 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005For William -- offering a pilot a "second opinion" choice
To: William Stacy OD Dear William, Subject: Offering a pilot a "second opinion" on the threshold, the option of clearing vision with the plus. Stacy> I've also kind of wondered about his obsession with desperate pilots. As an optometrist in the USAF during Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot training base (Lubbock, TX) I often would waiver a student who'd gone myopic. I always thought the AF used the uncorrected 20/20 just to cut down on the applicant pool. Otis> You said that you would "waiver" pilots who had "gone myopic". Otis> Obviously there are "limits" to this waivering process. Otis> Let us say you had a pilot the you knew PREVIOUSLY had 20/20, (refractive state zero) and after 2 years were at 20/30 (refractive state -1/2 diopter). Otis> Did you ever discuss the possibility of using a plus lens -- to work on clearing back to 20/20? Otis> And if not -- why not? Otis> Please discuss and explain -- and in the interests of fair-play I will post your reasons on my site. Best, Otis You do a disservice to pilots by offering them a "false opinion." Drg Dear DrG, The question was addressed to William Stacy -- and not to you. And your opinion that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the natural eye is the "right opinion", and the judgment that the natural eye is dynamic based on objective scientifc results is the "false" opinion. You do not have enough knowledge to deny a person the right to an informed, cometent choice in this matter. The second opinion, dispite YOUR opinion is expressed by Steve Leung OD. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis Otis, you have not proved that the minus lens has a negative effect on vision, nor have you produced a study to that effect. You present a patently false argument, "dynamic eye" notwhithstanding. DrG > Otis> Let us say you had a pilot the you knew PREVIOUSLY had > 20/20, (refractive state zero) and after 2 years were at > 20/30 (refractive state -1/2 diopter). > > Otis> Did you ever discuss the possibility of using a plus lens > -- to work on clearing back to 20/20? Whoa!!!! I thought you were into prevention Otis!!! The above IS NOT prevention. What the hell difference does it make??? You give the pilot a -0.50 lenses for 20/20 vision. Get your story straight Otis. What you suggest above IS NOT prevention. What you suggest above sounds like medical advice which you are in no position to give!!! Allen Wow, has this n.g. heated up. I won't take the time to respond to all the bluster, but this one, I can't resist. > Otis> Obviously there are "limits" to this waivering process. None that I ever ran into, but then I was only in the AF for 2 years. > Otis> Let us say you had a pilot the you knew PREVIOUSLY had > 20/20, (refractive state zero) and after 2 years were at > 20/30 (refractive state -1/2 diopter). Your example is wrong from the getgo. I never ran into a healthy half diopter myope who couldn't read 20/20 unaided. Best unaided acuity of 20/30 would translate more into the realm of -1.00 or so. But I'll humor you for the moment. I mean that's only an error factor of 2... > Otis> Did you ever discuss the possibility of using a plus lens > -- to work on clearing back to 20/20? > > Otis> And if not -- why not? No. I often counseled them to do their heavy studying without their glasses, always telling them the truth, that this may or may not help, but it will do no harm (and you say I'm not into prevention!). If they were 20/30, I would (obviously) Rx the -1.00 or whatever to get them flying (and driving) safely. I don't think the USAF would have approved of my Rxing plus for myopia, without some convincing evidence that it worked, and I would probably have been busted a rank or 2 for practicing voodoo optometry. These guys demanded the sharpest acuity possible at optical infinity for obvious reasons. Most of them wanted to be combat fighter pilots. I don't think I ever saw one go over about -2.00 or so. And I maybe ran into one or two all together who ever thought their myopia was a show stopper or considered it to be a disability as you do. w.stacy, o.d. Dear William, Thanks for your reply -- but you did not answer the question. Just keeping a minus "off" is not enough. You COULD have suggestet what professor Grosvenor suggested, that the pilot keep the minus lens off the face (assuming 20/30, and he obviously PASSES the DMV. If you suggested this -- you could also state that it is the second opinion -- and the pilot would have to take complete (legal) responsibility for doing this work himself -- and you would not have ANY lergal responsibility. If fact, for the ODs who offer the plus (for prevention) I suggest that a "contract" be signed, so that these issues are absolutly chear the the pilot who wished to work on true-prevention with the plus. Further, you are telling me that you are legally PROHIBITED from even discussing the POSSIBILITY of prevention. This means then that the pilot will have to work through these issues himself -- with the understanding that you will be busted to private if you even broach the subject. Thanks for your analysis and clear statement of your position. I will post your statement on my site so they understand why an OD can not help the with true prevention with the plus -- and they will have to do it theselves. Best, Otis > Dear William, > > Thanks for your reply -- but you did not answer the question. Look who's calling the kettle black Otis. William did answer your question. Answer my question. Please provide medical websites OUTSIDE your website that supports your position. I bet you won't, as usual in the past. I will repeat my question Otis for your clarity sake. Please provide medical websites OUTSIDE your website that supports your so called prevention methods. > If fact, for the ODs who offer the plus (for prevention) > I suggest that a "contract" be signed, so that > these issues are absolutly chear the the pilot > who wished to work on true-prevention with the > plus. Again, you are not preventing Otis. If a person already has myopia, what are you preventing? Sounds like you are giving UNAUTHORIZED medical advice to me. > I will post your statement on my > site so they understand why an > OD can not help the with > true prevention with the plus -- and > they will have to do it theselves. Your website is useless to a "real pilot" Again Otis, take me up on my suggestion. Go to your local airport and ask REAL pilots what they need in vision. I would bet everyone would say they need the best possible acuity NOW, not 1 month down the road, not 6 months or a year down the road. NOW OTIS, not later. I bet though you won't go to your local airport as you know my suggestion would disprove your so called made up subjects "opinions". Allen Allen, Are you an optometrist? Yes or no. Best, Otis > Allen, > > Are you an optometrist? > > Yes or no. I have answered this before Otis. You obviously have selective memory. Look it up. Allen >> Allen, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Allen Looking back Otis, your memory is really poor / selective. I will repost my question that you are answering to. PLEASE answer my question. Please provide medical websites OUTSIDE your website that supports your position. I bet you won't, as usual in the past. I will repeat my question Otis for your clarity sake. Please provide medical websites OUTSIDE your website that supports your so called prevention methods. Can I make the question any clearer?? Allen Dear Allen, The question was for the readers of sci.med.vision. Since you will not respond, I do not see any reason to respond to your inane statements. Best, Otis > Dear Allen, > > The question was for the > readers of sci.med.vision. You speak for the readers Otis. I don't think so! > Since you will not respond, > I do not see any reason to > respond to your inane statements. Because you can't provide proof to your stories / opinions. I will continue to keep asking these questions so "readers" can see you don't answer direct questions or have any credibility. Until you answer questions directly, you have NO CREDIBILITY! Allen A little myopia is a good thing. Up to about -2.50 it really comes in handy as you age. For example, you can shave or see that little zit on your nose without your glasses that are surely fogging up in the bathroom. A little hyperopia is a bad thing. No matter how small the amount, when you reach presbyopia, you can't see clearly at ANY distance without glasses. You are truly handicapped. Far is blurred, intermediate is blurred, near is blurred. These are some unhappy seniors. When you're 80 years old, if you happen to be blessed with 1.5 or 2 D. of myopia, you can comfortably read without glasses. You might want to put on the old specs to see the TV (unless it's a small one close by, in which case you can even do THAT without 'em). The 80 year old hyperope is a mess. Can't drive without glasses. Can't read without them. Can't eat or even wipe his butt properly without them. The rest homes are full of them, staring blankly out the blurred window, hile their myopic bedfellows are reading or computing, wiping