-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
No more contact lense waivers?
- Thread starter whitesoxnation
- Start date
20/200???
AND SOME OF YOU WANT TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT !!??!!??
I feel your pain, however. I lost a principal appointment to the Boat School ... 20/25 and 20/20 ... no waivers allowed. And any astigmatism was a killer. Mort. I went ROTC (waivers allowed up to 20/40)and I fully intended to go NFO at the end of my senior year (already put Marine Infantry and Blackshoe 3rd and 4th choice, respectively) if I could not muster up the requisite Aviator 20/20. I got into the Flight Program with a shaky 20/20 in both eyes and it's just gotten better over the years.
Having "shared your pain" ... with or without contacts .... thank God some sanity is getting back into the selection process ... there's no substitute for good visual acuity in aviation -- military or civilian.
yes we want to fly the aircraft. i recently got my scl waiver denied and lost my bdcp pro rec. i got prk and am waiting for my three month post-op now. disclaimer: i wanted prk when i applied but they told me the scl waiver would be easier. anyways, i have been flying for three years, flown aerobatics, pulled 5-6 g's, am currently a flight instructor, and I have never had a problem while flying with contacts. i know that having 20/20 is a major advantage and less of a "risk." but it sucks when there are people with great potential that are excluded just because of their vision. after all, there are several air force pilots that wear contacts and are fine. in fact, i saw better than 20/20 with my contacts. that being said, i just hope my prk waiver goes through and hope that one day there will be more opportunities for those who were born "less than perfect."
Is the Navy/USMC really concerned with "potential"? IMHE (which is about as much as yours), you can teach anyone to fly. The medical requirements are there for a reason, and beyond that, the selection board is not going to care if you have pilot "potential". They are looking for physically qualified officer material, and as of recently, even some guys who haven't expressed much interest in flying. There are a lot of pilots out there who are skilled, but the bar is a little bit higher for Naval Aviators, and rightfully so. Life isn't always fair...
That said, good luck with your PRK/waiver....my *guess* is that it will be fine.
i know exactly what you are saying. i firmly believe that the most important part of being a naval aviator is being a leader and an officer. however, being someone who teaches people to fly for a living, i know first hand that you can't teach anyone how to fly. you have plenty of people who are very bright but can't get the hang of flying. and please don't take this opportunity to cut down my skills down as a cfi. there are plenty of people who wash out of naval training squadrons as well. what i am referring to is people who have great officer potential, and have proven that they can complete aviation training programs (although different than military). My point was these people deserve a chance too, since it has been proven that military pilots can fly with poor vision. it has been argued that the requirements were there solely to thin applicants. if it was so dangerous for a pilot to fly with poor vision... then why wouldn't they take away the wings of aviators with deteriorating vision even though they spent 2 mil training them. that seems a lot cheaper than losing $40 million aircraft (assuming a blind person would pose some sort of similar threat). and solely talking money, it seems to me it would be cheaper if a SNA (a better applicant but with contacts) is sent through training and doesn't wash out then to send someone who has 20/20 through, washout, and lose that investment.
btw, i'm not trying to argue with anyone. just trying to portray the point of view of people who have flown with contacts. it may be hard for someone who has 20/20 to understand. i know several great pilots who have the potential to excel in military aviation, but can't because of their vision. and it is kind of a bummer when you hear about people washing out because they get airsick or can't fly instruments.
btw, i'm not trying to argue with anyone. just trying to portray the point of view of people who have flown with contacts. it may be hard for someone who has 20/20 to understand. i know several great pilots who have the potential to excel in military aviation, but can't because of their vision. and it is kind of a bummer when you hear about people washing out because they get airsick or can't fly instruments.
^^ Life isn't fair - get over it. The program is what it is and its requirements are set by people trying to manage an unbelievably complex animal, which is likely way beyond your comprehension.
No one deserves anything.
Brett
Not to mention that they are not going to make any changes without some people with stars on their collars/shoulders telling them to do so. The military is not a democracy. While they might care about the little guy (ie aspiring flight student) they really dont care what the little guy thinks. And thats a good thing! We are idiots :dunce_125
^^ Life isn't fair - get over it. The program is what it is and its requirements are set by people trying to manage an unbelievably complex animal, which is likely way beyond your comprehension.
No one deserves anything.
Brett
agreed. and it seems like they are actively researching and implementing new policies. i was just making the argument that it is proven to not be an issue and they might be missing out on good aviators. thats all.
Nothing's proven ... and nothing's a certainty ... except death and taxes.
As long as the Navy has a sufficiency of 20/20 guys ... why should they dip down for candidates who bring lesser physical qualifications coming in the front door ??? Just because you "want" to fly ???
I had two B/N's who used to be pilots -- 20/20 all around in their case --- they lost their Aviator Wings at USS BOAT --- CQ at night --- very satisfactory in a cockpit in every other sense with that little, critical exception. UNCLE spent lots of $$$$ training those boys and then retraining them again .... one ended up RAG C.O.
I know two other NFO's who did not have 20/20 ... they got visual acuity waivers and retrained as Aviators. Lots of $$$ spent again. One died at the ship and today the other one flies rich tourists into a resort in Idaho.
Like others said ... life is not "fair". You are NOT "entitled" to anything just because you "want it" ...
It's what we used to call the "Breaks of Naval Air" ...
look, i'm not saying any of you are wrong. just that there are pilots in the military who fly with glasses/contacts and they are not any less qualified (as pilots not medically) than the people with 20/20. if they can do it, then it shouldn't be any different for someone in upt.
I had a flight surgeon tell me that he called guys who wear glasses and/or contacts "cheaters". Might have been b/c he wanted to be a pilot, had bad eyesight so he had to go nfo (before becoming a flight doc), but he had a this huge bone to pick with people who wore contacts/glasses and were pilots.
Speaking of UPT, isn't the air force standard 20/70 uncorrected for pilot?
for applicants yes, but must be correctable to 20/20. anything over 20/70 up to 20/400 can be waivered for applicants but they are limited. once winged, vision can deteriorate to 20/400. this is what i was referring to when i spoke of pilots who have proven they can fly with glasses/contacts.
HEY!!! So can this guy!! And he's got 20/20 eyes to boot ... give it up!!! For God's sake. We love you even if you have crappy vision ...
