Notices
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

ATCO eyesight

Old 2nd June 2006 | 14:32
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: ESSEX
ATCO eyesight

hi guys,

i have my assesment day in a few days for a trainee ATCO position.

thing is i have never worn glasses but also have never had my eyes tested.

im starting to get paranoid now, if i do need them at some point is this a consideration at all?

thanks for any replies.
skinnygav is offline  
Old 2nd June 2006 | 14:41
  #2 (permalink)  
I say there boy
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
Originally Posted by skinnygav
thing is i have never worn glasses
In this case see it this way, it's less likely than the population at large that you're gonna fail. My eyesight is terrible and they let me in
foghorn is offline  
Old 5th June 2006 | 14:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: LTCC
Hello,

If you're worried about your eyesight then get them tested. If you require glasses then NATS will want your prescription details and medical staff will look at the results and decide if your eyesight meets their criteria. I wouldn't be too worried though, I can't see a thing without me bins but my eyes 'meet the criteria'.

Hope this helps
smellysnelly2004 is offline  
Old 5th June 2006 | 15:03
  #4 (permalink)  
niknak
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: UK
Go to a good optician and get your eyes tested, it will save any pain at the medical.
niknak is offline  
Old 5th June 2006 | 15:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: uk
Originally Posted by foghorn
In this case see it this way, it's less likely than the population at large that you're gonna fail. My eyesight is terrible and they let me in
Do you mind me asking what your prescription is?

Mine are -4.0 left and -3.5 right.

NATS told me that I was outside the criteria, and even after further prompting wouldnt tell me how much by.

Eurocontrol didnt have a problem with my eyes (even though their form seemed a lot more complicated!) and I also have a CAT 1 medical.

I would love to know whether NATS were been genuine, or whether I was just dealing with a total numpty!
soontobeATCO is offline  
Old 6th June 2006 | 09:14
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: LTCC
I think mine are -1.75 left and -1.25 right but not sure
smellysnelly2004 is offline  
Old 6th June 2006 | 10:55
  #7 (permalink)  
I say there boy
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
Originally Posted by soontobeATCO
Do you mind me asking what your prescription is?

Mine are -4.0 left and -3.5 right.

NATS told me that I was outside the criteria, and even after further prompting wouldnt tell me how much by.

Eurocontrol didnt have a problem with my eyes (even though their form seemed a lot more complicated!) and I also have a CAT 1 medical.

I would love to know whether NATS were been genuine, or whether I was just dealing with a total numpty!
As far as I know that is outside the NATS criteria. I think the limit when joining is -3. I'm currently -1.25/-3 but was slightly less than this at initial - -0.75/-2.75 I think. Of course once in it's accepted that your eyes get gradually worse with age.
foghorn is offline  
Old 6th June 2006 | 11:48
  #8 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
Even if one's not 'worried' about one's eyesight, best get it checked every two years. A friend of mine (with what he thought was perfect eyesight) went on a whim and six months later was in the operating theatre with surgeons stopping him from going blind.

Why would anyone 'not' want to get one's eyes checked? Just like a dental check up. We all still go, even if we don't have toothache.....

Last edited by Gonzo; 6th June 2006 at 14:06.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 6th June 2006 | 13:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Magic City
Hello everyone,
I have my selection test in a few weeks. I'm worried about the vision test. I have slight myopia. My contacts say -1.5 R/L and I usually get away with not wearing them. They have stayed at that level for a few years now. How difficult is the medical when it comes to vision. On a side note I was able to pass my driving exam with a little squinting during the vision test.
crisscar is offline  
Old 6th June 2006 | 20:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: By the sea
Don't worry about it. I am blind as a bat (-3.50 in both eyes) - had my medical last week, and although I'm yet to get my certificate from the CAA, the NATS doc said there'd be no problems. So don't know what your problem was soontobeATCO.
dbounford is offline  
Old 7th June 2006 | 07:44
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: uk
Originally Posted by dbounford
Don't worry about it. I am blind as a bat (-3.50 in both eyes) - had my medical last week, and although I'm yet to get my certificate from the CAA, the NATS doc said there'd be no problems. So don't know what your problem was soontobeATCO.
I get the impression that NATS were using the eyesight as an excuse. The gits! If they had just given the real reason (whatever that may be!) I wouldnt have a problem - but getting fobbed off really grates

