VISION THREAD (other than colour vision)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blinkz
I would suggest that you follow the principle of "Don't ask / Don't tell"
If they ask then you simply advise that you have a full CAA / JAA class 1 medical certificate with no limitations - THAT IS FACT
If they want to get picky after that fine then you can try "educating" them or move on to an airline that is less picky
I would suggest that you follow the principle of "Don't ask / Don't tell"
If they ask then you simply advise that you have a full CAA / JAA class 1 medical certificate with no limitations - THAT IS FACT
If they want to get picky after that fine then you can try "educating" them or move on to an airline that is less picky
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition what happens with regards to the medical standards in other countries is academicaly interesting but not necessarily relevant. In the USA for example many of the standards and requirements are geared up to a system that is relevant to that countries operating infrastructure and norms. For example it is comparatively rare for very low hour pilots to be employed as airline First Officers. It may well be that the FAA considers the higher experience base and general operating environment to be sufficient to allow a different level of colour vision deficiences, than that permitted in the UK.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think davidd that you are failing to understand what you do not want to understand ? It is hard to understand why a 19,000 hour US pilot (that is around 32 years of full time flying by the way !) would be seeking a UK medical. However the standard is not designed for such an exceptional case. The standard is designed to satisfy the requirement in the relevant jurisdiction.
It is not simply a case of failing the initial test that results in disqualification, since there is further testing that can be submitted to, and if the apparant CVD applicant wishes to progress, has to be submitted to.
It is not simply a case of failing the initial test that results in disqualification, since there is further testing that can be submitted to, and if the apparant CVD applicant wishes to progress, has to be submitted to.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the USA for example many of the standards and requirements are geared up to a system that is relevant to that countries operating infrastructure and norms. For example it is comparatively rare for very low hour pilots to be employed as airline First Officers. It may well be that the FAA considers the higher experience base and general operating environment to be sufficient to allow a different level of colour vision deficiences, than that permitted in the UK.
Bealzebub that is the biggest load of BS that I have seen in a long time....yes you are quite right in saying that in the US airlines look for experience and hours in logbook that are much higher (normally) than here in UK HOWEVER that does not mean that Colour vision testing should be so illogically stringent in UK...Colour vision defective pilots in UK would understand having to gain experience and hours to prove competence and ability but that is not an option - why not?
I think davidd that you are failing to understand what you do not want to understand ? It is hard to understand why a 19,000 hour US pilot (that is around 32 years of full time flying by the way !) would be seeking a UK medical. However the standard is not designed for such an exceptional case. The standard is designed to satisfy the requirement in the relevant jurisdiction.
Not so exceptional as you might think given the fact that we live in a global market and aviation is a truly global activity, many high time US pilots work in Europe and take JAR medicals every day of the week FACT !
Bealzebub - Not sure what your situation is or where you are coming from but I don't think you are a CVD pilot and I would wager that you are possibly linked to the naff system that we have (UK Medical Examiner ?)
Bealzebub that is the biggest load of BS that I have seen in a long time....yes you are quite right in saying that in the US airlines look for experience and hours in logbook that are much higher (normally) than here in UK HOWEVER that does not mean that Colour vision testing should be so illogically stringent in UK...Colour vision defective pilots in UK would understand having to gain experience and hours to prove competence and ability but that is not an option - why not?
I think davidd that you are failing to understand what you do not want to understand ? It is hard to understand why a 19,000 hour US pilot (that is around 32 years of full time flying by the way !) would be seeking a UK medical. However the standard is not designed for such an exceptional case. The standard is designed to satisfy the requirement in the relevant jurisdiction.
Not so exceptional as you might think given the fact that we live in a global market and aviation is a truly global activity, many high time US pilots work in Europe and take JAR medicals every day of the week FACT !
Bealzebub - Not sure what your situation is or where you are coming from but I don't think you are a CVD pilot and I would wager that you are possibly linked to the naff system that we have (UK Medical Examiner ?)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was curious as to your ability to identify the colours within the plates.
I.e on this plate http://www.kcl.ac.uk/teares/gktvc/vc...ss/plate11.htm can you identify the individual dots if a non cvd person is sat next to you and points to a dot can you identify its colour ?
Have also pm'd you
I.e on this plate http://www.kcl.ac.uk/teares/gktvc/vc...ss/plate11.htm can you identify the individual dots if a non cvd person is sat next to you and points to a dot can you identify its colour ?
