Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005
I had my eye exam...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 09:24 GMT I had the eye exam portion of the Army Flight Physical Class 1W/1A for Warrant Officers today. To my surprise, I hadn't even scheduled an appointment or I started a warrant officer application packet, but here is what happened.
I went to our Troop Medical Clinic and inquired about eye exams that are given to pilot candidates, front desk didn't know much so they sent me to the post OD's room. I went there and explained the situation and the assistant called the OD who is a captain in the Army. I explained my symptoms and my concerns in getting to the flight school. They decided to give me an exam right there without the necessary paperwork, so I went ahead and sat in front of the first machine, which there was a windmill looking image on an orange background, coming in and out of focus. It did that for a while for the right eye and left eye and captain said, you are good to go, you are within the limits with -.50 right and .-25 left. No astigmatism. I asked about if we could do cycloplegic refraction. He said it wouldn't change this error very much and dilating tends to make eyes move to positive state, he said it might help me in my case. It was surprising to me that this state has not changed since my first refraction eye exam 11 years ago. He jokingly said "you don't get any taller anymore, do you? same sh.t..." Hope he is right. I did the visual acuity next, first I was not able to read the 20/20 line in the AFVT machine so I started reading 20/30 line with my right eye, but all of a sudden, they slowly started to come into focus one by one.the lighting in the machine was lower and the 20/20 was farther than I thought. They were not clear and sharp in focus but I was able to guess. Out of 16 letters, 8 on each, I didn't miss any. I missed 2 out of 5 in my first try with the "good" eye and I told them I needed to rest my eyes a little. Tried it again and one blink, it came all clearly in focus. Near vision was a piece of cake. Then field of vision was tested and I was able to catch all the lights blinking right and left. Depth perception however was a bitch and didn't work right, I was looking at these shapes where circles are supposed to jump out. Nope nothing was happening. Assistant gave me a pair of glasses and showed me a card with lines of three circles each, each one had circles jumping way out. That was done, then color vision testing, only those 88s or 86s, or 89s in the brown patterns, I needed to look more carefully, they looked really faint, I missed one and she said are you sure, looked carefully "ah ok I see it now......" Then she did IOP test and my right eye was 16 and left was 15. It is the air blowing machine when you are looking into the green light. That was OK, too. Don't know what that measured. Gotta be some sort of pressure.
So basically, I am happy that I am within limits for flight training and I wanted to share it with you all already know about my situation. Eye care and vision is one of my interest areas, especially vision required for the military stuff. I like to read and learn about it. Thanks for taking time answering my questions, via the newsgroup or emails, it means a lot. I will hang around and participate more often.
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Tuesday, 31 May 2005 / 17:24:17 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 13:11 GMT Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get into flight school.
DrG
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 15:27 GMT >Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get into flight school. DrG > DrG, I appreciate the info you have given me so far. Does anything sound different in what happened today in my exam than your usual exams for your patients? Except the cycloplegic refrac. part...
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Tuesday, 31 May 2005 / 23:26:34 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 17:43 GMT > >Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get into flight school. DrG > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- Actually, it all sounded pretty routine. Although, if somebody said that their vision was fluctuating between indoors and out, and between morning and evening, I might do a little more investigating, depending upon how interested the patient was in knowing.
DrG
DrG
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 18:00 GMT >Actually, it all sounded pretty routine. Although, if somebody said >that their vision was fluctuating between indoors and out, and between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > About this let me ask you a quick question, would this be caused by simple eye strain? Different types of lighting? In our installations they use pretty low lighting, all flourescent, most likely cheap to run, Today when I got my eye exam done at around 11 I thought it was midday already and I was going to flunk it, but when I start looking down the machine, things seem to be fine. Let's see if this is going to get any worse in time. I am still so glad that my Rx didn't progress and stayed -.50.
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 02:00:35 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 23:58 GMT Any of those reasons are plausible. With any small refractive error, low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting.
DrG
John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 10:43 GMT >Any of those reasons are plausible. With any small refractive error, >low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting. > >DrG > Roger that Doc...
