Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Medical & Health
Reload this Page >

VISION THREAD (other than colour vision)

Medical & Health News and debate about medical and health issues as they relate to aircrews and aviation. Any information gleaned from this forum MUST be backed up by consulting your state-registered health professional or AME. Due to advertising legislation in various jurisdictions, endorsements of individual practitioners is not permitted.

VISION THREAD (other than colour vision)

Old 30th Aug 2008, 13:41
  #1061 (permalink)  
shgsaint
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the replies guys,

It's nice to know that the CAA make it as thorough as possible!!!

I'm pretty confident that I will by-pass the Ishiara tests quickly!!! I've done them enough times and I never get any better at them, and know I never will.

Bring on the lanterns!!

Thanks chaps.
 
Old 30th Aug 2008, 16:54
  #1062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 75
Posts: 507
Red face

Anyone seen this from Aviation House
Yes, I posted it, way, way, back on the . . . . . . . . . 27 August !

I must take issue with
As . . . . . said, it is designed to try and catch you out
Just ask yourself "why ?" Who could possibly gain anything by just catching people out ? The overall system is in place to try to ensure adequate visual standards in aviators in the UK (and elsewhere !).

OK, I know it's not absolutely perfect, but very few things in life are. It is recognised that the present system has failings. Together the JAA and CAA are trying to come up with a better system for the future.
AMEandPPL is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 00:05
  #1063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 75
Posts: 507
Smile exactly . . . . . . . . . ! !

the CAD test coming in soon, a fair, practical, aviation environment based test
Just what we have all been waiting for . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . but hey, might mean the demise of this thread ! !
AMEandPPL is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2008, 15:18
  #1064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 75
Posts: 507
Unhappy mea culpa . . . . . . . . .

I cannot agree that the CAD Test is a fair and practical aviation based test
In fairness and honesty I have to agree that I did actually say that. However, perhaps what I actually meant was that it was just an improvement on the various unsatisfactory methods used hitherto - still, of course, very far from ideal.

My second chastisement in less than 24 hours - I think I'll give this a break for a while. Happy Landings to all !
AMEandPPL is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2008, 20:23
  #1065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bethesda, N. Wales UK
Age: 40
Posts: 48
Refractive correction is never measured in anything except 0.25 increments... therefore your -7.8 would unfortunately be rounded to -8.0 which puts you on the very edge of the limit.

No two refractive exams are ever the same therefore there is a chance that if two people did your eye test on same day they would have an error factor of 0.25 to 0.50 diopters so you could either be measured as having -7.75 or -8.25 depending on who did it, your tiredness, eye strain, lighting etc etc.. number of factors.
NurseToPilot is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2008, 14:07
  #1066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 81
...For the record

Originally posted by me further up page
Thank God for the CAD test coming in soon, a fair, practical, aviation environment based test, things are looking up, money well spent!
I was actually being sarcastic when I wrote the comment above. I believe I've made my take on the CAD test more than clear in previous posts. I'm of the same opinion as 2close, in that the CAD test is about as relevant to aviation as cabbages are to computing. As previously stated herein, it may be a tool to assess someone for a CVD, but it certainly cannot assess whether they are safe to fly or not, and since there are practical systems around the world that DO assess this (without flight safety being jeopardised due to someone thinking a green light was actually red) going into such investment to devise another test along purely academic lines was a really poor (and excruciatingly unfair) decision.


Originally posted by 2close
Sorry to pull the soap-box back out but this issue really annoys me
No need to apologise, pull the soap box out anytime you like.
Neo_RS14 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2008, 21:35
  #1067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 5
You're absolutely right, I took an eye test and my prescription was actually -9 and -9.25. I have been recommended to go for the NPPL or do a retest against 6/12 on each eye separately and 6/6 together. Unless you tell the optician they will correct you to 6/6 in each eye which would probably be 6/4 together. Apparently 6/12 is a couple of lines higher up the lettered chart and hence the letters are significantly bigger. On that basis I am trying a retest and I hope I can read them with less correction hence fall within the limits for a JAR PPL. I'll get a good night's sleep first too!
Bips is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 09:25
  #1068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bethesda, N. Wales UK
Age: 40
Posts: 48
I was an ophthalmic nurse before I had my Lasik done.... therefore I had a slight advantage when it came to my research and reading the CAA documentation on requirements as I have a little more understanding of what all the requirements mean.

I'm happy to help anybody who wants more information on the procedure I had done etc.... either reply here so others can see or you can PM me...

JON
NurseToPilot is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 09:32
  #1069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 6'1" AGL
Age: 42
Posts: 56
I wrote a letter to the CAA yesterday outlining the issues with my prescription and hope to book a meeting to discuss. I am still in the dark, however, if my prescription is even close to the parameters - can anyone confirm;

Right:
Sph +0.75
Cyl - 6.75
Axis 25

Left:
Sph 0.50
Cyl -4.50
Axis 152.5

?