Have also pm'd you
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfazed, based on your hunches I wouldn't advise you wager anything. 
I am not a "UK medical examiner" nor a CVD pilot. I am an 18000hr pilot with 5 sons one of whom does want to become a commercial pilot and has had a CVD problem which drew me to this thread. Hopefully that satisfies your qualification criteria ? I am sorry you thought the posting was the "biggest load of BS you had seen in a long time". It was based on a combination of a considerable degree of experience in both jurisdications, together with some opinion and very recent (first hand) discussion with the relevant authority.
Your judgement of the "naff system" we have here in the UK, is not one that I share, nor do I suspect many other people do, some may have a particular axe to grind ?
It really doesn't matter how "Global" an activity you feel aviation is, since clearly that is somewhat rhetorical and obvious. There are still many variations in so many aspects of it. Obviously as in this topic, the medical standards vary. The training requirements vary, the licensing requirements vary, the regulatory requirements vary. How ever much you try and torture the logic, it cannot be made to suit the outcome of your own individual grievance. Many "high time" US pilots might well undertake UK/JAR medicals, however they are still subject to the same standards as national applicants. A UK or European citizen undertaking an FAA medical is also subject to that jurisdictions standards, but to operate only insofar as that jurisdiction allows.
The colour vision requirements in the UK are laid down by the authority as are the licensing requirements. There are many differences. It does not follow that if one authority has a different standard or requirement that standard or requirement then necessarily becomes illogical. There are situations where a CVD would present problems ( read back through the posts ) and an employer, a pilot in command and a passenger should have every right to expect that the regulatory standard might preclude such problems being the acceptable level ?
In the UK (and some other jurisdictions) a CVD will not normally prevent the issue of a class 2 medical certificate with a daylight only restriction, however if further investigation of the deficiency confirms a sufficient lack of colour vision discrimination, then that will normally preclude the issue of an unrestricted class 1 certificate.
It might not seem so, but I do have every sympathy with an individual who finds themselves in this position. There are opportunities to re-test using other testing methods, and these other methods obviously may overturn the previous restriction. However there are reasons why the standards are in place. Clearly there are also reasons why different countries apply variations to those standards to suit their own situations.
I am not in any way responsible for those standards, although I understand why they exist. I also understand the reason why a CVD pilot should not present themselves in the flightdeck of a commercial airliner in many circumstances. I understand why this standard will disappoint those it affects. I understand that there are different levels of standard in the USA and maybe some other countries. I understand why there may be such differences.
I am not a "UK medical examiner" nor a CVD pilot. I am an 18000hr pilot with 5 sons one of whom does want to become a commercial pilot and has had a CVD problem which drew me to this thread. Hopefully that satisfies your qualification criteria ? I am sorry you thought the posting was the "biggest load of BS you had seen in a long time". It was based on a combination of a considerable degree of experience in both jurisdications, together with some opinion and very recent (first hand) discussion with the relevant authority.
Your judgement of the "naff system" we have here in the UK, is not one that I share, nor do I suspect many other people do, some may have a particular axe to grind ?
It really doesn't matter how "Global" an activity you feel aviation is, since clearly that is somewhat rhetorical and obvious. There are still many variations in so many aspects of it. Obviously as in this topic, the medical standards vary. The training requirements vary, the licensing requirements vary, the regulatory requirements vary. How ever much you try and torture the logic, it cannot be made to suit the outcome of your own individual grievance. Many "high time" US pilots might well undertake UK/JAR medicals, however they are still subject to the same standards as national applicants. A UK or European citizen undertaking an FAA medical is also subject to that jurisdictions standards, but to operate only insofar as that jurisdiction allows.
The colour vision requirements in the UK are laid down by the authority as are the licensing requirements. There are many differences. It does not follow that if one authority has a different standard or requirement that standard or requirement then necessarily becomes illogical. There are situations where a CVD would present problems ( read back through the posts ) and an employer, a pilot in command and a passenger should have every right to expect that the regulatory standard might preclude such problems being the acceptable level ?
In the UK (and some other jurisdictions) a CVD will not normally prevent the issue of a class 2 medical certificate with a daylight only restriction, however if further investigation of the deficiency confirms a sufficient lack of colour vision discrimination, then that will normally preclude the issue of an unrestricted class 1 certificate.