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 18:43:00 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 13:41 GMT >Any of those reasons are plausible. With any small refractive error, >low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting. > >DrG Also DrG, I forgot to mention, Army OD said that low myopic people (-.50) like me tend to sense little differences more often in their vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine.
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 21:41:29 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
Dr. Leukoma - 01 Jun 2005 14:34 GMT > >Any of those reasons are plausible. With any small refractive error, > >low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there > more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine. Roger that. I once new a reserve F16 pilot who was -2.00 and flew with contact lenses.
DrG
John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 15:28 GMT >Roger that. I once new a reserve F16 pilot who was -2.00 and flew with >contact lenses. > >DrG > > Definitely, as a matter of fact I saw a few Blackhawk pilots at the rank of Captain discussing at lunch today, one of them had glasses. No problem once you are rated as an aviator.
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 23:28:34 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
A Lieberman - 01 Jun 2005 23:54 GMT > Also DrG, I forgot to mention, Army OD said that low myopic people > (-.50) like me tend to sense little differences more often in their > vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there > more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine. Ummm, Otis,
Now tell me again about pilots needing your plus therapy????
John is again disproving your theory. See above!
And check out Dr Leukoma's post immediately below John's post.
A -2 myopic flying one of our military planes. Guess what Otis! There is No NEED TO PREVENT MYOPIA when contacts or eyeglasses work for military pilots.
The last I knew, Army is military....
In other words, you may want to take your snake oil therapy somewhere else. Or find another reason other then pilots to sell your sillyness.
You have already lost all credibility. You don't provide any websites outside yours that substantiate your nonsense. You don't answer direct questions.
How in the world can you expect us to allow unsuspecting new people fall for your snake oil???
Allen
A Lieberman - 31 May 2005 23:34 GMT Otis,
I am not snipping anything out of this post SO YOU CAN READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY.
I think that John just shot down the need for your so called Plus method for pilots.
It's quite clear that with the PROPER MEDICAL ADVICE, a pilot can get in to the military and (gulp) become a pilot.
You just may want to pick another profession.
Thank you John for posting your experiences!!!
Allen
> I had the eye exam portion of the Army Flight Physical Class 1W/1A for > Warrant Officers today. To my surprise, I hadn't even scheduled an [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > taking time answering my questions, via the newsgroup or emails, it > means a lot. I will hang around and participate more often. otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 06:01 GMT Dear Allen,
John is his "own man".
He had every opportunity to read many things, and I encouraged him to do so.
The use of the plus required a personal commitment -- rather heavy indeed. It is not a casual thing to do -- and I would not expect most to do it.
Further, why do you post here. Read the preceeding posts -- I have said NOTHING AT ALL. It is simply John's statement of his concerns with passing the military requirement to pass the exam. In this case he was concerned with both 20/20 and passing the required cycloplegic exam.
I did suggest some methods that he could use to verify that his refractive state was SLIGHTLY positive, i.e., Snellen chart and plus lens that would give him some more confidence in his work.
But other than that -- this is none of your business -- nor your concern.
Best,
Otis
Dan Abel - 01 Jun 2005 19:19 GMT > But other than that -- this is none of your business -- nor > your concern. If it's none of our business, and none of our concern, WHY DO YOU POST IT HERE?
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 06:14 GMT Dear Allen,
You are not a "professional" OD and are not qualified to give advice of this nature.
Further -- I recognize that professionals disagree.
This is NOT AN INSULT. The are trained along similar lines, but after years of practice they come to profoundly different conclusions about science and experimental facts.
The fact that they do is of great benifit to all of us -- because that is how new methods and better solutions develope in science, and YES in "medicine".
As an engineer I keep informed of these developments and refer a person to a highly qualified OPTOMETRIST who supports YOUR RIGHT to an infomrmed, COMPETENT professional.
That is Steve Leung OD. You (and others) might read his site:
www.chinamyopia.org
to underst this isssue of prevention on the threshold of nearsighedness -- for those who desire to keep their distant vision clear through the school years.
