ufgatorpilot

Haha, yeah a personal injury lawyer would have a field day with that one I am sure. I'm pretty new to aviation so I guess I don't really understand why there were such stringent vision requirements for uncorrected vision even when you can correct to 20/20? It seems like you would be exclude so many people from flying. I had thought about looking into the air national guard but it would require me to get eye surgery, which I am too afraid to do because my vision is great now with correction.

rickair7777

There is no good reason for an uncorrected requirement in civilian aviation. This attitude was inherited from military aviation, and their requirements go WAY back to the very beginning...

The early biplanes had open cockpits and rotary engines....this is not a mazda rotary engine, but something different. A rotary airplane engine is basically a radial engine where the crankshaft is bolted to the airplane, and the entire engine spins around the crankshaft (newer engines are obviously vice versa). The propeller is just bolted to the engine.These engines were lubricated with castor oil, which would get sprayed everywhere by the spinning engine. Since the cockpit was open, you had to wear those old-fashioned leather/glass goggles to avoid getting castor oil in your eyes! These goggles didn't work with glasses, so early military pilots had to have 20/20 vision.

This requirement stuck, and since the military always had more applicants than pilot slots, they had no reason to change it. You could make the argument that glasses can be a problem during high-G maneuvers and ejections, but the military policy is not consistent with that. You must have 20/20 (or close to it in the Army/USAF) to start pilot training, but once you get your wings you can then wear glasses if needed...plenty of old, senior officers do. Plus everybody wears sunglasses.

The good news is that the standard in commercial aviation is pretty much changing to correctable to 20/20, which is also the FAA standard.

surelybonds

[quote=rickair7777;539895] Since the cockpit was open, you had to wear those old-fashioned leather/glass goggles to avoid getting castor oil in your eyes! These goggles didn't work with glasses, so early military pilots had to have 20/20 vision.

Yeah, that makes sense that the military would have this req. with goggles. (why couldn't they just make the goggles deeper & larger diameter to accomodate glasses?)

And what I heard for another reason that required pilots to not have to need to wear glasses was a need to stick one's head outside the cockpit to see around the windscreen to check on something not easily seen through the windscreen, and the concern was that the wind could blow the pilot's glasses right off.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? Can anyone explain what I might be talking about? (I don't always know what I'm talking about )

rotorhead1026

Doesn't matter when you're among pilots! You'll fit right in.

Goggles that fit over glasses would have been HUGE in, say, 1912. And the frames would have to fit under a leather "helmet". Glass lenses, too - no plastic. Heavy. I'm sure it was done for some people, but it must have been cumbersome. I'm also sure there's some truth about looking around the windscreen, but poorly secured goggles can go for a ride just as easily as glasses (which can be secured about as well). I don't think there's anyone on this forum old enough to know for sure.

Original requirements are a combination of actual need, some non-flying administrative types' opinions, legal fears, and a need to weed people out - all well covered in previous posts. After a while it all becomes "codified" and very difficult to change.

Surelybonds, you now know better than to take the advice of non-flyers as well as pilots; it seems that you could have gotten started some time back. Consult (don't schedule a medical yet, just consult) with an AME to be sure - then get going. Good luck!

mjarosz

Back in my CFI days...there was a charter crew on a layover at the airport. The F/O used to be a banner tow pilot. He was saying that it was his first aviation job. So he's like 'I'm a real professional pilot now' so he goes out and buys a $300 pair of glasses. Well, the procedure after a banner pickup was to stick your head out the window and make sure the banner is properly secured, nothing is twisted, etc... So he does this on his very first pickup and off his glasses fly. There went a months' pay.

surelybonds

yikes! Good story.

surelybonds

Thanks, rotorhead.

Nah, I never took any advice from non-flyers; I got enough confusing info. from fellow pilots in college and flight school in the late 80's . I did start out as a contact-wearing glider tow-pilot in 1991. So at least my contacts couldn't fly off my eyeballs. But I was always worrying about passing the airline's strict vision requirements. Right after I attained my loftly commercial license, I applied to United on a lark as a low time commercial pilot with no experience to speak of, and their HR did call me (!) in 1990 and ask about that pesky uncorrected vision to make sure it was really 20/100 uncorrected as I had put down on the application. (I currently hold a 2nd class medical and have also passed my EKG yay!)

Now I would like to get back into flying after ignoring it for years (dumb me) Great timing I have! (bad economy, etc.)

Do current airline (regional, cargo or major) pilots had/have RK or laser eye surgery and have no problem being hired? Anyone know?

rotorhead1026

Varies greatly from carrier to carrier AFAIK; I had RK in one eye but nobody seemed to care much - but that was 22 years ago. I don't think your uncorrected vision is a big issue right now, so if that's the only reason you're considering the procedure I would advise against it - overall it'd be a step backward.


By the time you've got your time built up things may have turned around ... maybe. In any case there's no sense worrying about things you can't control. You want to fly. So fly ...

The Almighty gives intelligence tests. This guy failed his.

rickair7777

Regionals do not do medical exams or ask medical questions (I think even AE gave that up).

Some majors may require an exam, but it will be mostly just to verify your eligibility for a first class (American might be more invasive than that).

PRK/Lasik should not pose a problem, assuming that the surgery went well and there are no complications (usually about 1% of patients have complications).

RK would probably produce too many side effects, especially at night. RK patients are also known to have long-term problems. I don't know if the airlines would ask about it or disqualify you, but you don't want to be ten years into an airline job and then find out that you cannot pass your medical! I suspect that if you have had RK, you might want to stick with another career.

surelybonds

Of course, you're right.

Well, too late now. I had RK 17 years ago with no problems and it is still 20/20. No problems at night either.