It might not seem so, but I do have every sympathy with an individual who finds themselves in this position. There are opportunities to re-test using other testing methods, and these other methods obviously may overturn the previous restriction. However there are reasons why the standards are in place. Clearly there are also reasons why different countries apply variations to those standards to suit their own situations.
I am not in any way responsible for those standards, although I understand why they exist. I also understand the reason why a CVD pilot should not present themselves in the flightdeck of a commercial airliner in many circumstances. I understand why this standard will disappoint those it affects. I understand that there are different levels of standard in the USA and maybe some other countries. I understand why there may be such differences.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a CVD pilot (in UK) I should like to add a few comments to what has been said about the many testing methods.
I have also had the "dear John" for Gatwick (although some time ago now) and know how it feels to have your lifelong dreams dashed in an instant. Following this I did get my PPL in the USA and did the light signal test - and passed This gives me an unrestricted class 2 medical, good for a CPL in the USA.
Now for an ATPL you need a class 1 medical and will need to do a medical flight test at night with an FAA official - NOT a doctor. The FAA officials are all VERY enthusiastic about aviation and want you to pass, however they are also responsible for aviation saftey and will NOT pass anyone they feel is a danger to aviation, people do fail - it is not an automatic pass for CVD pilots.
In my mind and after reading a LOT about CVD I think it is a very complex matter and can be theorised for ever. The FAA route of a PRACTICAL test is appropriate, as if you can convince an FAA official that you are colour safe for AVIATION, I think this is a lot more realistic than a lot of theoretical tests. This also applies for other afflictions such as fasle limbs etc. If you can show the FAA guy that you can complete all the tasks that are needed for the safe operation of the aircraft, they will issue a SODA waiver (Statement Of Demonstrated Ability) - How practical!!
For myself, I intend to do the City Uni tests next month to see if I stand a chance here in the UK, if not will probably go back to the US and sit the medical flight test and go the FAA route. I'm not sure if this will be any good to me as my base is here in the UK, but feel that I must go as far as I can with my dream of flying.
I have also had the "dear John" for Gatwick (although some time ago now) and know how it feels to have your lifelong dreams dashed in an instant. Following this I did get my PPL in the USA and did the light signal test - and passed
This gives me an unrestricted class 2 medical, good for a CPL in the USA.Now for an ATPL you need a class 1 medical and will need to do a medical flight test at night with an FAA official - NOT a doctor. The FAA officials are all VERY enthusiastic about aviation and want you to pass, however they are also responsible for aviation saftey and will NOT pass anyone they feel is a danger to aviation, people do fail - it is not an automatic pass for CVD pilots.
In my mind and after reading a LOT about CVD I think it is a very complex matter and can be theorised for ever. The FAA route of a PRACTICAL test is appropriate, as if you can convince an FAA official that you are colour safe for AVIATION, I think this is a lot more realistic than a lot of theoretical tests. This also applies for other afflictions such as fasle limbs etc. If you can show the FAA guy that you can complete all the tasks that are needed for the safe operation of the aircraft, they will issue a SODA waiver (Statement Of Demonstrated Ability) - How practical!!
For myself, I intend to do the City Uni tests next month to see if I stand a chance here in the UK, if not will probably go back to the US and sit the medical flight test and go the FAA route. I'm not sure if this will be any good to me as my base is here in the UK, but feel that I must go as far as I can with my dream of flying.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
I am an 18000hr pilot with 5 sons one of whom does want to become a commercial pilot and has had a CVD problem which drew me to this thread
OK Wager lost but I was correct in assuming that you were not CVD yourself,
perhaps if you were you might not be so keen to defend a system that prevents your own Son from following the professional career that you have enjoyed
You sound like you are happy with the way that CVD risk is assessed and managed in this system (but then why wouldn't you?)
Why you are so happy to tell your Son to forget it and do something else I cannot understand unless it is because you are a firm follower of the rules, whatever they are.
I hope that your Son doesn't quit from his ambitions and that he ignores your views on this subject. In time the testing requirement here will change to a more enlightened system, even if it doesn't change I would suggest that he follows the lead given by the first UK shuttle astronaut who's eyesight was not up to RAF standard but who ended up flying in space anyway ! Oh and I think his father was a pilot also
I am an 18000hr pilot with 5 sons one of whom does want to become a commercial pilot and has had a CVD problem which drew me to this thread
OK Wager lost but I was correct in assuming that you were not CVD yourself,
perhaps if you were you might not be so keen to defend a system that prevents your own Son from following the professional career that you have enjoyed
You sound like you are happy with the way that CVD risk is assessed and managed in this system (but then why wouldn't you?)