Thanks in advance.
DB777 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 09:59
  #1070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 49
DB, I'm afraid that the astigmatic component of your prescription (the CYL part) is probably too large for a class 1. The initial limits are 2 dioptres.
Good job on writing to the CAA, thats definitely the best way. If you want a quicker response, (the CAA may take a few weeks to respond), you can take the following document to an optician to get their opinion.
Cheers

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED...%5B2189%5D.pdf
Tamesy1 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 10:07
  #1071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 6'1" AGL
Age: 42
Posts: 56
I should have said, I meant my pre-operative refraction is this current prescription. The CAA have a limit for what it should be prior to surgery. Hopefully, once i've had the surgery it'll be 20/20 - then it's just case of stabilising it!
DB777 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 10:09
  #1072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 49
Ahh, well you should probably refer to the 'Refractive Surgery' section of the first page of that document. Has all the info you need.
Tamesy1 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2008, 10:13
  #1073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 6'1" AGL
Age: 42
Posts: 56
Thanks Tamesy1

They don't make it easy to find out.
I'm really at a cross roads at the moment (all dependent on my prescription).
My future plans are in the ands of the CAA!!!!

Guess i'm not the only one though...
DB777 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2008, 15:07
  #1074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bethesda, N. Wales UK
Age: 40
Posts: 48
the PRE OP refraction they refer to is only the SPHERE AND CYLINDER they dont mention that you can't have lasik for ASTIGMATISM

I Only just realised the above NOW...

The reason for setting a limit for refraction for SPHERE is due to MYOPIA (short sightedness) meaning that lasik doesnt take the risk of RETNAL DETACHMENT away!

Retinal detachment risk occurs in everybody with myopia as they have a longer shape eye which increases risk of the retina peeling away - this is a major ophthalmic emergency.

Obviously you can go blind in minutes not hours if this happens and what if you were on a transatlantic flight ?? i think this is why the limits are imposed!

JONATHAN
NurseToPilot is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2008, 17:04
  #1075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
But without opposing viewpoints, we would really be going nowhere fast.

Agree with the sentiment but the debate has rolled on for far too long
I don't have a problem with different views but I do have a problem with a restriction that is not based on proven safety factors. I appreciate that non CVD pilots are entitled to a viewpoint but would prefer to see viewpoints that are based on fact not simply conjecture.
belowradar is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2008, 22:44
  #1076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 81
No worries shgsaint, that's a great result, you must be chuffed
Neo_RS14 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:04
  #1077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 75
Posts: 507
Angry it's spelled: RIDICULOUS . . . . . . . .

chances are they are frustrated pilots that didn't have the nuts to make it in this industry and want to get at those who do
A ridiculous and absolutely unforgiveable statement. Most of the medical officers in the (BRITISH) CAA Medical Department have ATPL's, IR's, and keep current by flying large jets periodically with well-known airlines.
AMEandPPL is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:43
  #1078 (permalink)  
shgsaint
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cheers for the feedback.

I'm chuffed but then the test wasn't really testing me on Aviation colours.
So i'm taking the result with a pinch of salt. I do admit from what I have read about the tests, they do seem a bit dated and a little impractical. But I guess as with everything the CAA have their reasons and as it's a safty thing I don't think they can afford to be anything else but air-tight.

It does make me wonder how some of us would perform if they did test us using different means. For example showing us a picture of Wx radar or EFIS and electronic ADI instrument.

As you say Soup Nazi everything else is backed up by raw data. If the big handle above you starts flashing and screaming and it says: ENG FIRE on it, you cut of the fuel, extinghuish the fire and the rest of it before you even notice the thing was red!

That might be a rather simplistic view on the whole CVD in the cockpit issue but untill I sit down in a cockpit with all these pretty coloured lights and gadgets i'll probably never know if I can / could safely operate it.
 
Old 10th Sep 2008, 09:56
  #1079 (permalink)  
shgsaint
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes sorry Neo they were rather naive comments from myself. To be fair I was just playing devils advocate. I've dipped my toes into this thread every now and again and try to keep up with it's momentum. Not being a commercial airline pilot (Catch 22 coming up)... I can't suggest what tests would be practical and can't genuinely say current CVD tests are inpractical. But then that's becuase of I have no comparison to the real world operation of commercial aircraft. I'm taking a stab in the dark effectively but i'm probably right as you say.

I don't have any examples of saftey violations by pilots with CVD so this backs up our arguement that the filtering in the medicals are probably a bit antiquated. I seem to have the same deficiency as yourself and never seem to have any problems when looking at photos of Papis etc.

Don't worry you didn't offend me. My comments weren't meant to stir the hornets nest in any way. As mentioned they were rather simplistic views on the CVD issue. As we all know it's a lot more compicated than my inexperienced views.

At the end of day i'll always stand up for CVD population and fight our case.
 
Old 10th Sep 2008, 13:29
  #1080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 541
Ame
So correct old chap, full marks! Really though if these guys are in fact current jet captains thats even worse. It reeks of old school and the fact that these people can't bring themselves to make change a regulation that cannot be justified makes me think that they are just bureaucrats.

The various regulators world wide make regulations that stipulate the medical standards a candidate must meet to pilot an aircraft generally. These standards cannot possibly be guided by cockpit displays because the regulators have only very broard control over how those displays are presented. I would think that if Collins, Honeywell or garmin decided that one of their EFIS displays required X level of color perception to fly that system then they would insert words to that effect in the manual.

Last edited by Soup Nazi; 10th Sep 2008 at 13:54.
Soup Nazi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.