their butts, making passes at the ladies, whatever...WITHOUT GLASSES!!!!! So the next time you tell me that I should be preventing myopia, I'm gonna tell you to go to hell. My myopes are happy. My myopic pilots can still land if their glasses go flying in turbulence (unlike their hyperopic colleagues, who when that happens have to ask the stewardess to look at the maps and tell him where they are, or watch the artificial horizon so he'll know if he's right side up or not, or watch the altimeter, so he'll know if he's under water or preparing to go orbital... (and while you're at it, Miss flight attendant, could you wipe... well you get the picture). good night otis w.stacy, o.d. myopia rocks, hyperopia sucks (oh yea, emmetropia is fine until you're over 40, when you get most of what the hyperopes get (sic.), and you'll hate it. Then, like a lot of my patients, you'll pay the LASIK doc at least $2000 to MAKE YOU MYOPIC in one eye!) To: William Stacy OD I appreciate your candid remarks about a pilot at 20/30 (refractive staus -1 diopter), and the fact that you are legally prohibited from discussing the possible use of a strong plus for prevention. You are defining the "bounds" of optometry, and "medical practice" here. But then, who is supposed to help the pilot at 20/30 who is willing to work with a strong plus -- and potentially clear to 20/20? Obviously he must figure this out for himself. But you had declared yourself "not involved" with this issue. Here is my candid response -- for our intellectual enjoyment. _________________ Otis response: Dear William, Just keeping a minus "off" is not enough. Since you suggested that they might have "pseudo-myopia" and the plus could be used for prevention -- I thought you MIGHT have suggested the use of the plus under the above circumstances. You COULD have suggestet what Professor Grosvenor suggested, that the pilot keep the minus lens off the face (assuming 20/30, and PASSING the DMV). He would have no reason to wear the minus, and could have agressively used a strong plus -- to clear to 20/20.\ Further, he could have monitored his own eye chart to confirm he achieved this result -- under his own control. If you suggested this -- you could have also stated that it is the second opinion -- and the pilot would have to take complete (legal) responsibility for doing this work himself -- and you would not have ANY legal responsibility. I think that approach would be completely fair to you and the pilot who wishes to clear to sharp vision under his own control. In fact, for the ODs who offers the plus (for prevention) I would suggest that a "contract" be signed, by both pilot and OD so that these issues are absolutly clear to the the pilot who wished to work on true-prevention with the plus. Further, you are telling me that you are legally PROHIBITED from even discussing the POSSIBILITY of prevention with the plus. Then that means that the pilot will have to work through these issues himself -- with the understanding that you will be busted to private if you even broach the subject of prevention, and for that reason, can be of NO ASSISTANCE at all. I suggest that any pilot who wishes to work on vision clearing (20/30 to 20/20) be completely clear in his mind about this issue, and the fact that you are prohibited from helping him wear the plus for prevention. I will post your statement on my site so pilots working on "vision clearing" understand why an OD can never help the with true prevention with the plus -- and why they will have to do it theselves. Thanks for your analysis and clear statement of your position, that you can not even discuss the possibility of using the plus for prevention -- for "legal" reasons and to protect your professional career. Best, Otis > To: William Stacy OD > > I appreciate your candid remarks about a pilot at 20/30 (refractive > staus -1 diopter), > and the fact that you are legally prohibited from discussing the > possible I NEVER SAID I WAS LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING OR PRESCRIBING ANYTHING. STOP THE LIES. > But then, who is supposed to help the pilot at 20/30 who > is willing to work with a strong plus -- and potentially clear > to 20/20? Obviously he must figure this out for himself. YOU CAN. NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO! > Further, you are telling me that you are legally PROHIBITED > from even discussing the POSSIBILITY of prevention with the plus. WHERE DID I SAY THAT, OTIS? STOP THE LIES. > Then that means that the pilot will have to work through these > issues himself -- with the understanding that you will be busted > to private if you even broach the subject of prevention, and for > that reason, can be of NO ASSISTANCE at all. I did suggest being busted for prescribing plus for myopic pilots, not to private of course, maybe from Captain to 1st Looie. AND NEVER DID I SAY THAT I COULDN'T EVEN "BROACH THE SUBJECT OF PREVENTION". STOP THE LIES, OTIS. > I suggest that any pilot who wishes to work on vision > clearing (20/30 to 20/20) be completely clear in his mind about > this issue, and the fact that you are prohibited from helping him > wear the plus for prevention. AGAIN, NEVER SAID I WAS PROHIBITED FROM ANYTHING. STOP THE LIES. > I will post your statement on my site so pilots working on > "vision clearing" understand why an OD can never help the with > true prevention with the plus -- and why they will have to do it > theselves. If you post anything I wrote, please so so in its entirety, without your lies interspersed. > Thanks for your analysis and clear statement of your > position, that you can not even discuss the possibility of using > the plus for prevention -- for "legal" reasons and to protect your > professional career. WHY MUST I ENDURE THIS REPITITIVE LIE??????? w.stacy, o.d (sorry for shouting, but you're starting to bug me) Oh, and Otis, reread the subject line. Myopia is good. As I've said before, low myopia is a normal adaptation to 20th and 21st century near demand. It's a good thing. Why would I WANT to prevent it anyway? That would be harmful. I should probably be ENCOURAGING it. Remember the little old hyperopes in the resthomes who lose their glasses. Remember they are the invalids. Not the little old myopes. Viva la myopia. w.s. Dear William, Let us restrict the discussion to the adolescent eye, that can have negative or positive refractive states -- depending on its average-visual enviroment. For purposes of disucssion will you agree to divide the refractive state of the natural eye as described below? SE = Spherical equivalent -- essentially "averaging-out" the astigmatic component of the measurement. Commentary? Best, Otis ______________________ Subject: Definition of Myopia, Emmetropia, Hyperopia For analyses, refractive error was categorised into four groups; hyperopia ( SE > or = +1.0 D ), emmetropia ( -0.5 D < SE < +1.0 D ), low myopia ( -3.0 D < SE < or = -0.5 D ) and high myopia ( SE < or = -3.0 D ). Source of definitions of the refractive states of the young eye: METHODS: Of subjects from the Singapore Cohort Study of the Risk Factors for Myopia (SCORM), 636 Chinese children aged 9-11 years from two elementary schools underwent non-contact tonometry -- etc. > For purposes of disucssion will you agree to divide > the refractive state of the natural eye as described below? > > SE = Spherical equivalent -- essentially "averaging-out" the > astigmatic component of the measurement. > Subject: Definition of Myopia, Emmetropia, Hyperopia > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > years from two elementary schools underwent non-contact > tonometry -- etc. The above definitions are at variance with generally accepted definitions, but close enough I'm sure for your purposes. Generally accepted are low, moderate and high categories. They lumped all 3 into one in the case of hyperopia, and 3 into 2 in myopia, but whatever. Are you going to admit to mis-quoting me in your previous post(s)? I have to admit that at least in this one, for a change, you did not mis-quote me. Thank you for that. w.stacy, o.d. Dear William, I have posted your remarks on my site -- and your statement about "nearsigheness" being of value to a person. Equally, what we are arguing about it the transfer of "control" to the person -- or pilot. In our example of the pilot at 20/30, you expressed the ideat that the pilot only wanted very sharp vision with a -1 diopter lens (to bring him to 20/20), and simply desired a waiver from you. Prevention with the plus is indeed difficult -- and depends on the motivation of the specific person -- to achieve the desired result. But let me suggest that the "pilot", reading about Captain Fred Deakins (USAF) when off, obtained a plus from WalMart, and worked very hard and cleared to 20/20. When he came back and read the 20/20 line -- would you pass him -- if he did not tell you how he did it? Would that be OD with you? I think this issue is very difficult -- but I do preceive the possibility of prevention along this line. You had suggested you were interested in "prevention", so that is why I thought that you might suggest "prevention" with the plus -- even if you had no interest in "following" the person who was making the effort. >From