come true. I would appreciate any feed back on how I can get around the restriction.

Thanks for your help, fnb

[TimC]

I was in your position some time ago, having applied to the RAF. I don't even wear glasses most of the time (I'm -0.25 in both eyes) and I can't meet the eyesight requirement. End of story as far as the RAF are concerned.

The reasoning behind not allowing people who wear glasses in as pilots is because good eyesight is a requirement to be a pilot. Yes this can be corrected by glasses with no other problems, but the issue is that your eyesight has already deteriorated. This makes it more likely that it will get worse in the future. Someone whos eyesight is perfect is less likely to have problems in the future and is therefore a better bet in selection terms than yourself.

I've also met several pilots who wear glasses, but their eyesight deteriorated AFTER they had been through pilot training. After spending millions on training them, the service is hardly likely to bin them because they now need glasses.

I don't think there is a solution to your problem, I know it is harsh, but I know what it's like. Have you considered being a navigator or other rear crew?

[Dogsbreakfast]

As a current RAAF pilot I can advise you that once you're in then glasses / contacts are OK.

Stay tuned for more real soon. I think the RAAF are going to change policy an admit people who need glasses

[BEagle]

Good luck mate! And Jeez - I thought the only glasses Ozmates were interested in were those containing the amber nectar....

Apologies to any wuss who considers such comments to be racially stereotypic harassment!

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Sorry to tell you but I know of no-one with a requirement to wear glasses that has successfully applied to join as aircrew.

Finding out you need glasses AFTER joining (even post-OTS, pre-BFTS) is a different story.

I wouldn't hold your breath over the policy changing in a hurry. I've heard rumours for the last five years that it was going to change but as in everything RonnieRAAF, it's always "next year".

Hard luck mate, medical is the one area that catches a lot of guys - you're certainly not on your Pat Malone. If it is your dream, then don't give up the fight because things will only change if people stand up and ask "Why not?".

Good luck.

[franksnbeans]

Thanks for your input everyone. TC, my eyesight is also too far gone to be a nav, and anyway, if I'm going to be up there, I want to be the one flying it! I do want to be in the military, but I also want to fly, and private flying just isn't the same. I was looking at reserves, but I don't have the time to do the training.


I wont give up, but I think I'll start to consider doing a bit of AG flying once I get my CPL, it looks pretty challenging, as well as a bit of fun.

Thanks again, and I will keep you posted

fnb
ps: edited cos i cant spell

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: franksnbeans ]

[oldpinger]

f&b
A little birdie told me very recently that the eyesight limits for the other two services at least, have been very quietly reduced. May be worth a check at your friendly neighborhood recruiting place....
Hope this helps- can't guarantee authenticity of info however.

[GCP]

Dear franksnbeans (and others interested),
I might have good news for you.

The standard has been changed.

I suspect that the message may not have spread through the system as well as it could/should have. I believe that some of my colleagues are chasing this up.
The medical standards for entry are published in ADFP (Australian Defence Force Publication)701. The requirements for aircrew are at Chapter 9 - visual standards are at paragraph 907. The publication (or at least the copy on the defence web) does not appear to have been amended since initial issue in June 1997. However, a message was released on 10 Nov 2000 which changed the visual requirements from that date. Being a faxed copy of a message it is a little hard to read (even for my aircrew eyes!) but it says: (asterisk* follows terms I found hard to read)
SUBJ: LIBERALISATION OF VISUAL STANDARDS FOR ALL ADF AIRCREW RECRUITS
1. Effective from this date the following visual standards will apply to all aircrew recruits
2. This message notifies amended health standards indicated at Chapter 9 Para 907 of ADFP701. Changes are effective immediately
3. MVR1* visual acuity for all aircrew recruits will be no worse than 6/12 unaided each eye (measured separately) and no worse than 6/6 corrected each eye (measured separately)
4. Hypermetropic Astigmatism will be not more than plus 0.75 Dioptres each eye for all aircrew recruits
5. Myopia will be no more than minus 1.00 Dioptres each eye for all aircrew recruits
6. Myopopic Astigmatism will be no more than minus 0.5 Dioptres each eye for all aircrew recruits
7. Near vision will be N5* or better after correction for all aircrew recruits, (Note this is a new requirement to meet CASA standards)
8. Refractive surgery remains disqualifying for all aircrew, however, this issue is presently under review
9. All other aircrew recruit visual standards remain unchanged
10. The change in policy promulgated in this message will shortly be published in an amendment to ADFP701
11. DRSB* POC on this issue is LTCOL ..........., staff officer grade one aviation medicine policy (02) 6266 3829

