Glasses Wearers...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: up north (uk)
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glasses Wearers...
I did a search but found nothing so i am afraid it's another question regarding EYES! Well glasses actually...
I found out (at my Class 1 revalidation and then had officially confirmed by the optometrist) that I need glasses. Fortunately I am well within limits.
Being a glasses virgin vanity is, as I am sure it did/does with many others, taking part in the purchasing process! My question is this: is there an official limit to the size of the lenses? Must they go from below cheek bone to above eyebrow in a Dennis Taylor-like fashion? Or is a sleek Sven Goran Erikson style equally acceptable?
Of course safety and practicality are paramount but I would like to strike a balance. It would be good to come home with something other than a set of geek goggles if I can!
Any thoughts on buying your first pair of glasses for aviation (helicopters incidently) greatly recieved.
Ta.
I found out (at my Class 1 revalidation and then had officially confirmed by the optometrist) that I need glasses. Fortunately I am well within limits.
Being a glasses virgin vanity is, as I am sure it did/does with many others, taking part in the purchasing process! My question is this: is there an official limit to the size of the lenses? Must they go from below cheek bone to above eyebrow in a Dennis Taylor-like fashion? Or is a sleek Sven Goran Erikson style equally acceptable?
Of course safety and practicality are paramount but I would like to strike a balance. It would be good to come home with something other than a set of geek goggles if I can!
Any thoughts on buying your first pair of glasses for aviation (helicopters incidently) greatly recieved.
Ta.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an interesting discussion about specs recently on the Rotorheads Forum. Worth a look.
I've nothing sensible to say except choose very carefully and with the intended purpose in mind (even if you have to buy "social" specs and "flying" specs).
I'm a new specs wearer and bought the pair that looked best - small ones. So I sit there in the cockpit with them clamped in a fixed position under the headset and when I glance down to the chart/approach plate on my lap, I'm looking under the lenses, not through them.
I've nothing sensible to say except choose very carefully and with the intended purpose in mind (even if you have to buy "social" specs and "flying" specs).
I'm a new specs wearer and bought the pair that looked best - small ones. So I sit there in the cockpit with them clamped in a fixed position under the headset and when I glance down to the chart/approach plate on my lap, I'm looking under the lenses, not through them.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you thought of trying contact lenses? You can get used to soft lenses in a few minutes, and if you get daily disposables you won't have to bother with the cleaning routine. Gives you better peripheral vision than glasses too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: up north (uk)
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotatrim - thanks, that is the kind of thing I was after.
Whirly bird - I would much prefer to wear contacts unfortunately I need correction for both long and short sightedness (as I understand it!) and I believe you cannot use contact lenses for this. (That is what multifocal contact lenses are, aren't they?)
Thanks.
Whirly bird - I would much prefer to wear contacts unfortunately I need correction for both long and short sightedness (as I understand it!) and I believe you cannot use contact lenses for this. (That is what multifocal contact lenses are, aren't they?)
Thanks.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finding Out on 121.50
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wear specs and find the mid size frame fine. My lens is just under 25mm high.
Must add am long sighted so just need them for the nobs and guages etc.
Must buy though are prescription sunnies at the same time!
Must add am long sighted so just need them for the nobs and guages etc.
Must buy though are prescription sunnies at the same time!
Moderator
An option if you need both long and short correction is to wear contacts for long distance correction, and small lookovers for the near stuff. Otherwise, bi- or tri-focals are your best option.
Cheers,
BM
Cheers,
BM
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mpd, I know the problem. I found contact lenses fine while I was just short sighted; once I couldn't see the map in poor light it was harder. Personally I have bifocals with a very small bit for the closeup reading, and it works fine. My glasses are pretty small too, and look quite good - I'm vain; they have to be. 
But they work fine. I did try varifocals, but panicked when I tried to go into a confined area; couldn't work out how low over the trees I was! But some helicopter pilots wear varifocals, so maybe it's just a question of getting used to them. Your best bet is to find an optician who's used to dealing with pilots, explain the problems, and take their advice.
But they work fine. I did try varifocals, but panicked when I tried to go into a confined area; couldn't work out how low over the trees I was! But some helicopter pilots wear varifocals, so maybe it's just a question of getting used to them. Your best bet is to find an optician who's used to dealing with pilots, explain the problems, and take their advice.