Dr. Raphaelson's remarks from "The Printer's Son", I concluded that -- how ever dedicated the optometrist -- it would be impossible to work prevention in the sense of "medicine". But had the "Printer's Son" done the "plus" work himself, and personally verified his vision clearing from 20/40 to 20/20, then I think the result would have been completely different. If you provide "advice" it is automatically clasified as "medical" in a person's mind. If I give advice about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- then there is NO QUESTION about who is going to be "in control". It is the person himself who will do the work -- and verify the results. I believe that "prevention" is possible under the above circumstances -- and can NEVER be broken down into a "magic pill" you prescribe in 30 minutes. Too many people are "superficial". If you talked about prevention with the plus -- they would think you were crazy. (I understand this "situation" far better that you think I do.) But when the person "realizes" this (that a quick-fix may not be right for him) and takes the "long-view" and does it himself -- the he MIGHT be able to achieve the results you can not supply. We should not "fight" each other about this. It is just that the person himself has major work to do (on his own) if he wishes to keep his distant vision clear through four year of college -- given the "down" rate of -1.3 diopters per year seen at West Point. A very difficult decision and choice indeed. Best, Otis Dear William, Accepting that vision clearing is only possible from 20/30, here are the notes of a pilot who worked to clear his vision by use of a plus. ____________________ Dear Friends, Subject: A pilot working with the plus, responds to Stacy's belief that "myopia is good for pilots". In a number of cases I changed the name of the poster -- to protect him. Otis _____________________ From: "John" To: "Otis Brown" <otisbrown@pa.net> Subject: An OD, states the reasons why he can not offer pilots (at 20/30) prevention with plus. Re: William Stacy is legally allowed to discuss prevention with you with the plus -- he simply chooses not to because he believes that you have no desire to protect your distant vision with a plus -- for life. It is also true that true-prevention with the plus is a very difficult task to accomplish. Stacy> Re: I've also kind of wondered about his (Otis) obsession with desperate pilots. As an optometrist in the USAF during Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot training base (Lubbock, TX) I often would waiver a student who'd gone myopic. I always thought the AF used the uncorrected 20/20 just to cut down on the applicant pool. W. Stacy OD John> What a crock of poop this is, how can he arrive at the conclusion that USAF has a decreased vision acuity limit so they can "cut down on the applicant pool". This is why I think OD's should be officers of the United States Air Force. No civilians picked up off the street, especially they need to know the pilots especially military pilots vision needs during the harsh combat flying environment. I don't even have an interest to read the rest of his mumbo jumbo after this stupid statement. Does he know the aeromedical concerns of having bad eyesight while flying in combat? Have him read on; four main areas of concern exist: myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and opacities of the ocular media. Improper or unbalanced correction with spectacles or contact lens can degrade stereopsis and contrast sensitivity as well as induce generalized ocular fatigue (asthenopia). Myopes tend to progress with respect to the degree of myopia, regardless of age, while hyperopia tends to remain static. John> In addition, myopes may see halos or flares around bright lights at night and are also more at risk for worsening under dim illumination and with pupil enlargement, a phenomena known as "night myopia." Myopes also have an increased risk of retinal detachment and retinal degenerations, such as lattice. Of note, the risk of retinal detachment as related to exposure to G forces in flying remains unknown. Hyperopes, especially those with greater than +3.00D of correction, will experience greater problems with vision after treatment with atropine during chemical warfare. They also have a greater association with microstrabismus and tropias or phorias that can decompensate under the rigors of flight. Moreover, hyperopes have more problems with visual aids, such as night vision goggles, as they develop presbyopia at earlier ages compared to myopes. John> Wearing spectacles is a great burden to the flyer since todays most NVG systems give pilots problems while flying at night conditions. You can not always substitute glasses with contacts because we have the chemical attack factor in todays modern warfare. You don't want your contacts burn on your cornea. You will either have 'em scratched with laser or you will prevent and reverse it from early stages, this is simple. > Stacy> Your example is wrong from the get-go. I never ran into a healthy half diopter myope who couldn't read 20/20 unaided. Best unaided acuity of 20/30 would translate more into the realm of -1.00 or so. But I'll humor you for the moment. I mean that's only an error factor of 2... John> 20/30 is a -1 diopter? Well maybe that is what they did in Vietnam to OVERCORRECT eyesight to make it plummet towards double digit of diopters. Since when is -1 D prescribed to correct just one line above 20/20??? > Stacy> No. I often counseled them to do their heavy studying without their glasses, always telling them the truth, that this may or may not help, but it will do no harm (and you say I'm not into prevention!). If they were 20/30, I would (obviously) Rx the -1.00 or whatever to get them flying (and driving) safely. John> He gives them -1.00 (which is way strong in my opinion) for a simple 20/30 (20/30 is considered normal vision in most fields and even DMV standards are 20/40) and then tell them do their heavy studying without their glasses, so they can strain them as much as they could. Does he even know how the plus lense work? > Stacy> I don't think the USAF would have approved of my Rxing plus for myopia, without some convincing evidence that it worked, and I would probably have been busted a rank or two for practicing voodoo optometry. John> Bull, honestly, if he did knew how plus worked and helped, he didn't have to RX them, he could simply mention about them and how they worked. If the pilot was interested, he could have used it only for his close work. Can't beat the minus system though, instant fix is needed, there is minus for you. > Stacy> These guys demanded the sharpest acuity possible at optical infinity for obvious reasons. Most of them wanted to be combat fighter pilots. I don't think I ever saw one go over about -2.00 or so. And I maybe ran into one or two all together who ever thought their myopia was a show stopper or considered it to be a disability as you do. John> They demanded it so he overcorrected 'em, just like they do to my wife today! Probably those pilots are over -10 by now. If you overcorrect 20/30 with - 1.00!!! I'd suggest no time wasting with this guy... _______________________________ John> Note to preventive minded friends; John> I recently PCS'ed to South Korea and I know that a little progress report is over due on my part. I passed a DMV test around 2 weeks ago with flying colors while I was renewing my DL. Today most service branches test with the Armed Forces Vision Tester and it is a pretty easy machine to pass. Anyway, I am awaiting to be transfered to my gaining unit so it will be a while. John> Over the leave time I had before PCS'ing I got to spend some time with a friend of mine who wants to fly B-1 Bombers in the USAF. He had perfect vision a few years ago but recently during an eye chart test I administered below the standard lighting conditions (which is today's OD's use so they can overcorrect you) he couldn't even read the 20/40 line, I was able to see 20/20 line with both eyes with same lighting. I had explained him last Christmas after he saw me first time wearing my plus lenses and how important that he should use the plus lense because he does close work all the time. This time, 4 months later, after flunking the eye chart he got worried and he realized that he should get some. We went to Walmart and got him a +1.00 and a +2.00. I told him to wear +1.00 at all times outdoors and +2.00 indoors for close work. That night he decided to drive with +1.00 glasses on. We drove about 4 miles towards home from Walmart, all of a sudden he removed the glasses to see if there was any effect. He paused and said; John> "Man, you are a genius" John> Take care friends... > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In a number of cases I changed the name of the poster -- to > protect him. Dear friends, I have snipped a classic example of Otis's made up stories. As you can see from the above, he changes the names of the poster to "protect him", for what reason I don't know. Please disregard Otis's postings. Thank you! Allen > Stacy> Re: I've also kind of wondered about his (Otis) obsession > with desperate pilots. As an optometrist in the USAF [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > think OD's should be officers of the United States Air > Force. They are, and I was. No civilians picked up off the street, especially > they need to know the pilots especially military pilots > vision needs during the harsh combat flying environment. I > don't even have an interest to read the rest of his mumbo > jumbo after this stupid statement. So much for objectivity. Does he know the > aeromedical concerns of having bad eyesight while flying in > combat? I do. Went through air disaster training (Sheppard AFB), ejection seat training (Reese AFB), altitude chamber training (Reese AFB), and actual jet training flights (Reese AFB, t-37, t-38) with instructor pilots. Wrote a couple of articles about it, and how the AF might change their curriculi based on my experiences. Have him read on; four main areas of concern > exist: myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and opacities of > the ocular media. Huh? Where did that short list come from? How about strabismus, amblyopia, macular degeneration, diplopia, polyopia, nystagmus, anisometropia, nyctalopia, photopsia, scotomata, presbyopia, corneal opacities, vitreous opacities, retinal defects, and all the rest? Improper or unbalanced correction with > spectacles or contact lens can degrade stereopsis and > contrast sensitivity as well as induce generalized ocular > fatigue (asthenopia). No argument there. You can add those to my list above. Myopes tend to progress with respect > to the degree of myopia, regardless of age, while hyperopia > tends to remain static. Wrong. Myopes only progress in their younger years, almost always reducing somewhat in their pre-presbyopic and presbyopic years. Hyperopia does tend to remain static in amount but not in effect. The average 3.0 D. hyperope at age 18 is 20/20, but by age 30 is 20/50 or worse. Which is why we washed out any hyperopes over +2.00, regardless of acuity. The USAF doesn't want to spend 100k training someone who will be handicapped within 10 years. >>Stacy> Your example is wrong from the get-go. I never ran into > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > double digit of diopters. Since when is -1 D prescribed > to correct just one line above 20/20??? You are as sloppy as otis with your facts. 20/30 is two lines above 20/20 (did you forget 20/25?). Overcorrect? No, we always did cycloplegic refractions just to be sure we didn't do that. -1.00 for 20/30 is the norm, not the exception. Ask any o.d. , m.d., or anyone in the field. > >>Stacy> No. I often counseled them to do their heavy studying > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a simple 20/30 (20/30 is considered normal vision in most > fields and even DMV standards are 20/40) Are you sure you were a pilot? You were not in the USAF with 10/30, unless some o.d. like me waivered you, AND YOU WORE THE GLASSES WHILE FLYING!!!! >>Stacy> I don't think the USAF would have approved of my Rxing > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > minus system though, instant fix is needed, there is minus > for you. Thank you. Instant fix IS needed, when you are closing at over 1500 mph with the enemy. Anything else is suicide. >>Stacy> These guys demanded the sharpest acuity possible at > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > now. If you overcorrect 20/30 with - 1.00!!! I'd suggest > no time wasting with this guy... Like I said above, never saw one go over 2., let alone 10. Never saw a single -10 in the USAF, not one, not even non-pilots. You are nuts. > John> I recently PCS'ed to South Korea and I know that a little > progress report is over due on my part. I passed a DMV [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to pass. Anyway, I am awaiting to be transfered to my > gaining unit so it will be a while. What is your refractive error? I've found people with 20/60 can pass the California DMV test. Would not trust them with the controls of a Raptor... > John> Over the leave time I had before PCS'ing I got to spend some > time with a friend of mine who wants to fly B-1 Bombers in > the USAF. He had perfect vision a few years ago but > recently during an eye chart test I administered below the > standard lighting conditions (which is today's OD's use so > they can overcorrect you) No we don't. We use low levels of lighting so that any problems you have that you're compensating for by squinting, can be easily detected and exposed "to the light of day" so to speak. And what's this, YOU administered? Are you licensed? Do you know anything about vision????? What degree? What school? w.stacy, o.d. (was Capt. USAF 1969-1975) B.S., M.Opt, O.D. UC Berkeley. >They are, and I was. Nonsense, this is not Swiss Air Force we are talking about, for every 10000 of applicants there is a squadron of aircraft. Visual acuity limits are not introduced to cut down the number of applicants, they are there for the safe operation of aircraft at minimums. However, you first said "you thought, they were" now you are saying "they are" which one is it? Do you even know what USAF requires TODAY? See I am not talking about times I was not even born when "you practiced" You are the only officer, even though times changed and requirements are way different today, I have met yet who would overcorrect a prospective military pilot candidate. >So much for objectivity. Compared to "TODAY"s modern requirements, maybe... >I do. Went through air disaster training (Sheppard AFB), ejection seat training (Reese AFB), altitude chamber training (Reese AFB), and actual jet training flights (Reese AFB, t-37, t-38) with instructor pilots. Wrote a couple of articles about it, and how the AF might change their curriculi based on my experiences. I am glad that they are not following that stuff you have "experienced". However I am just dying to find out what did USAF change according to your experiences? What you find wrong in my post is partly from offical USAF document AFPAM-48-132, and that is just for your information. Did you have "bad" eyesight during these training events you participated? >Huh? Where did that short list come from? How about strabismus, amblyopia, macular degeneration, diplopia, polyopia, nystagmus, anisometropia, nyctalopia, photopsia, scotomata, presbyopia, corneal opacities, vitreous opacities, retinal defects, and all the rest? >From AFPAM-48-132. However, when was the last time that a combat fighter pilot candidate that sat on your exam chair had MACULAR DEGENERATION? You want to show off, go ahead, no biggie, we see that you are an "OD" I rather stick with the error types we see most in "TODAY"s pilots!!! >Wrong. Myopes only progress in their younger years, almost always reducing somewhat in their pre-presbyopic and presbyopic years. Hyperopia does tend to remain static in amount but not in effect. The average 3.0 D. hyperope at age 18 is 20/20, but by age 30 is 20/50 or worse. Which is why we washed out any hyperopes over +2.00, regardless of acuity. The USAF doesn't want to spend 100k training someone who will be handicapped within 10 years. Tell that to modern AF docs at Brooks today. I bet you didn't know all service branches has a limit at +3.00 for hyperopia "TODAY"... USAF spends 1M "TODAY" for pilots training and provided his eyes transpose within limits, a pilot candidate with +3.00 will be flying anything with wings in the AF. >You are as sloppy as otis with your facts. 20/30 is two lines above 20/20 (did you forget 20/25?). Overcorrect? No, we always did cycloplegic refractions just to be sure we didn't do that. -1.00 for 20/30 is the norm, not the exception. Ask any o.d. , m.d., or anyone in the field. Spare the ad hominems. And no I didn't forget anything. However, I was never shown the 20/25 line all the exams I have gone through. At one time, I was directly shown the 20/30 line when I was asked to read 20/20 once more. Our docs "today" would not consider prescribing glasses for this level, unless it will be required at night flying. Did you make the poor guy read the chart with his eyes dilated for 45 mins? A classmate of mine (military) recently picked up his prescription where his acuity is 20/50 while the refrac is -.75/-.50 astig. 