Why you are so happy to tell your Son to forget it and do something else I cannot understand unless it is because you are a firm follower of the rules, whatever they are.
I hope that your Son doesn't quit from his ambitions and that he ignores your views on this subject. In time the testing requirement here will change to a more enlightened system, even if it doesn't change I would suggest that he follows the lead given by the first UK shuttle astronaut who's eyesight was not up to RAF standard but who ended up flying in space anyway ! Oh and I think his father was a pilot also
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfazed,
Your bitterness is pointless directed towards me. My son did present this difficulty, and for a while there was a very real chance that it would thwart his ambitions in this regard. That was a possibility that we had sat down and discussed, and his mother and I had discussed at great length. No parent wants their children to be disappointed or have their ambitions dashed, however as children grow into adults the time for fairy tales draws to a close and the realities of life become more prevalant.
The AME who asessed the potential CVD explained the situation and made it clear that it would be necessary for a visit to the CAA at Gatwick for further testing as a common sense option if this was to be pursued as a career. We took his advice and followed that route and indeed as he himself suspected, those tests proved sufficient to have the CVD restriction removed. That was obviously an enormous relief to all of us and not least my son. This should enable him to now progress to all the other obstacles that will stand in his way.
It is not a case of me being "keen to defend a system", it is a case of understanding why such a system and the standards it encompases exists. If you do not want to accept the reasons that is up to you. I did not "tell my son to forget it", and I am somewhat confused as to how you came to such a conclusion ? My son didn't ignore my advice, which was in keeping with his AME's advice and to make an appointment with the CAA for further tests. I am sure he is now glad he did, although any other course of action would have been fairly redundant.
It may well be that the testing system will progress, and it might happen that the standard will change, however it is unlikely that a serious degree of CVD will be accepted for the issue of a UK/ JAA class 1 medical in the forseeable future.
Finally it doesn't matter what the first UK astronauts eyesight standard was, since it might well have been Ok for an astronaut, but clearly it was not for the RAF, and I doubt his father being a pilot had much to do anything in any event ?
In summary and to repeat the point. If you have a problem in this regard then go to the CAA for either guidance or for the definitive response if one can be given. They will try to help, however they are charged with maintaining a standard. It doesn't matter how much you whinge and bleat on internet forums, since such action will achieve nothing tangible. It might well be the case that you can wholly or in part achieve your ambition with these deficiencies in another forum.
The rules , standards, regulations, and conventions pervade every aspect of aviation, and like it or not, you are required to work within them. Many people will have little or no problem, some will have problems that can be overcome with further investigation, and some will be debarred or prevented from pursuing a career. That is the truth of the matter and however much you want to bang your head against the wall, common sense dictates you investigate the subject, listen to the advice that is offered and come to a sensible conclusion.
Your bitterness is pointless directed towards me. My son did present this difficulty, and for a while there was a very real chance that it would thwart his ambitions in this regard. That was a possibility that we had sat down and discussed, and his mother and I had discussed at great length. No parent wants their children to be disappointed or have their ambitions dashed, however as children grow into adults the time for fairy tales draws to a close and the realities of life become more prevalant.
The AME who asessed the potential CVD explained the situation and made it clear that it would be necessary for a visit to the CAA at Gatwick for further testing as a common sense option if this was to be pursued as a career. We took his advice and followed that route and indeed as he himself suspected, those tests proved sufficient to have the CVD restriction removed. That was obviously an enormous relief to all of us and not least my son. This should enable him to now progress to all the other obstacles that will stand in his way.
It is not a case of me being "keen to defend a system", it is a case of understanding why such a system and the standards it encompases exists. If you do not want to accept the reasons that is up to you. I did not "tell my son to forget it", and I am somewhat confused as to how you came to such a conclusion ? My son didn't ignore my advice, which was in keeping with his AME's advice and to make an appointment with the CAA for further tests. I am sure he is now glad he did, although any other course of action would have been fairly redundant.
It may well be that the testing system will progress, and it might happen that the standard will change, however it is unlikely that a serious degree of CVD will be accepted for the issue of a UK/ JAA class 1 medical in the forseeable future.
Finally it doesn't matter what the first UK astronauts eyesight standard was, since it might well have been Ok for an astronaut, but clearly it was not for the RAF, and I doubt his father being a pilot had much to do anything in any event ?