Moderator
As Whirlybird says, varifocals can cause significant distortion. Some people have trouble just walking up a kerb in them (confined areas just don't bear thinking about ). In fact a lot of regulatory authorities specifically discourage or ban them. Having said that, some people find them OK once they get used to them.
Cheers,
BM
Cheers,
BM
Spicy Meatball
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liverpool UK
Age: 41
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not get two...........
Why not try and look for an offer where you can get two pairs for the price of one? That way you can have two different frames, one for flying and the other for everyday use (assuming you will be using them everyday) I have always gone to ("you should have gone to.......") optician, and I find they are the cheapest and have the best specs and service. Just before my medical I went out and got an up-to-date prescription, and bought a brand new pair of specs. They are a stylish pair, again no more than 25 mm top to bottom, but my field of vision with these is excellent and I have no problems at all when flying. I also got the exact same frame, but with black tinted lenses, which prove to be excellent sunglasses.
When I was a nipper, I used to have HUGE binlids for glasses, which of course in later years were subject to much ridicule, so I have always gone for the smaller style now, which I never have trouble with.
Best of luck,
Maz
When I was a nipper, I used to have HUGE binlids for glasses, which of course in later years were subject to much ridicule, so I have always gone for the smaller style now, which I never have trouble with.
Best of luck,
Maz
Controversial, moi?
I have worn glasses for 30 odd years. I have had large lenses (fashionable for a long time) and in recent years smaller lenses. It is a very personal choice but for what it is worth here are my views!
My last two pairs have been made from titanium. Air Titanium and now Silhouette
The advantages of the above makes are twofold, titanium is ultra light and very flexible and neither make use screws. If I wear one of my old pairs now I wonder how I ever got used to the weight!
Rimless or thin rims are probably better for flying due to the lack of obstruction to your peripheral vision, certainly I like my rimless pair for that very reason.
I have just, for the first time, had to have varifocals. I suffer from astigmatism (oval eyeballs basically) meaning I need correction for both long and short vision and now I have reached the age where my arms are too short so need reading correction as well. I put the decision off for two years and struggled with reading, especially at night, purely because I had heard horror stories about distortion and difficulty in adapting.
I have regularly heard that cheap varifocals tend to give more distortion and that they are to be avoided. Essilor invented the varifocal and their latest lens, the Panamic lens, is what I now have. I collected them with some trepidation and have been truly amazed. I put them on and drove home as if I had been wearing them for years. The reading area is small and I am unaware of any distortion. The movement of the head to focus on print or instruments is small and comes naturally very quickly. The only time I can make myself aware of the fact they are varifocals is looking straight ahead and then glancing down at the ground without looking down, I am then looking long distance through the reading section. In my case not a problem or even that noticeable but in helicopters it might be a factor.
From an aesthetic point of view you will see referral made to 'Index'. A high index lens is thin for a given refractive power compared to a low index lens. My early large lens' were not that strong but due to the curvature of the lens looked very thick. I now only have high index lens (some of the latest are over 1.6) and they avoid the 'bottle top' appearance.
Finally, the mark up on glasses in the UK is a disgrace. My current pair cost me £450. Glasses are now becoming available at greatly reuced prices via mail order. I would not personally buy variofocals this way because the precise location of the finished lens in relation to the wearer's eyes is critical. Similarly if buying abroad taking them back is more difficult although great savings can be made. A simple prescription gives more scope to shop around.
A small trustworthy optician would be my choice rather than a large chain. I use one in Hertfordshire and will supply his name if anybody wants by PM.
Sorry for the lengthy post and good luck!
PS I have no connection with any of the companies in the links above.
My last two pairs have been made from titanium. Air Titanium and now Silhouette
The advantages of the above makes are twofold, titanium is ultra light and very flexible and neither make use screws. If I wear one of my old pairs now I wonder how I ever got used to the weight!
Rimless or thin rims are probably better for flying due to the lack of obstruction to your peripheral vision, certainly I like my rimless pair for that very reason.
I have just, for the first time, had to have varifocals. I suffer from astigmatism (oval eyeballs basically) meaning I need correction for both long and short vision and now I have reached the age where my arms are too short so need reading correction as well. I put the decision off for two years and struggled with reading, especially at night, purely because I had heard horror stories about distortion and difficulty in adapting.