20/50 -.75 and 20/30 -1.00 nice... >Are you sure you were a pilot? You were not in the USAF with 10/30, unless some o.d. like me waivered you, AND YOU WORE THE GLASSES WHILE FLYING!!!! Yes I am sure though I don't fly with USAF. 20/60 does not require a waiver "TODAY" >Thank you. Instant fix IS needed, when you are closing at over 1500 mph with the enemy. Anything else is suicide. Instant fix is needed when necessary and not exaggerated, I don't argue that, I require at night. I can well perform my duties during the day. >Like I said above, never saw one go over 2., let alone 10. Never saw a single -10 in the USAF, not one, not even non-pilots. You are nuts. When was the last time you have met the pilot candidate you put in service who still keeps -2.00??? How many of these guys you were able to check? Just another classmate of mine, who started out emmetropic in 1997, is wearing -3.00 today! -10 was a figure of speech, and it is a horrid number, but if my eyes were to be overcorrected I would be over minus 3 easily... Keep the name calling to yourself though. >What is your refractive error? I've found people with 20/60 can pass the California DMV test. Would not trust them with the controls of a Raptor... I was told that it was -.25 myp/ast, I was told it was -.50myp, I was told it was 0.00, which is it? Is this thing changing everyday, every minute, every second? I am able to read 20/15, 20/10 under normal conditions. Raptor is not a F-100 or a F-4, today's requirements are different, today's air combat environment is different, come to speed, read the current AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 48-123, if Gen. J. Jumper can be combat certified with F/A-22, any pilot can. >No we don't. We use low levels of lighting so that any problems you have that you're compensating for by squinting, can be easily detected and exposed "to the light of day" so to speak. And what's this, YOU administered? Are you licensed? Do you know anything about vision????? What degree? What school? w.stacy, o.d. (was Capt. USAF 1969-1975) B.S., M.Opt, O.D. UC Berkeley. Yes you do, ODs use different illumination levels. I have had exams with different illumination levels and each of them gave different results and no not under normal illumination everyone squints. That is IMHO an excuse. The dimmer the screen is, the stronger prescription is going to be for normal daily use where they don't even need 'em. How many eye wear stores has licensed ODs administrating their eye exam? I know you need to show off, but what I meant was I have simply tested my friends vision under dim light conditions, as if he was to drive or perform in any other activity. Go ahead though, your diploma doesn't intimidate me when I am required to take the control of my eyesight into my own hands. Today US Army sends its pilot candidates to any OD (civilian/military doesn't matter) providing them with EXACT instructions of pages and pages on how these tests will be administered, a monkey can do it if it could obtain the necessary equipment and read. These are my eyes and I know enough about them, I don't need some jerkwad come and show off their diploma they usually use as a blanket to hide wrong practices under. Enough said... > The dimmer the screen is, the stronger prescription is > going to be for normal daily use where they don't even need 'em. Interesting approach.. to photograph an object at 10 feet, you'd focus the camera at 3 feet? > don't need some jerkwad come and show off their diploma they usually > use as a blanket to hide wrong practices under. Enough said... So we pluck prescriptions out of the air? Let's see.. you look to be about -2.00. Yeah, that's the ticket. -MT Mr. Tyner, Simple, is it true that a number of emetropic people can be myopic under "dark" conditions? This is what the study of my service tells me. If you correct this person in darkness, would not this be over-prescription in light and strain his eyes? Unfortunately I am not looking to be -2.00 if that is your prediction, my vision is stable and I am over 25 yo. > Mr. Tyner, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unfortunately I am not looking to be -2.00 if that is your prediction, > my vision is stable and I am over 25 yo. Dr. Tyner doesn't invent stuff here. He, and the rest of the vision scientists here merely present facts and correct other posters sometimes absurd or otherwise invalid theories. And you are, again, wrong. Emmetrope means no optical error. "Dark or empty space myopia" is a functional component where if the optical system cannot lock onto a distant object for zero accommodation and zero convergence, it moves focus to position closer than optical infinity. We doctors have a number of ways to make certain that accommodation and convergence issues don't affect the outcome of the refraction and that the prescription generated is correct. Drugs to zap the neuro-motor system, if necessary Ever notice those little lights and markings out on the wings and fuselage? Perhaps they're fixation targets for relaxing accommodation? No, you're right, we just guess at prescriptions and pay no attention to lighting, testing distance, pupil size, accommodation spasms. Ask Otis. He has all the answers. --LB, O,D. >And you are, again, wrong. Emmetrope means no optical error. "Dark or >empty space myopia" is a functional component where if the optical >system cannot lock onto a distant object for zero accommodation and zero >convergence, it moves focus to position closer than optical infinity How is this wrong, you explain to me what emmetrope is and what "darkness myopia" is. Well, do emmetropes get it? You seem to suggest, yes... OK then, that was what I was asking. >Ever notice those little lights and markings out on the wings and >fuselage? Perhaps they're fixation targets for relaxing accommodation? Explain. We don't put markings on aircraft in the military whether rotary or fixed to relax vision accomodation. >No, you're right, we just guess at prescriptions and pay no attention to >lighting, testing distance, pupil size, accommodation spasms. Ask Otis. >He has all the answers. Whatever you say, just let me know how do you make a living then I am gone... > Simple, is it true that a number of emetropic people can be myopic > under "dark" conditions? This is what the study of my service tells me. > If you correct this person in darkness, would not this be > over-prescription in light and strain his eyes? We don't refract in darkness, but how do you know wearing excess minus creates any permanent change? Myopes who wear glasses don't get more nearsighted than myopes who do wear them. Show us otherwise. Why doesn't every +2.00 uncorrected hyperope become -2.00? Or plano? Their eyes are "strained" in exactly the same way. Well? -MT >We don't refract in darkness, but how do you know wearing excess minus >creates any permanent change? >From living examples... >Myopes who wear glasses don't get more nearsighted than myopes who do wear >them. Show us otherwise. ...who do not wear them... was that what you meant? Well my classmate Ronnie, who flies for a European Airline company today is an example of this, he kept his vision well and without glasses during flight school and the year after but then he started wearing minuses because he was told he needed it. Today I hear he is over -2, where he started -.50. Is this what you are asking? > ...who do not wear them... was that what you meant? Well my classmate > Ronnie, who flies for a European Airline company today is an example of > this, he kept his vision well and without glasses during flight school > and the year after but then he started wearing minuses because he was > told he needed it. Today I hear he is over -2, where he started -.50. > Is this what you are asking? No. I'm asking for the kind of evidence that doctors can accept, comparisons of matched groups, one group wearing glasses, and another group not wearing, or wearing them less, or wearing modified optical correction like bifocals or under-correction. Almost all the examples I can find show that those who wear glasses get no more nearsighted than those who don't. Those who wear bifocals get worse at the same rate (well, one Singapore study shows some benefit to bifocals, another large Western study found it made no difference.) Those who wear undercorrection (less minus than necessary, blurry distance vision) occasionally seem to get worse _faster_. If glasses make myopia worse, surely _somebody_ would have found a study showing those who wear glasses get worse faster than those who don't. Where is it? -MT Visual acuity > limits are not introduced to cut down the number of applicants, they > are there for the safe operation of aircraft at minimums. Of course they are. Do you even know what USAF requires TODAY? No, but I suspect they are unchanged. Any current AF O.D. can correct me if they've changed, but it was, for entry into the program, as best I can remember: 20/20 unaided in each eye No more than +2.00 hyperopia in either eye, under cycloplegia 30" of arc stereopsis 100% color vision The first item was the only one waiverable by me, for those who became myopic. See I am not > talking about times I was not even born when "you practiced" You are > the only officer, even though times changed and requirements are way > different today, If they have changed from the above, I'm sure someone will tell us in what way... I have met yet who would overcorrect a prospective > military pilot candidate. Depends on what you mean by "overcorrect". If you use Otis' definition, just about every O.D. on the planet would. However I am just dying to find out what did USAF change > according to your experiences? I don't understand that question. I never said they changed anything. What you find wrong in my post is partly > from offical USAF document AFPAM-48-132, and that is just for your > information. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Did you have "bad" eyesight during these training events > you participated? I was mildly myopic with moderate astigmatism. Unaided about 20/100, corrected to 20/15 O.U. with glasses. My interest in going in the trainers was to see if there were any problems with wearing glasses while flying combat type aircraft. There were none. However, when was the last time that a combat > fighter pilot candidate that sat on your exam chair had MACULAR > DEGENERATION? You want to show off, go ahead, no biggie, we see that > you are an "OD" I rather stick with the error types we see most in > "TODAY"s pilots!!! Touche', but remember, most of the people I examined had already passes a pre-flight physical at some point. > Tell that to modern AF docs at Brooks today. I bet you didn't know all > service branches has a limit at +3.00 for hyperopia "TODAY" Ok so maybe they increased it, or I remembered it wrong. No problem. The point remains valid. However, I was > never shown the 20/25 line all the exams I have gone through. At one > time, I was directly shown the 20/30 line when I was asked to read > 20/20 once more. Our docs "today" would not consider prescribing > glasses for this level, unless it will be required at night flying. Did > you make the poor guy read the chart with his eyes dilated for 45 mins? No. We measured REFRACTIVE ERROR under cycloplegia, not visual acuity. >>Are you sure you were a pilot? You were not in the USAF with 10/30, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes I am sure though I don't fly with USAF. 20/60 does not require a > waiver "TODAY" I think we're comparing apples and oranges. When I said waiver, I meant of student pilots. Once they got their wings, I never saw them again. I'm sure the requirements are different for pilots than for student pilots. > I was told that it was -.25 myp/ast, I was told it was -.50myp, I was > told it was 0.00, which is it? Is this thing changing everyday, every > minute, every second? I am able to read 20/15, 20/10 under normal > conditions. So you have a very mild degree of myopia. All my points stand. You should wear the glasses while flying if the "true" Rx is -.50 or more; if less than that you're not really a myope and don't need them. Raptor is not a F-100 or a F-4, today's requirements are > different, today's air combat environment is different, come to speed, > read the current AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 48-123, if Gen. J. Jumper can be > combat certified with F/A-22, any pilot can. Again, sure, once a pilot the requirements are relaxed. I was mostly involved with student pilots and kids who wanted to become student pilots. The dimmer the screen is, the stronger prescription is > going to be for normal daily use where they don't even need 'em. Wrong. You get the same Rx (you do indeed get different acuities, but acuities are NOT the same as refraction) in daylight as in the dark, unless you allow the eye to completely dark adapt (takes 14 min or so in the dark), in which case there is a slight and predictable myopic shift, no more than .25 or .5 D, for sure. If you are -.50 you might not "need em" in the daytime, but the vast majority of myopes are more than .50 and do indeed "need em" in the daylight. w.stacy, o.d. >No, but I suspect they are unchanged. Any current AF O.D. can correct >me if they've changed, but it was, for entry into the program, as best I >can remember: 20/20 unaided in each eye 20/70 unaided in each eye today... >I don't understand that question. I never said they changed anything You said you have written articles and made suggestions to USAF, were those in order to change the system at the time? >I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Some of the information in my previous posts, you have stated as "wrong" were from official USAF documentation. >I was mildly myopic with moderate astigmatism. Unaided about 20/100, >corrected to 20/15 O.U. with glasses. My interest in going in the >trainers was to see if there were any problems with wearing glasses >while flying combat type aircraft. There were none If that was true or say it was practical, today service branches would not crazily researching the PRK/LASIK option, contact lenses and glasses are a no-go when it comes to some special ops. You can't really use them with NVG. >Ok so maybe they increased it, or I remembered it wrong. No problem. >The point remains valid. Why do you think they raised this? Why do you think they have gone up to 20/70 unaided vision? >I think we're comparing apples and oranges. When I said waiver, I meant >of student pilots. Once they got their wings, I never saw them again. >I'm sure the requirements are different for pilots than for student pilots. Negative, student pilots today will not require a waiver if they are 20/60 which I am assuming to be over or around -1.25. Their limit is 20/70 and -1.50. If they have astig. then it has to transpose and there the problem starts for most. If they have -1.25 they are only allowed to have a -.25 astig. >So you have a very mild degree of myopia. All my points stand. You >should wear the glasses while flying if the "true" Rx is -.50 or more; >if less than that you're not really a myope and don't need them. Ok, so can we say below -.50 is not considered myopia, or it is just not really myopia? What is the harm using plus lenses while doing close work? Does NOT that prevent and/or reduce accomodative effort? I haven't advocated using plus lenses while doing "dangerous" work and I don't think Otis ever did. Other than this, the last conversation was more on point and fruitful. > You said you have written articles and made suggestions to USAF, were > those in order to change the system at the time? Yes, I thought that they should be a little more relaxed on the unaided acuity part so that some of the cadets who had gone myopic could still fly (with glasses of course). I thought then and still feel they washed out a lot of very capable cadets due to small or moderate amounts of myopia. If I understand your posts, apparently they have so relaxed the requirements, which I think is good. If they are allowing myopes to fly without their glasses, I think this is bad. It's nuts. I found no problem flying with glasses, in fact all the pilots regularly used sunglasses, some with prescription. It was my routine to Rx and order clear and sunglasses in flying glasses for every pilot who wanted and or needed them. Now there may be some ops that won't allow glasses. Not sure what those are (maybe you have some insight here). If so, obviously those need to be done by emmetropes, or very near emmetropes. > Ok, so can we say below -.50 is not considered myopia, or it is just > not really myopia? What is the harm using plus lenses while doing close > work? Does NOT that prevent and/or reduce accomodative effort? I > haven't advocated using plus lenses while doing "dangerous" work and I > don't think Otis ever did. I agree with all that, and my last post gives a URL to prove it. I think otis and you advocate flying with less than full correction in place, which is optically the same thing as putting a plus lens on an emmetrope. That is where we differ. I don't think I ever met an emmetropic pilot who would tolerate any plus for distance activity, and I don't know why they would. I cannot see how that can make any sense, unless you believe that flying with full Rx in place will make you more myopic. Well, maybe, if most of the focus is at near these days. Maybe you don't need to look out the window any more. In which case all pilots SHOULD BE MYOPES. BTW how far from your eye are those head's up diplays? Aren't they projected to a point beyond the windshield? w.stacy, o.d. >Yes, I thought that they should be a little more relaxed on the unaided >acuity part so that some of the cadets who had gone myopic could still >fly (with glasses of course). I thought then and still feel they washed >out a lot of very capable cadets due to small or moderate amounts of >myopia. If I understand your posts, apparently they have so relaxed the >requirements, which I think is good. If they are allowing myopes to fly >without their glasses, I think this is bad. It's nuts Well then yes they have listened to you. They have relaxed the requirements, AF is down to 20/70 where Navy is 20/40 and Army 20/50. Why are these different limitations? Because of the different environment of the ops they fly. These limits are there just to allow pilot to land safely in case of loss of glasses in an emergency. They NEVER tell any pilot fly without their prescription. They don't allow that, Rx goes in their medical records. However it depends on the pilot, he might be needing them at night only where he can see perfectly well during daytime where he won't use them at his discretion. But like you said, over -.75, I don't know, they might need it at all times. >I found no problem flying with glasses, in fact all the pilots regularly used >sunglasses, some with prescription. It was my routine to Rx and order >clear and sunglasses in flying glasses for every pilot who wanted and or >needed them. Now there may be some ops that won't allow glasses. Not >sure what those are (maybe you have some insight here). If so, >obviously those need to be done by emmetropes, or very near emmetropes. There are ops that burden the pilot because he has to wear glasses, like NVG ops. It is not necessarily ops won't allow them, but it is highly unpractical when you have glasses on your face. This is why military is working on laser surgery. Once the student is in at 20/70 or whatever