In summary and to repeat the point. If you have a problem in this regard then go to the CAA for either guidance or for the definitive response if one can be given. They will try to help, however they are charged with maintaining a standard. It doesn't matter how much you whinge and bleat on internet forums, since such action will achieve nothing tangible. It might well be the case that you can wholly or in part achieve your ambition with these deficiencies in another forum.
The rules , standards, regulations, and conventions pervade every aspect of aviation, and like it or not, you are required to work within them. Many people will have little or no problem, some will have problems that can be overcome with further investigation, and some will be debarred or prevented from pursuing a career. That is the truth of the matter and however much you want to bang your head against the wall, common sense dictates you investigate the subject, listen to the advice that is offered and come to a sensible conclusion.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
Yes I did misunderstand your sons circumstances
However....Having read your last post I can see that there is little point in trying to get you to see things from a fresh perspective.
I therefore won't waste any more time trying to change your views on this as I am more informed, affected and passionate about this subject then you will ever be.
Great that you and your son can pursue a long and happy flying career !
Yes I did misunderstand your sons circumstances
However....Having read your last post I can see that there is little point in trying to get you to see things from a fresh perspective.
I therefore won't waste any more time trying to change your views on this as I am more informed, affected and passionate about this subject then you will ever be.
Great that you and your son can pursue a long and happy flying career !
Last edited by Hawk; 16th Jan 2007 at 18:40. Reason: personal attack
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfazed,
The posts are not intended to be either pompuous or long winded, but given how much you "misunderstand" or jump to unfounded conclusions, I felt it would be helpful to state clearly what I had been saying. I appreciate that my replies are not really what you want to hear but that is a consequence of posts on a thread such as this one. Not everyone is going to blow smoke up your proverbial.
It is not a case of changing my mind or seeing things from a fresh perspective, since until recently I didn't have much personal involvement with this subject. I do understand your frustrations and I have suggested the correct route to follow as it applies in the UK.
I do not know how informed, involved or passionate you are, however accepting that you are, does not really change the fact, advice or comment. You will no doubt follow whatever path you see fit and I have nothing else to advise you in this regard. The best advice will come from the authority and it is them you should talk to, and more importantly listen to. Whatever the outcome I wish you all the best for the future and hope your manner improves as a result.
The posts are not intended to be either pompuous or long winded, but given how much you "misunderstand" or jump to unfounded conclusions, I felt it would be helpful to state clearly what I had been saying. I appreciate that my replies are not really what you want to hear but that is a consequence of posts on a thread such as this one. Not everyone is going to blow smoke up your proverbial.
It is not a case of changing my mind or seeing things from a fresh perspective, since until recently I didn't have much personal involvement with this subject. I do understand your frustrations and I have suggested the correct route to follow as it applies in the UK.
I do not know how informed, involved or passionate you are, however accepting that you are, does not really change the fact, advice or comment. You will no doubt follow whatever path you see fit and I have nothing else to advise you in this regard. The best advice will come from the authority and it is them you should talk to, and more importantly listen to. Whatever the outcome I wish you all the best for the future and hope your manner improves as a result.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Bealzebub,
The fact is that nobody can accept irrelevant medical tests.
And current JAA colour visions tests are irrelevant and so, unfair.
It is not me who say that but :
- the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal 20 years ago when Arthur Pape brought the case to justice:
http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/to...lourvision.pdf
- Andrew W. Siu and Maurice K. Yap in their study published 4 years ago :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00009
- Members of the City University Applied Vision Research Centre 2 years ago :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00001
- UK CAA itself 6 months ago :
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=2407
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=2408
I'm CVD, and I'm ready to accept that I could not safely handle airline pilote tasks but not with current tests. I flew several times in commercial aircraft cockpit and never saw which task I would be unable to perform. Before 2001, CVD people was not able to fly in France even in daylight conditions under private pilote licence. A lot of cvd private pilotes now fly without any problem.
I'm ready to pass any test in real flight conditions, but nobody allow it to me.
We just quickly need relevant color vision tests.
The fact is that nobody can accept irrelevant medical tests.
And current JAA colour visions tests are irrelevant and so, unfair.