POC is point of contact. Hopefully the phone number won't have changed. I would not recommend that you try and call, but the recruiting centre you are dealing with certainly should if they don't know about these changes. The reference to CASA may be something about the need to get a student pilot licence for the intial training at BFTS (in civil aircraft). I don't what these standards mean or whether your eyesight will pass, but at least now you can approach the recruiting centre armed with some knowledge. The references to 'corrected' and 'uncorrected' lead me to think that glasses are no longer automatically disqualifying.
It would be best if we could address the underlying problem of communication. I would be interested to know whether you had your eyes tested before or after 10 Nov 2000 and who told you that you failed - the Doctor or the recruiting staff. Also, how did you lodge your appeals that you did not receive a reply to - in writing or over the phone - and to where. No need to give identifying details.
Regards.

[franksnbeans]

CB Towers, thankyou. I'm not entirely sure on what all that means, but I will take it to my optometrist to look at.

In regards to my medical, it was conducted in early July this year.
As I walked into the examining room, the lady who was to examine me saw that I was wearing glasses, and promtly informed me that I would fail because of this. However, she said we would continue with the examination until the eye test. I couldn't read off an eye chart without my glasses, and consequently failed. I'm not sure if she was a doctor or not, but I assume so. If it is any help, I didn't get to the part where I strip down and cough.

After a few phone calls, I was sent a copy of the front page of my medical report as well as instuctions on how to appeal. The front page of my medical report says:

"class 4 for pilot (not examined)"

Both my appeals were written letters posted to the recruiting office in the city, as the intructions said.

Thanks again to everyone

fnb

[franksnbeans]

just been informed that my 2nd appeal has been recieved, but the first has disappeared. They are sending it off to Canb., they said it took a while because it needed a signiture or something
fnb

[Felixmini]

Fancsnbeans -
I know how hard it is for you. i was once in the same predicament as you. That dream for a wannabe RAAF pilot has been there. The hardest thing for me was going back to cranwell to face the same people who told me i couldn't become a pilot. I'd managed to get a flying scholarship second time round, why not this?

I have an astigmatism in the right eye, and am slightly long sighted, meaning both my eyes don't work together too well. Thing is i wasn't going to let this get me down. I re applied having knowledge of what i was up against, went to cranwell and i got through.
The fact is to NEVER give up on your dream and let no one take it away from you. I think all pilots one day where in the same boat, but its determination and a fresh mind that got them through. We all here wish you the very best of luck.
Fly high my friend.
Felix

[MacTuc]

First of all, a big thanks to CBT for providing the info on the standards change. i'm continually impressed by the "network" of people here and the knowledge that each brings - even the smallest piece of info is of use to *someone* out there.

something of a techical question for those in the know - my optometrist seems to think there is a disparity in points 4 & 5

"4. Hypermetropic Astigmatism will be not more than plus 0.75 Dioptres each eye for all aircrew recruits
5. Myopia will be no more than minus 1.00 Dioptres each eye for all aircrew recruits"

she tells me that the 0.75 hypermetropic & 1.00 myopic dioptres are incompatible - something about having to multiply the myopic dioptre by 2 to get an equivalent hypermetropic dioptre - i.e. 1 dioptre myopia (point 5) is equivalent to 2 dioptres hypermetropia (point 4) rather than 0.75 as stated.

now all this doesnt make a lick of sense to me, just wondering if anyone can clarify this point. it is of particular interest for myself, as i am very borderline on the 0.75 hypermetropic astigmatism limit.