I have regularly heard that cheap varifocals tend to give more distortion and that they are to be avoided. Essilor invented the varifocal and their latest lens, the Panamic lens, is what I now have. I collected them with some trepidation and have been truly amazed. I put them on and drove home as if I had been wearing them for years. The reading area is small and I am unaware of any distortion. The movement of the head to focus on print or instruments is small and comes naturally very quickly. The only time I can make myself aware of the fact they are varifocals is looking straight ahead and then glancing down at the ground without looking down, I am then looking long distance through the reading section. In my case not a problem or even that noticeable but in helicopters it might be a factor.
From an aesthetic point of view you will see referral made to 'Index'. A high index lens is thin for a given refractive power compared to a low index lens. My early large lens' were not that strong but due to the curvature of the lens looked very thick. I now only have high index lens (some of the latest are over 1.6) and they avoid the 'bottle top' appearance.
Finally, the mark up on glasses in the UK is a disgrace. My current pair cost me £450. Glasses are now becoming available at greatly reuced prices via mail order. I would not personally buy variofocals this way because the precise location of the finished lens in relation to the wearer's eyes is critical. Similarly if buying abroad taking them back is more difficult although great savings can be made. A simple prescription gives more scope to shop around.
A small trustworthy optician would be my choice rather than a large chain. I use one in Hertfordshire and will supply his name if anybody wants by PM.
Sorry for the lengthy post and good luck!
PS I have no connection with any of the companies in the links above.
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wanted to thank those of you who posted to this thread - as someone who has been short-sighted for donkeys years I knew I was getting to the point of "admitting defeat" on the varifocal front (peering over top of specs to read labels was the major giveaway)! Anyway, before I went to the optician I checked through proon and as a result obtained the most expensive pair of specs imaginable (is £531 a record?) with 75% of cost being the lenses BUT they are the panamic lens. I picked them up last Thursday afternoon, walked home in them (having told the opticians I absolved them from responsibility if I fell over!!) and have worn them continuously since - as a first-time short-sighted varifocals wearer I still need to adjust to not being able to focus on steps as you go down stairs/escalators (you are looking through the part of the lens adjusted for reading) but otherwise all is proceeding v well! :ok
So THANK YOU Proon!
So THANK YOU Proon!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lenses are great but sadly daily disposibles arent available for every type of prescription, if you have a stigmatism then you need a toric lens and these are almost impossible to get in anything other than a traditional soft lens and can be v expensive to. Tru you can get lenses that will partially correct stigmatisms but so my optician told me last week that these never give the same clarity of vision as a standard Toric lens.
I thought about laser, but was told the correctio is so small they wouldnt touch it, which is good as the CAA aren't the greatest fan's of laser anyway.
What ever tyoe if lenses you use I think has to be better than glasses, I've use them and excuse the pun.....have never looked back!
Give 'em a whirl see how you get on
x
I thought about laser, but was told the correctio is so small they wouldnt touch it, which is good as the CAA aren't the greatest fan's of laser anyway.
What ever tyoe if lenses you use I think has to be better than glasses, I've use them and excuse the pun.....have never looked back!
Give 'em a whirl see how you get on
x
Join Date: May 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glasses again
Just wondering does anybody actually know what are the limits for waering glasses and being a pilot?
Im short sighted and on a recent eye test, the report put me at being -1.25 in both eyes, is this an acceptable decrease?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks
Im short sighted and on a recent eye test, the report put me at being -1.25 in both eyes, is this an acceptable decrease?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks
PPRuNe Playmate of the Month
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Donington, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small aside about the "vanity" angle of wearing glasses. When the time comes to choose the frames, take along the most honest, objective and critical friend you have. You might find a pair of frames you really like and think they look just great on you when you try them in front of a mirror but that's not quite the same as others see you. With the price of good quality frames being very substantial these days - particularly in the UK - honest criticism is invaluable.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight deviation from subject, but for what it is worth I made an interesting social discovery recently.
About 15 years ago I made an aviation presentation to a group of mostly Chinese business people. I did not wear glasses and that subject came up in question time, and we noted that nearly all the people in the room apart from myself wore glasses or contacts.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago. Similar group of people, this time I am wearing glasses as I have become an old f**t. I looked around the room and only a couple of them were wearing glasses. What gives?