Anyway, not to worry!
soontobeATCO is offline  
Old 7th June 2006 | 08:05
  #12 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
I'm not sure, but I think the eyesight requirements for NATS are now at +/-3.5 or less, so that would explain why you didn't get in, soontobeATCO....
Gonzo is offline  
Old 7th June 2006 | 11:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: The World
Although I don't have much time for NATS HR, I hardly think they would use medical standards as an 'excuse'. They are limits which have been set and are not flexible. I really can't believe this thread is going on with "I'm worried about the eyesight check" - you'll either pass, or you won't. Not a lot can be done about it!!

I can't believe I just defended HR................I'm doomed!
Number2 is offline  
Old 7th June 2006 | 12:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: By the sea
According to the NATS doctor, it also depends on your corrected vision. You can actually have uncorrected vision worse than the specified limit (whatever that is, +/-3.50 as Gonzo said), as long as your corrected vision is good enough. When you submit your application, you have to put your eyesight details down. If they're outside the limits, they won't bother putting you through the selection process - its a waste of your time and theirs.
dbounford is offline  
Old 8th June 2006 | 08:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: uk
Originally Posted by dbounford
According to the NATS doctor, it also depends on your corrected vision. You can actually have uncorrected vision worse than the specified limit (whatever that is, +/-3.50 as Gonzo said), as long as your corrected vision is good enough. When you submit your application, you have to put your eyesight details down. If they're outside the limits, they won't bother putting you through the selection process - its a waste of your time and theirs.
Quite right!

The reason I was a little miffed with application, was that when I was 17 I applied to NATS and my eyesight was passed as ok (the prescription was almost exactly the same as it is now, maybe 0.5 diopters difference) - I failed at the 2nd stage.

So on reapplication 4 years later my eyesight was turned down, even though the prescription is hardly different.

My corrected vision is perfect.

I was also slightly miffed that HR ignored various emails and then (eventually) could only muster a one line reply. Yes OK they are busy people, but to keep me in the dark for 4 1/2 months as to why my application wasnt being processed is a
soontobeATCO is offline  
Old 8th June 2006 | 08:42
  #16 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
I think the requirements changed a few years ago.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 10th June 2006 | 11:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
From: No Fixed Abode
Eeek I was assuming it was still the same as inital Class 1 medical, +-5d? Is this +-3 limit for trainees only?


Mine eyes have settled around -2.25d and I felt rather relieved that I'd have to go blind (-5) before failing initial Class 1.
Kestrel_909 is offline  
Old 10th June 2006 | 18:49
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Greenock
Angel

Hi Gav,

I got my eyes and ears tested anyway.

You need to pay for your eyes being tested unless you can tell them you have a genuine concern such as not seeing out of one eye as well as another.

kirstygolf is offline  
Old 10th June 2006 | 20:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: UK
Eyesight limits for ATCO medical

I found out about the eyesight requirements a while ago and here is the thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=124642

They still haven't changed the eyesight limits as far as I am aware so they are still as per that thread. Maybe ring the CAA or NATS medical department at Heathrow for confirmation.

Cheers
p.
pumuckl is offline  
Old 12th June 2006 | 18:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: The dark side
I'm not subject to the NATS regulations but we have a more or less equivalent system.

Your "Visual Performance" is not based on your refractive error alone (+/-), but is a combination of refraction, astigmatism, visual acuity, colour vision & the combined balance of those errors..
I think we require between +3/-5, astigmatisim <+/-3(both eyes within 2 of each other), acuity 6/6 combined - corrected if necessary - only 1 pair of glasses may be used, one eye can be 6/9, normal colour, normal fields, normal stereopsis.

In my facility, we have a complicated visual performance test every year, and are sent for an opthalmological examination every 3 yrs (or every year if you wear glasses)

If you can see okay to drive and live a normal life, and you're not prone to walking into doors and tables that you just didn't see, then you'll probably be fine. The testing is as much for your safety as for the aircrew + pax.
nibog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.