Felixmini - great post mate, an undying will to succeed is surely the key to "making it" in this industry, and an enviable virtue to be sure.

again, thanks for the new info. best of luck to all who decide to re-apply given these develpoments

[Felixmini]

:D :D
Mactuc - Taa bud.

i too haven't the faintest idea what all these numbers mean, but to alot of people they're their worst enemy.

Keep going going guys. You'll make it. Don't let the nasty OASC building get to you.

Hope to be working along side some of you some day.
Felix

[Octane]

Franksnbeans,
Thought I'd share my experiences. Like you I was shortsighted. Applied for RAAF @ 17 after school and was rejected. 6 years later in 1986 I picked up a hitchhiker who raved about refractive correction surgery. You guessed it, I had it done and reapplied to the RAAF with 20/20 vision. I breezed through the selection interviews etc (by this time I had a science degree) and was accepted, Yahoo! All I had to do was pass yet another medical. Well, the gods were not on my side. The opthamologist detected that I had corrective surgery and that was that. I did not actually fail any eye examination which was the basis for my appeals. These were unsuccessful, I got the feeling they weren't taken seriously. I actually considered getting a referral from the Russians since they apparently accept people in this situation! Anyway, two points.
1. The RAAF had no idea I had applied and been rejected 6 years previously.
2. My surgery involved a small scalpel making precision incisions rather than a laser as used nowadays. Maybe the modern technique is undetectable, I don't know.

Hope this helps. By the way, I still have 20/20 vision 14 years later.

[GCP]

Hello everyone. I had best jump in again.

Part of the military selection process instituted in recent years is a test which performs a couple of functions. One: it maps your eyes so that possible damage done during your Service career can be properly attributed (military class lasers have a degree of hazard associated with their use); and two: it detects corrective surgery that has been performed.

It will be detected. You will not 'get away with it'...promise.

There were very real concerns about the safety of laser surgery for aircrew use. The specific possibilites posed by the airborne environment had not been declared safe. In fact, I think that a certain Australian international airline agreed with the military assessment and also did not allow laser surgery. I think that these concerns remain to some extent.

I would like to point out that with the changed standards regarding glasses I explained above you may not need to resort to surgery to pass.

(by the way, I cannot help you resolve the ambiguity of the previous message, if it exists - I just published the message as best I could read it. I checked the paras questioned above and they are as per the message)

However, again the good news: Since my last post another message has been received.

Certain types of surgery: Photorefractive Keratotomy (PRK) and LASIK are permitted once only under certain circumstances.

Refractive Keratotomy (RK) is not approved.

There are very specific restrictions on the outcomes and follow up reviews are required. The message comes with a warning that refractive surgery is not guaranteed to result in uncorrected vision that meets the requirements or is free of haze. I am not going to publish the standards. I will not take responsibility for you deciding to butcher your eyes. If you think it is for you, make contact with the recruiting centre. Indeed, they will not take responsibility for your decision either. All recruiting medical officers should be familiar with the message. If they are not familiar, ask them to check for a message released from SGADF CANBERRA (surgeon general ADF) DTG 120430ZOCT01.

Again it is your decision. It is a risky procedure and you may not be accepted even with it done.
Regards :(

[franksnbeans]

Good to see so many replies, thankyou.

Mactuc, goodluck, I reckon ur in with a chance.

Felixmini - well done. As Mactuc said, it just demonsrates that if you want it enough, you can get it.

Unfortunately, my eyesight does not meet these new min. crit. I'm -2.5 in both eyes, with -0.5 myopic astigmatism in both eyes.

Octane - thankyou for your input. I did look at LASIK a few months ago, but i found that it is not a dream cure. There is a good chance that I will get hallows/hazy vision, 20/20 vision is not garanteed, and if I was to try and keep quiet about it, which I wouldn't (impossible anyway, as only got knocked back about 3 months ago!), that mapping thing would catch me out. I think I would also immediately lose my medical certificate, which would render me grounded. and my balls would ache like crazy if I couldn't fly even light aircraft. But thankyou for you're input, and I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.


