bor0101 said:Hi, if a person is crosseyed, i.e. "lacking depth perception", can he still become a military pilot?
of course. you cant really tell that im crosseyed just by looking at me. and i can play sports or drive a car as well as anybody, because it's 2-dimensional. But supposedly if i were flying i wouldnt be able to tell at what height i was(i.e. in sports i supposedly rely on some orientations or some memory). depth perception tests are done as follows:scotty008 said:Do they even let crosseyed people drive?
bor0101 said:of course. you cant really tell that im crosseyed just by looking at me. and i can play sports or drive a car as well as anybody, because it's 2-dimensional.
either you put on some "3d glasses" and look at pictures and you're supposed to see that 1 of the pictures is standing out. or you put on some slides, dr flashes lights at you and you're supposed to notice them with both eyes. or he lets you look at a machine and notices that your eyes are either completely aligned, or a little crosseyed.
[/QUOTE]Fly Navy said:Driving is very much depth perception. This is why women are statistically worse parkers. There was a study done where they tested the parking ability of women and men... women always did worse. Why? They discovered their depth perception, on average, is not as good. I can't make this stuff up.
We all know the tests, we all had to do them. As far as for civilian flying, I can't remember what my 3rd class medical exam was like, I did it over 2 years ago... hopefully one of the IFS bubbas can chime in.
but i hope that such tests are at least not required for flying civilian aircraft?? i never flew a plane, but i ski and i sometimes jump as high as 10yards off the ground and i dont always land on my ass...
bor0101 said:no, driving is not about depth perception. you use various objects to orient yourself when you park, thats why you have the side mirror. and of course it's based on practice, just like hitting a baseball(you dont need depth perception for that either).
driving with 1 eye closed for me is pretty much the same as with 2 eyes, except i have a narrower field of view, i.e. with 2 eyes we all have peripheral vision which is good if you're looking for cops hiding in the dykes. but when looking straight ahead, i can calculate the distance to the car in front of me the same way whether with 1 eye or with 2.Fly Navy said:Drive with one eye closed and get back to me.
gatordev said:Believe what you want, but as someone who routinely flew w/ little to no depth perception, ie on NVGs, it is very different. It requires you to relearn what the sight picture is supposed to be. So what? Well, it proves that you can learn, like you said, but it also shows that depth perception is required. Another example of this is at night. It's hard to tell how fast you're going at night because you don't have your center, focused vision working for you. Instead you mostly use your periphrial vision where you're rods are. I guess that's a little different, but you get the idea.
If you don't notice a difference driving w/ one eye closed or not (discounting periphrial vision for a sec), the that probably indicates that it has affected you, but you've learned to overcome it. I know it's a hell of a lot easier to parallel park when I look over my shoulder then use the 2-d rearview mirror.
bor0101 said:thanks. so i guess i wouldnt be able to go into military aviation, but if i want to get a civilian pilot license to fly for fun, i should have no problem, right? That is because you claim that at night nobody has the depth perception, and since even helicopter pilots use NVG, i figure i should be able to fly helicopters(i thought those would be harder, because you have to worry about where you are all the time, while on a civlian plane you only care about landings).
gatordev said:Uh, no, that's not what I said. At night, your vision as a hole is greatly reduced. How much depth perception you lose, I don't really know. I'm sure feddoc will swing by here soon. I was just trying to equate the differences of having it and not having it. As for NVGs, civilians generally don't use them. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but the FAA is still trying to figure out how to regulate flying w/ them (are you flying instruments or VFR?). As for flying helos, you're right, they require a lot of depth perception/periphrial vision. I guess I don't really understand where you're pulling your reasoning from.
As for flying on the civilian side...I don't know. I can't remember what they test for on the physical. A romp through www.faa.gov and looking through the FARs would probably tell you.