FAA stance on mono-vision

[Bill]

With my close vision getting worse (now over 40), I was discussing options with my Opto. I like the contacts (far vision correction) for riding the motorcycle and flying in general, but need to use reading glasses to read.

He set up the refraction gizmo (hows that for 1st rate medical terminology) for mono-vision, putting the distance correction in my left (dominant eye), and close correction inmy right eye. With this combination, I could read 20/20 both near and far. I would think the FAA would have concerns with this (depth perception?)

The doctor also discussed bi-focal contact lenses, but that does not really appeal to me.

Mono-vision and FAA, good or bad?

 

[Bill]

Bill, I use mono-vision for just about everything except flying.

Thanks for the reply, Mike. My Doc recommended using mono-vision for everyday, and then pop the proper contact in for flying and use reading glasses in the cockpit.

Do you have any problems adjusting between using mono-vision and regular correction? I would wonder if it would play tricks on the brain.

 

[bbchien]

Thanks for the reply, Mike. My Doc recommended using mono-vision for everyday, and then pop the proper contact in for flying and use reading glasses in the cockpit.

Do you have any problems adjusting between using mono-vision and regular correction? I would wonder if it would play tricks on the brain.

Monovision contacts can mess up your depth cues because they're not in your eyes all the time. The brain doesn't have the "there all the time 24/7" data to get used to processing.

I advise against them. You could burn them in (lasik). That's a different matter. Then the near/fra data are consistent 100% of the time.

BC

 

[Jim Chumley]

With my close vision getting worse (now over 40), I was discussing options with my Opto. I like the contacts (far vision correction) for riding the motorcycle and flying in general, but need to use reading glasses to read.

He set up the refraction gizmo (hows that for 1st rate medical terminology) for mono-vision, putting the distance correction in my left (dominant eye), and close correction inmy right eye. With this combination, I could read 20/20 both near and far. I would think the FAA would have concerns with this (depth perception?)

The doctor also discussed bi-focal contact lenses, but that does not really appeal to me.

Mono-vision and FAA, good or bad?

Bill,

In a word: Bad. The FAA does not like monovison. Dr Bruce provided the FAA's reasoning. The fact is - they make the rules.

For many of us, monovision works well, though it may take some getting used to. However, if you want to fly, you'll have to get around the vision thing some other way. I use readers when my regular contacts can't do the job (small letters/numbers on charts). My medical contains a paragraph that requires me to have readers available while flying. Also, there are non-prescription sunglasses that have reader inserts in the lower part of the lenses. They are probably the brainchild of someone who needed readers for poolside. They fill the bill nicely.

By the way, I used Progressive prescription eyeglasses (tri-focals, without the lines) before I went to contacts. I'll be buried in my contacts, they are so superior.

Jim

 

[tonycondon]

I have a student with mono-vision and was issued a medical. He Simply has to write a letter to the FAA when ready for the checkride and they will authorize him to take the test, then he will have to fly with someone from the FSDO to prove he can. I know of one other pilot who has had to do the same thing.


Tony
Comm-ASEL,AMEL,IA,Glider
CFI-All of the above

 

[bbchien]

I have a student with mono-vision and was issued a medical. He Simply has to write a letter to the FAA when ready for the checkride and they will authorize him to take the test, then he will have to fly with someone from the FSDO to prove he can. I know of one other pilot who has had to do the same thing.


Tony
Comm-ASEL,AMEL,IA,Glider
CFI-All of the above

Tony, Monovision (monocular Vision) is a waiver granted by an FSDO Medical Ride. Monvision correction referese to one eye adjusted to focus near, the other far- which can be obtained by Contacts or by Lasik. FAA prohibits the Contact Lens variation, and for good reason.

 

[tonycondon]

Dr. Bruce, thanks for clarifying!


tony

 

[poadeleted20]

"Monovision" contacts (one eye's contact for near vision and the other eye's contact for distance, as opposed to "monocular vision," i.e., having only one working eye) are prohibited for flight deck use. For an example of why the FAA feels so strongly about this, see http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06964&key=1. Monocular vision is another story, and monocular pilots can get a SI based on a flight evaluation, although I've never heard of one for anything above Third Class.

Bifocal contacts are an option these days unless, like me, you have strong astigmatism, too -- they can do bifocal contacts, or astigmatic contacts, but they can't yet do both in one lens. Personally, as a presbyopic with a large disparity between my two eyes' corrections, I use contacts and reading glasses (and nonprescription bifocal reading sunglasses) as opposed to trifocals which make depth perception harder due to image size differential.

 

[Unregistered]

Monocular Vision and "SODA"

Looking for some feedback on what is expected/tested on a
SODA ride with the FSDO. I have a client already a PPL who
went Monocular. While OK is making up their minds, I have been
concentrating on normal t/o & ldgs (x/w), a la PTS and collision
avoidance. Also lobbying to put traffic on the 530.

Thoughts?

 

[Skip Miller]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06964&key=1[/url].

Ron, I have no quibble with your interpretation of the NTSB report - it is as you say. I still am amazed by it, though. I was present at LGA that day, and I saw about the last 1/3 of the accident plane's "landing" slide down the runway. The landing occurred in the middle of a very strong gust front passage. I fail to understand why the NTSB didn't give the windy Wx at least honorable mention in the report.

-Skip

 

[bbchien]

Ron has it right.....