CB towers - thankyou for this new info regarding LASIK stuff. As stated above, it probably isn't a good idea for me at the moment, but in the future, it may be an option. I just have a question in regards to my appeal. If it gets rejected, who should I try and contact?? Is it a good idea to write directly to the Director General of AF health, or Peter Reith (if he's not to tied up with the current situation)?

Once again thankyou to everyone for their input.
fnb

[MacTuc]

Cheers Flexmini :)

F&B - sorry to hear that you're outside the allowable limits. i'm sure that alot of very good people are excluded because of this "short-coming", but i guess they're compelled to lay a standard somewhere.

i hope this sort of set-back doesn't deter people from flying in general - slipping the surly bonds, whether it be at Mach 2 or 105kts, is surely a beautiful thing. i've only worked in general aviation for a small number of years, but i've made friends i'll have till i die - tis a great fraternity to be sure.

thanks CBT for the extra info. i understand that your original info was presented as-is, most of it was way over my head - i ask only to clarify a point that may or may not be to my advantage.

very useful topic, thanks again.

gday

[franksnbeans]

True, they must set a standard somewhere, but if I don't keep trying, then I'll have no chance at all.

Just because my parents didn't think of the gene pool when they got married, doesn't mean I will give up on my dream.

cheers and good luck

fnb

[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: franksnbeans ]

[Hornetboy]

Hey CB I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, about to start the whole app process.

I have a question on that LASIK/PRK thing you mentioned. I rang up the medical section of the RAAF to check up on the parameters. The woman there said there's no such thing for pilots. It's now allowed for quite a few positions, but not pilot, apparently.

Would you be able to verify? Is this true or is the woman simply a little behind on the news? About the butchering eyes thing, I don't like the risks either, but sooner or later many of us won't be able to avoid it. It's a tempting option for non-aviators and aviators alike.

[GCP]

She is either misguided or thinks that nobody can meet the standard after the surgery, or is too busy to be bothered!, I guess.
The message was from: SGADF CANBERRA, It was dispatched at the Originators Date Time Group: 120430ZOCT01
The first line reads: DHSB001
The Subject title was: REFRACTIVE SURGERY
It was addressed to every medical and recruiting organisation under the sun.
Paragraph 1 said "Effective receipt of this message a history of refractive surgery is acceptable for entry to the ADF for all applicants subject to the following"
Paragraph 7 said "Personnel with refractive surgery entering aircrew, diving, submarine or parachuting trade specialities will be required to undergo opthalmic review at least annually until 5 years post-refractive surgery once in the ADF"
Paragraph 8 said "confirming authorities are to allocate these personnel a specialist employment classification of A/D/S 201 fit for unrestricted duties but need access to medical support - (requires periodic access to specialist care)"

Nowhere does the message say this doesn't apply to pilots. It specifically applies to all applicants and to aircrew,

Go gettem,
Regards

[GCP]

fnb
check your profile for private message.

[franksnbeans]

Thankyou.

[Hornetboy]

Thanks a whole heap CB.....the woman sounded pretty evil.....I wanted to ask some questions about how long before the medical I should do it, or if I could hold it back untill acceptance (God-willing) into a course. Also wanted to know specifics on the standards necessary post-surgery, etc. Hope I'm not asking too much, but any chance you could pretty please answer those questions?

.....I'm scared of ringing back. The scary woman hates me because last time I called I used big words that she didn't understand when she described herself as the person there that knew most about the subject. *shivers*

[GCP]

Itsallmagic - check profile for message

Confirmed. The message does apply to all applicants including pilots, subject to the conditions imposed in the message. If you are not getting the right response from recruiting aske them to please check the message reference shown above.
Regards

[Hornetboy]

Ah thank you v. v. v. much CB. I won't clog the thread any more with a personal message so I'll continue this in a private message. Do check :-)

[franksnbeans]

CB Towers
I can't thank you enough for your help. These posts are exactly the kind of responses that I was hoping for. It is also great to see that at least two others may benifit from them as well.

I will keep you updated over the comming months/year.

I wish you the best of luck to your future endeavours and all wannabes applying.

fnb
:D