• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The woes of glasses as an air cadet & the possible non-LASIK salvation.

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,305
Points
1,110
Wartide said:
The military is different?   Ugh... My vision is barely off 20/20.   While Air Canada would let me fly a multi-million dollar aircraft... I can't fly a CF-18.   It's utter crap is what it is.   My vision, uncorrected is better than a good many current Canadian Air Force Pilots.   The military demands 20/20 during the application process, but after your initial testing, you're in the clear for your vision to slip a little.    It's crap.   The military is losing so many potential applicants to the perfect vision guideline it's not even funny.   My whole life I wanted to fly a CF-18 with the forces.  (yeah, Top Gun definitely encouraged me  ;) ) Now I'm stuck with my second choice, ArmO.   Which is still awesome, but I don't see any Leopard's going in excess of Mach.   As a former Air Cadet, trust me glasses won't hamper you in any way, shape, or form.   The current rumours going through CF pilots I've been talking to is that the guidelines may soon be loosened a bit for non-fighter pilots (read: Herc/Heli pilots) as the forces are losing a lotta good applicants to the 20/20 thing.   These are only rumours I've heard while talking with drunken pilots mind you  ;)

They might loose potential candidate, but I don't think they are short of applicants for pilot.  So I don't think they will have "worst" pilots...  Second, the nature of the work with Air Canada and with the Forces is totally different (how many times do you fly at 500 ft off the deck, Mach 1+ with a 767?)  I think the intent behind that is that if you take someone with good eyes, there is more chances that his vision will degrade more slowly. 

Max
 

wartide

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
60
ark said:
Are both of your eyes worst than 20/20? As long as you have one eye that is 20/20 or better you may still be able to meet initial standards. What are your refractive readings?


Yeah, both my eyes are just off 20/20.  I forget the actual numbers, but the Doctor that handles all aviation medicals in my area said my eyes were just barely below standard.


SupersonicMax said:
They might loose potential candidate, but I don't think they are short of applicants for pilot.  So I don't think they will have "worst" pilots...  Second, the nature of the work with Air Canada and with the Forces is totally different (how many times do you fly at 500 ft off the deck, Mach 1+ with a 767?)  I think the intent behind that is that if you take someone with good eyes, there is more chances that his vision will degrade more slowly. 

Max

I didn't say they were getting the worst pilots, I was saying that they could be losing some damn good pilots just because of their vision being only just below standard.  I also didn't say flying a CF-18 was anything near to flying a commercial liner, they're two totally different things. Having vision just off 20/20 would not really going to affect that much, I can see everything well enough while I'm a few thousand feet up.  Higher speed doesn't affect your vision, what's more of a concern "at 500 ft off the deck" is reaction time because being  able to see that tiny bit better isn't going to mean squat if you see an obstacle but are too damned slow to react.
 

condor888000

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
But if you can't see an obstacle at all because your vision is crap, your reaction time won't matter.

In effect, there has to be a line somewhere, if you're just below 20/20, why should they let you fly and not the guy just below you? A minimum is needed, and rightly or wrongly, the CF decided that minimum is 20/20 uncorrected. Deal with it.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,305
Points
1,110
Wartide said:
Yeah, both my eyes are just off 20/20.   I forget the actual numbers, but the Doctor that handles all aviation medicals in my area said my eyes were just barely below standard.


I didn't say they were getting the worst pilots, I was saying that they could be losing some damn good pilots just because of their vision being only just below standard.   I also didn't say flying a CF-18 was anything near to flying a commercial liner, they're two totally different things. Having vision just off 20/20 would not really going to affect that much, I can see everything well enough while I'm a few thousand feet up.   Higher speed doesn't affect your vision, what's more of a concern "at 500 ft off the deck" is reaction time because being  able to see that tiny bit better isn't going to mean squat if you see an obstacle but are too damned slow to react.

You vision will affect your reaction time.  Someone with a better vision will see something from a greater distance than someone with vision problems.  On the merge in Hornet, both planes are closing at 800+ kts, which is 1 mile every 4.5 seconds.  Provided you can start seeing a small fighter about 10 miles away, that's 45 seconds to react.  I hope you can see how you vision can affect your performance. 

The standards are the standards.  You have to deal with it.  As it has been said earlier, they must draw the line. That line is 20/20. 

Max
 
Top