 

[Keith Lane]

When I found I needed reading glasses, but distance vision was not a problem I went with these.

http://www.safetyglassesusa.com/optx-20-20-stick-on-bifocals.html

I use them for my safety glasses, an omnipresent appliance at any railroad setting, and I use them on my sunglasses as well. When my glasses get trashed, as they will surely do, I peel 'em off and put 'em on a new set of eyewear. At $9.95 a pair, I think them a bargain. The optics are excellent if applied according to the instructions. Basically, wash with warm water (makes them pliable) and squeegee them in place. Let them dry and you're good to go.

 

[gismo]

"Monovision" contacts (one eye's contact for near vision and the other eye's contact for distance, as opposed to "monocular vision," i.e., having only one working eye) are prohibited for flight deck use. For an example of why the FAA feels so strongly about this, see http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06964&key=1. Monocular vision is another story, and monocular pilots can get a SI based on a flight evaluation, although I've never heard of one for anything above Third Class.

Bifocal contacts are an option these days unless, like me, you have strong astigmatism, too -- they can do bifocal contacts, or astigmatic contacts, but they can't yet do both in one lens. Personally, as a presbyopic with a large disparity between my two eyes' corrections, I use contacts and reading glasses (and nonprescription bifocal reading sunglasses) as opposed to trifocals which make depth perception harder due to image size differential.

I have a fair amount of astigmatism in both eyes and have "bifocal" contacts. There's no direct correction for the astigmatism in the contacts but they inherently correct most of it simply by maintaining a spherical surface over the natural lens and cornea. These lenses are RGP (rigid gas permeable) which are supposed to be a little harder to adapt to but I've had little trouble with that. The bifocal aspect only partially corrects my presbyopia, I can read the instruments on the airplane's panel and the dash of my cars but I still use readers for the computer and books.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's no direct correction for the astigmatism in the contacts

There may not be in yours, but there definitely is in mine -- and I pay extra for it, too. It's fairly recent technology.

 

[Unbeliever]

I've got a fair amount of astigmatism.

I had big heavy glass glasses, and when I finally got sick of them, I switched to contact lenses. From 93 to 98 or so I wore soft non-extended wear, non-disposable toroidal/toric contact lenses. There was definitely an "up" direction and were thicker on the bottom than on the top. If I was tired and not paying attention, when things didn't clear up when I put them in I had to blink a few times to figure out if I switched eyes or just inserted them upside down. I was corrected to 20/15 from worse than 20/250. Rigid Gas Permeables are supposed to be better at correction, though. (Can't see the "Big E" without correction)

When small frames and high index plastic became the norm, glasses became less hassle than contacts and I switched back.

(reading on-line....) It looks like if you're doing astigmatism AND presbyopia, the choices are generally limited to rigid gas permeable lenses, but soft is available.

--Carlos V.

 

[poadeleted20]

(reading on-line....) It looks like if you're doing astigmatism AND presbyopia, the choices are generally limited to rigid gas permeable lenses, but soft is available.

You betcha -- I'm wearing them right now. Anyone needs the name of a good optometrist who makes them, let me know.

 

[astanley]

There may not be in yours, but there definitely is in mine -- and I pay extra for it, too. It's fairly recent technology.

I have a very, very mild astigmatism (in both eyes) that has trended slightly worse over the past 5 years (in my left eye) -- and switched to soft "toric" lenses 2 years ago. It's basically little "weights" of extra lens material that are radially aligned to be sit opposite the astigmatism, and thereby center the lens over the astigmatism and correct the error in your vision.

The upside is when the lenses are oriented right (as they are 95% of the time), my vision is now 20/10 corrected.

The downside is a) falling asleep with them in and b) long-duration exposure to wind (e.g. bicycle). Unlike your previous lenses, when they dry slightly and turn "out of whack" with the astigmatism, your vision degrades until the contact can recenter itself. There is nothing worse than whipping along on a fast, long descent and your lens rotating out and your vision getting all messed up.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[gismo]

I have a very, very mild astigmatism (in both eyes) that has trended slightly worse over the past 5 years (in my left eye) -- and switched to soft "toric" lenses 2 years ago. It's basically little "weights" of extra lens material that are radially aligned to be sit opposite the astigmatism, and thereby center the lens over the astigmatism and correct the error in your vision.

The upside is when the lenses are oriented right (as they are 95% of the time), my vision is now 20/10 corrected.

The downside is a) falling asleep with them in and b) long-duration exposure to wind (e.g. bicycle). Unlike your previous lenses, when they dry slightly and turn "out of whack" with the astigmatism, your vision degrades until the contact can recenter itself. There is nothing worse than whipping along on a fast, long descent and your lens rotating out and your vision getting all messed up.

Cheers,

-Andrew

I tried the soft lenses with cylinder correction (astigmatism) a few years ago and they just never worked for me. It seems that every time I blink they rotated quite a bit and made things worse than I could stand for a while.

 

[astanley]

I tried the soft lenses with cylinder correction (astigmatism) a few years ago and they just never worked for me. It seems that every time I blink they rotated quite a bit and made things worse than I could stand for a while.

It may be fit -- I know that cyl correction keeps getting better; the last lenses I had before this (Biomedics Toric) were worse than the current lens, who's name I cannot remember. I think right now they can go as far as 185... but I forget, my optho told me and it escapes me now.

FWIW, a "soft" (normal) blink doesn't cause a problem. When I force a blink, my left eye is a little odd for a split second.

Cheers,

-Andrew