Lasic. Nearly all of them had been laser treated. I pointed out that as a pilot I am unable to have that process as it is greatly restricted under my licencing authority.
We are now in the wierd situation that you can tell pilots in the room as they are the ones wearing glasses. So the world turns...
About 15 years ago I made an aviation presentation to a group of mostly Chinese business people. I did not wear glasses and that subject came up in question time, and we noted that nearly all the people in the room apart from myself wore glasses or contacts.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago. Similar group of people, this time I am wearing glasses as I have become an old f**t. I looked around the room and only a couple of them were wearing glasses. What gives?
Lasic. Nearly all of them had been laser treated. I pointed out that as a pilot I am unable to have that process as it is greatly restricted under my licencing authority.
We are now in the wierd situation that you can tell pilots in the room as they are the ones wearing glasses. So the world turns...
Está servira para distraerle.
What I found especially difficult was the transition at night from the panel scan to a dimly lit overhead panel. Variefocals did not work for me for this. Bear in mind as well that in commercial flying there are normally two in the cockpit so the other chap's lighting likes have to be born in mind.So I opted for either bifocals or trifocals. On balance, for flying, I prefer the bifocals. I use photogrey lenses for either. These glasses are considerably more expensive than many others and some opticians do not want to know about them.
Nancy Sinatra's walking footwear high street company made mine up. Of course, you are required to have two pairs. One for wearing, the other close to hand. But, I do not really think that the second pair needs to be anything other than an emergency spare if reasons of economy prevail.
Hope that this helps a little. I think you can expect to pay something like £250 for a pair of well framed spectacles such as these.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I've just paid £748 for 2 pairs of Zeiss varifocal lenses, to be fitted in my pre-existing frames. One pair are photochromic, i.e. adapt the amount of darkening to the ambient light. This might seem like a lot of money (it is!) but I felt that these particular lenses were a good compromise between quality and price. You can pay a lot more for not much more return.
I've been wearing glasses since I was 8 and unfortunately was outside the then limit of -3 dioptre for the Class 1 when I wanted to persue a flying career. I understand that I could now easily qualify, but it's too late...
Varifocals. I have seen opinion that they have no place in any cockpit but in my experience that's UTTER TOSH! I took to mine within seconds of leaving the shop with my first pair 10 years ago and haven't had any trouble since. I can go from map to instruments to outside without any trouble. In my view, they are MUCH better than bifocals as you don't get a sharp cutoff and heaps better than the 'look-over' Doc type. I've flown with people using these and they seem to be more of a liability than a utility.
Of course, you have to move your head about a bit with Varifocals, but in VMC you should be doing this all the time, anyway. Periphoral vision is pretty useless for discerning small objects at a distance, you need to really LOOK for other a/c, using the centre part of the retina. Someone once told me that the area of proper vision is subtended by a 50 pence piece held at arm's length; pretty small.
I must confess I haven't tried flying a helicopter so I'm not sure what part of the lens you might have to look through in the hover. How much can you move your head about when close to the ground to be able to look where you're going?
Incidentally, at my recent eye test, the optometrist remarked upon how excellent my corrected vision was, easily able to read the bottom line on the chart with either eye. 'You people who are short sighted are so picky about getting just the right correction!'
I get the impression there are loads of people out there, both flying & driving, who, because they can just get away without having to wear specs, have much poorer visual acuity than those of us who are forced to.
Cheers,
The Odd One
I've been wearing glasses since I was 8 and unfortunately was outside the then limit of -3 dioptre for the Class 1 when I wanted to persue a flying career. I understand that I could now easily qualify, but it's too late...
Varifocals. I have seen opinion that they have no place in any cockpit but in my experience that's UTTER TOSH! I took to mine within seconds of leaving the shop with my first pair 10 years ago and haven't had any trouble since. I can go from map to instruments to outside without any trouble. In my view, they are MUCH better than bifocals as you don't get a sharp cutoff and heaps better than the 'look-over' Doc type. I've flown with people using these and they seem to be more of a liability than a utility.