It is not me who say that but :
- the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal 20 years ago when Arthur Pape brought the case to justice:
http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/to...lourvision.pdf
- Andrew W. Siu and Maurice K. Yap in their study published 4 years ago :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00009
- Members of the City University Applied Vision Research Centre 2 years ago :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00001
- UK CAA itself 6 months ago :
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=2407
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=2408
I'm CVD, and I'm ready to accept that I could not safely handle airline pilote tasks but not with current tests. I flew several times in commercial aircraft cockpit and never saw which task I would be unable to perform. Before 2001, CVD people was not able to fly in France even in daylight conditions under private pilote licence. A lot of cvd private pilotes now fly without any problem.
I'm ready to pass any test in real flight conditions, but nobody allow it to me.
We just quickly need relevant color vision tests.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Well how do I know whether to prepare to stop (red light on) or floor it and hope it stays green at night then where it is much harder to determine whether the top, middle or bottom light is illuminated? Especially on poorly lit roads?
That usually shuts them up pretty quickly.
I agree though there is a huge misunderstanding on the whole issue with 'normal' people.
I really do have to pass the class 1 now if i'm ever to become an ATCO. Gone off the whole flying thing. Unless I win the lottery that is anyway! Oh and pass the class 1.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tests At City
I recently did all of the tests at City as part of their ongoing research programme. This included tests that I had not seen before.
The most promising of all appeared to be, the oft quoted on here, PAPI test. As a green deficient I could do this and it is in my opinion the most practical of the tests that I have seen.
The researcher said that she was still analysing her data but had tested 120 subjects so far.
PM me if you want any more info.
The most promising of all appeared to be, the oft quoted on here, PAPI test. As a green deficient I could do this and it is in my opinion the most practical of the tests that I have seen.
The researcher said that she was still analysing her data but had tested 120 subjects so far.
PM me if you want any more info.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me if the City Uni will give you an idea if you should pass or fail the Gatwick test, or say that you might be better in Holland or Germany etc?
The reason I ask is that I failed the Gatwick test, nearley 15 years ago now (before the JAA and I feel the tests could have been better preformed) and I feel that I might have trouble getting them to retest me. The situation I want to avoid is getting a retest at Gatwick then failing and then the new tests being introduced and Gatwick refusing to retest me - anyone have any ideas!
Any how I will do the City Ubi test next month and let you all know the results.
The reason I ask is that I failed the Gatwick test, nearley 15 years ago now (before the JAA and I feel the tests could have been better preformed) and I feel that I might have trouble getting them to retest me. The situation I want to avoid is getting a retest at Gatwick then failing and then the new tests being introduced and Gatwick refusing to retest me - anyone have any ideas!
Any how I will do the City Ubi test next month and let you all know the results.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to City summer '06, they diagnosed me during the session as "Moderately Protonamolous" and gave an informal verbal opinion that it was unlikely I'd be able to pass any lantern test, regardless of where I took it - not surprising as I'd just done the HW lantern and made about 15 mistakes.
You can definitely talk around your chances with them and that's a great reason to go there, but I don't think they would be comfortable giving a formal opinion on whether anyone should pass/fail.
A few days later you receive a fairly comprehensive written report and results of all the tests you've done in the mail.
If you go to Gatwick and fail the HW and Beyne they will definitely put in writing that you are "CP4 colour unsafe" !!!!!!!!
Hope that helps a bit.
You can definitely talk around your chances with them and that's a great reason to go there, but I don't think they would be comfortable giving a formal opinion on whether anyone should pass/fail.
A few days later you receive a fairly comprehensive written report and results of all the tests you've done in the mail.
If you go to Gatwick and fail the HW and Beyne they will definitely put in writing that you are "CP4 colour unsafe" !!!!!!!!
Hope that helps a bit.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cambridge UK
Age: 47
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
orthokeratology (hard lenses)
Does anyone know if the CAA allow orthokeratology/orthok for intial class 1 issue? (hard lenses you wear overnight to change the shape of the cornea) If I find that this may help me reduce my astigmatism to within limits I'll give it a go, but it would have to be with the CAA's approval (regardless of whether they can detect it or not), because they are already have my existing prescription on file.
Last edited by AlexEvans; 27th Jan 2007 at 02:49. Reason: lacking required detail
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crinkley Bottom
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adjusting to astigmatism
To set the scene, I have never worn glasses before, however I got my Class 1 last year and it was conditional on having corrective lenses so week ago I headed into the opticians to kit me out with some specs. The result being that my right eye is pretty much fine but my left eye is +0.75 sph, -2.0 cyl and 92.5 axis.