the limit refrac is, he is looked at as capable of flying every mission, but then when they hit the cockpit problems arise with glasses, this is something they are trying to resolve. >I think otis and you advocate flying with less than full correction in >place, which is optically the same thing as putting a plus lens on an >emmetrope. That is where we differ. I don't think I ever met an >emmetropic pilot who would tolerate any plus for distance activity, and >I don't know why they would. I cannot see how that can make any sense, >unless you believe that flying with full Rx in place will make you more >myopic. Otis doesn't advocate any unsafe practices, he never once told me to fly with the plus lense on. That is insane, even a +1.00 is not safe in traffic pattern. I advocate that the myopia is reversible, the pilot should work on it to reverse it with plus while he is doing other activities such as reading, using computer or etc and get rid of dependency to glasses. I have a +1.00 and with it, I can ride a bike, walk, go to store, do most of my daily activities. I don't fly with it. Minus lenses aid the pilot to see the distance clearly, but when the minus is on, same pilot has to look and focus into close distance also, that is I am against, using minus to look into close distance, if you don't require glasses that is. What I am saying is, like my friend Ronnie, when he was -.50, if he didn't use minus for looking at close objects, he wouldn't have developed worse myopia. >BTW how far from your eye are those head's up >diplays? Aren't they projected to a point beyond the windshield? They should be at infinity, if they weren't then when pilot was looking in distance, there will 2 of same symbology in front of him due to stereoscopic vision or 2 targets when he was focused on the symbology. Heads up displays can be as close as 1 inch to your eyes as we use with IHADSS (integrated helmet and display sight system) in our AH-64 Apache helicopters. Usually AF jets and some cargo acft such C-17 has the HUD at a regular monitor distance you should have when you are using your computer at home. They > NEVER tell any pilot fly without their prescription. They don't allow > that, Rx goes in their medical records. However it depends on the > pilot, he might be needing them at night only where he can see > perfectly well during daytime where he won't use them at his > discretion. But like you said, over -.75, I don't know, they might need > it at all times. Ok then I'm satisfied that the requirements still make sense. > There are ops that burden the pilot because he has to wear glasses, > like NVG ops. It is not necessarily ops won't allow them, but it is > highly unpractical when you have glasses on your face. If you are talking night vision glasses, I can't see why glasses would get in the way. If they did, it would be easy enough to incorporate any correction into the devices themselves, just like we do with gas masks. >>BTW how far from your eye are those head's up >>diplays? Aren't they projected to a point beyond the windshield? > > They should be at infinity, if they weren't then when pilot was looking > in distance, there will 2 of same symbology in front of him due to > stereoscopic vision or 2 targets when he was focused on the symbology. That's what I thought. Yet another reason to wear any distance Rx that is needed. Anyway, I think we've worked through the most outrageous of our disagreements, and I think it's just fine for you to work on your vision with the plus. At least it does no harm. w.stacy, o.d. >That's what I thought. Yet another reason to wear any distance Rx that >is needed. Anyway, I think we've worked through the most outrageous of >our disagreements, and I think it's just fine for you to work on your >vision with the plus. At least it does no harm. But we have focus adjustments where we can adjust the clarity of the symbology on the glass according to our refraction error. I mean the info on the HUD glass is no biggie, in todays A2A especially if you are flying with the world's best airforce, you are provided a picture of the battlefield on one of your displays in the cockpit, plus AWACS is always watching your back, before that first visual contact with the enemy, you know where he is coming from. Then all you do is watch what he is going to do. A normal eye should spot this target since they know where to look from quite a distance, if there is going to be an engagement, the target is at 1-2 miles tops which is clearly seen. I think a blurry 20/20 should be able to fight these targets. I have reason to believe that this is why they relaxed the 20/20 unaided requirement. Thanks for your encouragement. > But we have focus adjustments where we can adjust the clarity of the > symbology on the glass according to our refraction error. Too bad you can't do the same with the windshield. Well I guess you can. They are called eyeglasses. I mean the > info on the HUD glass is no biggie, in todays A2A especially if you are > flying with the world's best airforce, you are provided a picture of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reason to believe that this is why they relaxed the 20/20 unaided > requirement. Thanks for your encouragement. I'm sure you're right, except that I still believe that you could have an edge, however slight, if the target were in crisp focus rather than somewhat blurred. I think it would be fairly easy to prove this experimentally. One more parting shot. In a real dogfight with numerous planes from both sides engaged, it would definitlely be easier to discern friendly from foe when fully corrected than when slightly uncorrected. Remember, 20/10 vision means you can see detail half the size as you can with 20/20. That translates into being able to determine such critical detail twice as far away. w.stacy, o.d. >Too bad you can't do the same with the windshield. Well I guess you >can. They are called eyeglasses. If not needed, stay away from them. >One more parting shot. In a real dogfight with numerous >planes from both sides engaged, it would definitlely be easier to >discern friendly from foe when fully corrected than when slightly >uncorrected. Remember, 20/10 vision means you can see detail half the >size as you can with 20/20. That translates into being able to determine >such critical detail twice as far away. I agree, if the pilot has 20/10, it is better for him to keep visual contact during dogfight. If 20/20, he still doesn't have much to lose, because we have DGFT, ACM modes which would keep constant radar lock on the enemy, not to mention, not walsy every 20/20 has refraction error. I am one of those you call blurry 20/20, I can see 20/20 but I can also see blurriness but not always. Our targets are way different than in an AF dogfight situation however, because we have the option to zoom in, if not sure on target identification. Just to throw fire on the argument, I once heard a Ph.D. researcher by the name of Ginzberg state that fighter pilots who had slightly less than perfect visual acuity -- say in the 20/25 range -- actually seemed to perform better in target acquisition. This is the same Ginzberg who developed modern contrast sensitivity testing and does forensic vision research. His point was that Snellen visual acuity wasn't the entire story. In doing some additional research on my own, I discovered that people whose vision was corrected of all aberrations so that visual acuity was improved to the limits of the optics of the eye, i.e. in the 20/10+ range, performed better in target pursuit, but no better and perhaps worse in target acquisition. I liken it to the proverbial forest vs. the trees. So, it seems that there are different visual channels, each having a different role in the overall visual process. I remember a patient in my early career who was a college baseball player, and who was complaining about his vision. He indicated that the baseball used to look like a watermelon, but now looked like a regular baseball. He played the outfield. When tested, he read 20/20- on the Snellen chart unaided. With correction for a little hyperopic astigmatism, he easily read 20/10. In short, his vision had deteriorated to the point where it was literally twice as bad. He loved his new eyeglasses, by the way. DrG > In doing some additional research on my own, I discovered that people > whose vision was corrected of all aberrations so that visual acuity was > improved to the limits of the optics of the eye, i.e. in the 20/10+ > range, performed better in target pursuit, but no better and perhaps > worse in target acquisition. I liken it to the proverbial forest vs. > the trees. Interesting. How did you measure and correct the higher order aberrations? And how did you determine "target acquisition"? > So, it seems that there are different visual channels, each having a > different role in the overall visual process. I can certainly appreciate the existence of complex retinal receptor interactions, and higher neural activities that enhance the rather rought optical images that form on the retina, but I can't quite conceive of worse visual acuity working better to pick up a small distant target. Maybe myopes pay more attention? My guess is that some or