The purpose of science and sci.med.vision is to make this information generally available for the pilots and students-of-science who have the essential interest in protecting their distant vision.
They have nothing to lose in reviewing this information.
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 01 Jun 2005 06:44 GMT > That is Steve Leung OD. You (and others) might > read his site: There are web sites that claim the earth is flat and others that claim peach pits cure cancer.
Where does Dr. Leung report his controlled comparisons between treated and untreated groups?
-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 14:42 GMT Dear Mike,
If you study tree-bark or the bugs that infest under the tree-bark you will be an expert of such things.
But when you have your nose (myopically) burried in the tree-bark -- you will have no idea about the forest in broad prespective.
We both agree that prevention with the plus is difficult.
But there is a broad-based understanding of the natural eye that the natural eye (as a sophisticated system) must change its refractive state (output) as the visual enviromnt (in diopters) "input" is changed.
This has NOTHING to do with medicine.
It is simply a matter of experimental testing an verifiction. I posted this study previously.
Steve, as a parent and an OD can take actions with his own children -- that he can not take with the general public. He has every right to do this.
And you as an OD have every right to put a minus lens on your children as well as grandchildren.
That is the true-nature of a "second opinion".
You must do what you think is right -- and Steve Leung must do what he believes is right -- at the threshold.
As you might recall, Dr. T. Grosvenor recommend exactly the same thing (i.e., prevention at the threshold).
It would be interesting to find out how Grosvenor delt with his own children.
The concept of the second-opinion, and the right to an INFORMED choice is always a good thing.
However it is clear from the facts available that this is a "one-time" choice for the person concerned with protecting his long-term vision -- for life.
A "wrong" decision can have serious consequences for him.
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 01 Jun 2005 15:47 GMT > It is simply a matter of experimental testing > an verifiction. I posted this study previously. I missed it. Where did you post evidence that plus lenses prevent myopia in humans?
You have not. Again your information is false and misleading.
-MT
Neil Brooks - 01 Jun 2005 16:26 GMT >If you study tree-bark or the bugs that infest under the tree-bark >you will be an expert of such things. > >But when you have your nose (myopically) burried in the >tree-bark -- you will have no idea about the forest in >broad prespective. But when you take the broad view, as Otis does, you are unfettered by issues of fact, science, or proof.
>We both agree that prevention with the plus is difficult. I mised the quote where Mike agreed with you there, Otis. Please provide a reference (egads, somebody's asking Otis to prove the veracity of one of his claims!!)
>But there is a broad-based understanding of the >natural eye that the natural eye (as a sophisticated system) >must change its refractive state (output) as the >visual enviromnt (in diopters) "input" is changed. Did I miss "box camera" in there somewhere??
>This has NOTHING to do with medicine. But if the science were legitimate and correct, the medical proof would follow . . . it doesn't . . . so it isn't. The delineation you're trying to draw is meaningless, and designed only to give you cover.
>It is simply a matter of experimental testing >an verifiction. I posted this study previously. 1) "verifiction?" Freudian slip, I imagine?
2) You've posted no successful experiment that ever showed the validity of what you claim.
Neil Brooks - 03 Jun 2005 22:48 GMT [snip]
You left out "box camera."
A Lieberman - 01 Jun 2005 23:45 GMT > You are not a "professional" OD and are not qualified > to give advice of this nature. Another bet Otis.
Please indicate to me in from my prior post that I gave advice about medical treatment.
Google is my friend pal. If my prior post conveniently got lost off your newserver, look it up, you won't find it.
AGAIN, I bet you can't and won't find anything I said in this thread giving medical advice. It's not there, only in your imaginary world along with your imaginary subjects is it there.
For all the bets I have made with you, sheeez, I could retire, and I am not a betting person!
Allen
Dr. Leukoma - 02 Jun 2005 00:06 GMT I think that what we have here is a case of an ENGINEER who wanted to be a pilot, but NOW WANTS TO BE AN OPTOMETRIST.
Sorry, not shouting. The caps are for em-PHASIS.
DrG
|
|
|