I was told I didn't need to wear them all the time since my right eye happily compensates and I see everything in focus normally but I would need them when I was flying and that it would be good to wear them when I was driving or doing things like working on the computer, concentrating in a lecture etc, which is also what the lady at my Class 1 initial said would be the case.
I've been trying to do that for the last week but I'm finding it quite difficult to adjust to the new glasses. It was quite bad for the first few days and it was almost making me feel sick, which was what the optician said would be the case since I was making quite a large jump from no glasses straight to 2 dioptres.
Since then I don't feel sick and I've been getting used to them a bit more (focusing is fine and much improved over not having glasses) but I'm still having a few problems. Most notably, if I look at something that is square like a piece of paper or a computer screen the horizontal edges appear to diverge. Also if I look at something that is rectangular like a door or even the wall of a room and then tilt my head to the left or right, the shape shifts like a parallelogram so | | becomes / / (thats an exaggeration..but just to show what I mean!). Not in a huge way so that I won't notice it that much if I doing stuff, but if I stop and look at something and tilt my head then it is noticable. Lastly, I find that my distance perception has been thrown a bit, again, not in a major way but certainly noticable if I look for it and has caught me out a few times when picking up a pen for instance.
The optician seemed to think that I would take me a least a few weeks to adjust to the new glasses. Is that the case? Is it likely to get to the stage after a few weeks that I won't notice any problems with horizontal lines whether I'm wearing glasses or not and my depth perception will be fine?
Was wondering what other peoples experiences were for going from not wearing glasses to adjusting to wearing them, particularly with astigmatism. Do you find it easy to flip between wearing them for flying and not on the ground?
Thanks for the help!
I was told I didn't need to wear them all the time since my right eye happily compensates and I see everything in focus normally but I would need them when I was flying and that it would be good to wear them when I was driving or doing things like working on the computer, concentrating in a lecture etc, which is also what the lady at my Class 1 initial said would be the case.
I've been trying to do that for the last week but I'm finding it quite difficult to adjust to the new glasses. It was quite bad for the first few days and it was almost making me feel sick, which was what the optician said would be the case since I was making quite a large jump from no glasses straight to 2 dioptres.
Since then I don't feel sick and I've been getting used to them a bit more (focusing is fine and much improved over not having glasses) but I'm still having a few problems. Most notably, if I look at something that is square like a piece of paper or a computer screen the horizontal edges appear to diverge. Also if I look at something that is rectangular like a door or even the wall of a room and then tilt my head to the left or right, the shape shifts like a parallelogram so | | becomes / / (thats an exaggeration..but just to show what I mean!). Not in a huge way so that I won't notice it that much if I doing stuff, but if I stop and look at something and tilt my head then it is noticable. Lastly, I find that my distance perception has been thrown a bit, again, not in a major way but certainly noticable if I look for it and has caught me out a few times when picking up a pen for instance.
The optician seemed to think that I would take me a least a few weeks to adjust to the new glasses. Is that the case? Is it likely to get to the stage after a few weeks that I won't notice any problems with horizontal lines whether I'm wearing glasses or not and my depth perception will be fine?
Was wondering what other peoples experiences were for going from not wearing glasses to adjusting to wearing them, particularly with astigmatism. Do you find it easy to flip between wearing them for flying and not on the ground?
Thanks for the help!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: AUH
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Alex,
Not sure on the CAA's view on Ortho-K. I did look into it for correction though. When I tried all the options to correct astigmatism, I visited the Institue of Optometry in Elephant & Castle for a consultation on Ortho-K. If I remember correctly, they correct astigmatism upto 1.5D, but it is possible that it can correct more. I think they would have been willing to 'experiment' on me, but I'm long-sighted so the Ortho-K would have made that worse (it only corrects myopia). I did suggest having the Ortho-K treatment, and then having stronger glasses to correct more long-sightedness (!) but they laughed at that.
waterpau
Not sure on the CAA's view on Ortho-K. I did look into it for correction though. When I tried all the options to correct astigmatism, I visited the Institue of Optometry in Elephant & Castle for a consultation on Ortho-K. If I remember correctly, they correct astigmatism upto 1.5D, but it is possible that it can correct more. I think they would have been willing to 'experiment' on me, but I'm long-sighted so the Ortho-K would have made that worse (it only corrects myopia). I did suggest having the Ortho-K treatment, and then having stronger glasses to correct more long-sightedness (!) but they laughed at that.
waterpau