most of the 20/15 or 20/10 eyes studied are actually low or moderate hyperopes who under blank field conditions actually underfocus because they have no reference point to stimulate the accommodative response and are thus "out of focus" when so searching their fields. Makes me want to suggest all those hyperopes should wear their plus glasses when flying, but then that suggestion might not sit well with some. w.stacy, o.d. > Interesting. How did you measure and correct the higher order > aberrations? And how did you determine "target acquisition." Sorry about the lack of clarity. I meant that in the process of doing library or internet research, I came by this information, which was actually published by a professor at Indiana University College of Optometry by the name of Donald Miller, Ph.D. The comment about visual acuity and fighter pilots was made by Art Ginzberg, Ph.D. in a talk about post-LASIK contrast sensitivity, who was making a point about visual acuity as being only one component of visual processing. Take this pure speculation for what it is worth, but I think there could be some competitive inhibition going on between various visual pathways, and that the saturation of one system with too much detail might impact the detection of movement or figure-ground perception. Possibly acquisition is not so much a purely central retinal function. Where is a visual scientist when you need one? DrG > Possibly acquisition is not so much a purely central retinal function. Actually, I'm leaning toward that idea, since it is more a peripheral, or at least "off-central" function which of course would be less sensitive to refractive error than would be any subsequent fine detail appreciation. w.stacy, o.d. Another science fiction story with so many false premises. No wonder it isn't a best seller. Drg > But let me suggest that the "pilot", reading about > Captain Fred Deakins (USAF) when off, obtained [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When he came back and read the 20/20 line -- would > you pass him -- if he did not tell you how he did it? Not on 20/20 alone. That is just the ability to read a certain size letter at 20 ft. Many people fail the USAF pilot eye test for other reasons (e.g. too much hyperopia, too much astigmatism, too little stereopsis, defective color vision, etc. I would only "pass" a candidate if he/she passed *ALL* the tests. Having said that, if he/she was 20/20 and passed all the other tests, of course I would give a "pass". > Would that be OD with you? OD by me. It is the person > himself who will do the work -- and verify the > results. You're suggesting that the subject of an experiment determine the outcome of that experiment. I think that violates the scientific method. w.stacy, o.d. > Dear William, > > I have posted your remarks on my site -- and your statement > about "nearsigheness" being of value to a person. Dear vision prevention minded friends, Please disregard Otis's postings since he does not provide medical citations OUTSIDE his website. Thank you. Allen >We should not "fight" each other about this. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of college -- given the "down" rate >of -1.3 diopters per year seen at West Point. Wow! So, again, these West Point cadets come out 5.2 diopters more myopic than when they went in?? Wow!! >So, again, these West Point cadets come out 5.2 diopters more myopic >than when they went in?? Otis probably meant -1/3 diopters, if you have followed his earlier posts, you will see it is -1/3 not -1.3.... >>So, again, these West Point cadets come out 5.2 diopters more myopic >>than when they went in?? > >Otis probably meant -1/3 diopters, if you have followed his earlier >posts, you will see it is -1/3 not -1.3.... And if you had followed his hundreds of posts, you would see that the sloppiness of his statements only limns the weakness of his thought processes. That's not an ad hominem attack, for the record. Just pointing out that sloppy scientists create bad science. Sloppy scientists who are married to their hypothesis cannot create acceptable proof for those hypothesis. He should check his work . . . broadly. > A little myopia is a good thing. Up to about -2.50 it really comes in > handy as you age. For example, you can shave or see that little zit on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to put on the old specs to see the TV (unless it's a small one close > by, in which case you can even do THAT without 'em). We can agree that you got hyperopia and myopia mixed up. Hyperopia means you cannot read without glasses. Myopia means you cannot see far without glasses. >>A little myopia is a good thing. Up to about -2.50 it really comes in >>handy as you age. For example, you can shave or see that little zit on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > We can agree that you got hyperopia and myopia mixed up. I don't think so. > Hyperopia means you cannot read without glasses. That is not what hyperopia means. > Myopia means you cannot see far without glasses. Close, but no cigar. Let's try: Hyperopia means an infinitely distant object is focused at a virtual point behind (posterior to) the retina when the accommodative mechanism is at rest. Myopia means an infinitely distant object is focused at a point in front of (anterior to) the retina. The terms certainly say nothing about "you cannot see" at one distance or another. They do imply that one distance will be clearer than another when the accomodative function is inoperative. In the real world, myopes (with SIGNIFICANT MYOPIA) need glasses or contacts to see MOST CLEARLY at far distances. Hyperopes need glasses if their accommodation is insufficient to overcome their hyperopia at the distance they are trying to see clearly. This means, obviously, that low to moderate hyperopes do fine at all distances in youth, but as they age, they lose this and start needing glasses, first for near, then for intermediate, and eventually at far. Now reread my original post, and try to think through what I was saying. w.stacy, o.d. > Hyperopes need glasses if their accommodation is insufficient to > overcome their hyperopia at the distance they are trying to see clearly. > This means, obviously, that low to moderate hyperopes do fine at all > distances in youth, but as they age, they lose this and start needing > glasses, first for near, then for intermediate, and eventually at far. If someone needs glasses just for reading (hyperopia), what makes you think they will develop a need for glasses for intermediate and "evenually at far" ? Dear Spockie, Subject: Remarks from Bushmaster on his vision-clearing. It is always good when a person reports successful vision-clearing with the plus. (Beats stair-case myopia with the minus.) Hi folks, First I would like to let you all know that this post's purpose is not solicitation at all. Just want to share some information some of you might want to be interested in and check out. It is meant for those who are having slight vision problems, myopia (nearsightedness) to be exact. I have currently 20/20 vision however I have a slight refraction error and last year, I was trying to find information if this can be fixed at all. I have come across a web site dedicated to help people with their vision problems and read excerpts of a book I ended up ordering. The web site is called www.i-see.org and the book is called; How To Avoid Nearsightedness -- A Scientific Study of the Eye's Behavior by Otis S. Brown... I have contacted this Otis Brown person who is an engineer and a civilian pilot and visited his web site at www.myopiafree.com His theory is simple, most myopia is accommodational and caused by near work (computer, reading, etc) and if we wear reading lenses called "plus lenses" we would place our eyes in an open environment looking in the infinite distance even when there is a book 15 inches from our eyes. The theory makes sense scientifically however it is not proven medically, because there is no way everyone's eyes are the same and they have same type of myopia2 This theory is offered as a recovery from slight myopia (up to 20/70) and/or preventing it before it starts... When I first started AIT classes last year in October I checked my own eyesight and I found out that I am cutting close to Army eyesight limit of 20/50, it was rather disturbing and that is why I desperately researched Internet if I could stop this progression of myopia. I do now use plus lenses for computer use and reading and I am back to 20/20 vision. You may want to check this out as an alternative if you think you have vision problems Bushmaster >Subject: Remarks from Bushmaster on his >vision-clearing. "Anecdotal evidence is a term commonly used to indicate (pseudo-)scientific evidence based on single episodes ("anecdotes"), instead of proper and verifiable statistics. Anecdotal evidence is often used to support an unlikely claim that cannot withstand scientific proof; in this meaning, it can generally not be reproduced, and as such it is not accepted as a scientific proof, but rather as a hallmark of quackery." >(Beats stair-case myopia with the minus.) Disproven hypothesis. Hey, Otis: **WHAP!!**  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message