Of course, you have to move your head about a bit with Varifocals, but in VMC you should be doing this all the time, anyway. Periphoral vision is pretty useless for discerning small objects at a distance, you need to really LOOK for other a/c, using the centre part of the retina. Someone once told me that the area of proper vision is subtended by a 50 pence piece held at arm's length; pretty small.
I must confess I haven't tried flying a helicopter so I'm not sure what part of the lens you might have to look through in the hover. How much can you move your head about when close to the ground to be able to look where you're going?
Incidentally, at my recent eye test, the optometrist remarked upon how excellent my corrected vision was, easily able to read the bottom line on the chart with either eye. 'You people who are short sighted are so picky about getting just the right correction!'
I get the impression there are loads of people out there, both flying & driving, who, because they can just get away without having to wear specs, have much poorer visual acuity than those of us who are forced to.
Cheers,
The Odd One
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aargh. . .apologies for opening this thread again, but I guess I'm not the only one who is more"bat's eyes" rather than "cat's eyes".Well finally today nature added insult to injury and I have to swap my specs for something a bit more complicated.What is all this CAA stuff (" Bifocals with a small 'D-segment'are prefered to 'execs'because they allow proper distance correction of the runway peripheral vision 'streaming'cues when landing an aircraft")about.Is the choice really 50 40 30 20 10 kiss whilst looking like an old fogey ,or 50 20 graunch but only having to dye/thicken my hair to avoid looking my age;or is it not that simple.My (French) optician tells me she has numerous Air France pilots as clients,and they all opt for "verres progressifs"(well they would wouldn't they!) I just want to know what is most likely to damage my vanity,looking a bit "ancien" or planting the b*gger instead of my usual immaculate arrivals. . .ahem.
Psychophysiological entity
I've just been reading through........700 odd quid!!
Gone are the days when I could read the bottom line and then chant "custom, on the first day of every." It has to be said that I really didn't need any glasses at all, but having turned sixty, my seat had to be set back to front row cabin.
When I went back to flying after a long break, I was dismayed to find that I needed just a tad of correction to see the CRTs perfectly focused. Also, before my hands were falling on the overhead knobs with confidence, I also needed to look up and read the squitty writing...just to be sure.
Solution, a pair of big framed ready-readers for five quid and a Dremmel machine. I cut out a strip that gave me a good view out of the windshield--leaving some valid lens up and a lot for the panel. There's a few folk who will recall my specs.
They worked really well, but when I decided to have a proper pair made, I went for a large frame with small x3 for the Jeps at really close range. The main part of the lens was focused at panel distance and good for critical approaches in poor lighting. Looking up to land, I would just slip them down my nose and look over. The good thing was that it left my eyes relaxed at the correct focus for landing.
The serious problem with small vari-focals is the hourglass profile of the magnified area--being rather narrow in the centre. Looking to the side seems to change the focus too much for me, but I have only tried approximations on test.
Gone are the days when I could read the bottom line and then chant "custom, on the first day of every." It has to be said that I really didn't need any glasses at all, but having turned sixty, my seat had to be set back to front row cabin.
When I went back to flying after a long break, I was dismayed to find that I needed just a tad of correction to see the CRTs perfectly focused. Also, before my hands were falling on the overhead knobs with confidence, I also needed to look up and read the squitty writing...just to be sure.
Solution, a pair of big framed ready-readers for five quid and a Dremmel machine. I cut out a strip that gave me a good view out of the windshield--leaving some valid lens up and a lot for the panel. There's a few folk who will recall my specs.
They worked really well, but when I decided to have a proper pair made, I went for a large frame with small x3 for the Jeps at really close range. The main part of the lens was focused at panel distance and good for critical approaches in poor lighting. Looking up to land, I would just slip them down my nose and look over. The good thing was that it left my eyes relaxed at the correct focus for landing.
The serious problem with small vari-focals is the hourglass profile of the magnified area--being rather narrow in the centre. Looking to the side seems to change the focus too much for me, but I have only tried approximations on test.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, nobody knows, how important are 'streaming cues' ?I would really like to know before I shell out a load of cash for something that just doesn't work;most of the doubters in this & other threads seem to be rotary drivers,how do the fixed wing brigade find landing with varifocals?Incidentally I don't (yet!) have a big difference between my near&distant correction,would that(I assume) be a factor in favour of varifocals?