Jump to content

stuckindayton

Super User
  • Posts

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

stuckindayton last won the day on September 21 2017

stuckindayton had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

5,349 profile views

stuckindayton's Achievements

Flight Lead

Flight Lead (3/4)

87

Reputation

  1. Agree with both of his statements. Until you are winged, you are untrained. However, I've seen cases where people who had hours in UPT were treated like trained aircrew simple because money had already been invested in them. It's certainly a gray area. You won't get corneal pachymetry annually as the good Capt pointed out, but you will get the air puff. If that reads 22 or above, it will be back to optometry more than likely. But again, if it's been decided your eye pressure is normal for your eye (i.e. given your corneal thickness and lack of evidence of glaucoma) I wouldn't envision it being any issue.
  2. 10 exophoria is the standard, but there are some waivers available for people who exceed this. There is not a set limit for what is waiverable. It depends on a number of factors that are determined when the exam is done.
  3. Yes, but it's not real common. Having an exophoria is normal, having an extremely large exophoria is a problem.
  4. Sorry to potentially state the obvious, but. amblyopia means you have a "lazy" eye. It can mean an eye turn (which would also be labeled as an exotropia), but more correctly it means an eye that can't correct to 20/20. Either an eye turn or not correctable are show stoppers for a pilot slot.
  5. Based strictly on the 3.75 value, it is potentially waiverable (and it wouldn't be waiverable for FC I if you weren't to get refractive surgery so in this case if you want a shot, get surgery). Looking at the most recent waiver guide that Google provided me, Table 4 of the "Refractive Surgery" chapter says you can have up to 6.00 D of astigmatism treated with refractive surgery and be POTENTIALLLY eligible for waiver for FC I. There are lots of other factors (is your myopia/hyperopia within limits, is there any ocular pathology that may be causing 3.75 D of astigmatism, is the outcome optimal, etc), but it is POTENTIALLY waiverable. I stress the "potentially" because this was a monumental increase from the previous limit of 3.00 D and when the change was made the understanding among the policy makers was that your post-surgery vision and refractive error would have to be stone cold normal. The waiver guide I'm referencing is a year old so it's not most current guidance, but unless there has been a titanic change in direction, standards aren't getting more strict over time.
  6. Although astigmatism is written with a sign, in reality it is a difference of two powers and thus the magnitude is important, not the sign. It's not really a hard concept, but it's hard to explain without pictures. Take an example where an eye needs a power of -3.00 Diopters in the vertical meridian and -1.00 Diopters in the horizontal meridian for optimal correction. The astigmatism would be 2.00 Diopters. There are two forms of writing this physical lens, and thus astigmatism can be written as either a positive or negative number, but it's the absolute value that is meaningful.
  7. Not even close. It's extremely rare when a flight doc is turned down for medical reasons.
  8. BS98, I can only answer a tiny bit of your questions. I know a few pilot/physicians and they were all USUHS. Perhaps co-incidence or perhaps just the easier road to travel? Don't really know.
  9. Has anyone gotten a waiver for less than 20/20 best corrected vision (for a pilot slot I presume)? Highly unlikely. I've seen many requested for best corrected vision 20/20- in one eye and none got approved. As far as the second question goes...if your eyes did not develop 20/20 vision during childhood, glasses or contacts today aren't going to get you there, nor is PRK as you know. It's kind of odd to have neither eye be 20/20. Usually people have one strong eye and one weaker eye due to misalignment or unequal refractive errors (i.e. glasses prescriptions) that were not balanced by lenses at an early age. But, it is possible to have reduced vision in each eye for other reasons (e.g. congenital cataracts, uncorrected astigmatism, etc.) You referred to "muscles not developing." Not sure exactly what is meant by that. It sounds like a generic term for a lazy eye, but again, that's almost always unilateral, not bilateral. Maybe I can clarify with more background info if you're interested.
  10. I'm not defending the article in any manner..... but, that is standard verbiage that most published research will include in some fashion. It's often to satisfy the peer reviewers who point out potential deficiencies in the work. It's not unique to this write-up.
  11. Standards are actually established through experts in each field (i.e. gastro, ophthal, ortho, etc), although you are correct that flight docs frequently are tasked with interpreting and enforcing them. I won't sit here and defend all standards as I personally don't agree with all of them either, but sometimes there's more to them than meets the eye. For example, a GI problem may not be a big deal for an ABM, but it may be a problem for deploying so it applies to all flying classes across the board. I don't know that for fact, just throwing out a possibility. Agreed wholeheartedly. It seems the AF spends a lot of money training many career fields only to have them split after the ADSC. I would say the majority of my medical appointments at the MDG utilize some type of student, resident or intern simply because the AF has to keep training folks to replace those who don't stay. Nothing worse than a phlebotomist who is still learning the trade.
  12. Unless the flight doc asked you about a recent illness, the ball is in your court at this point. Usually if WP is going to want or accept a retest it is discussed before you leave Dayton. But, if you recall anything that might be pertinent you would have to work through the waiver authority from your end. It's obviously a long shot, but nothing to lose.
  13. Like I asked, the only retesting I've heard of is if there was any question about the results being influenced by a recent illness. Apart from that, I'm not aware of a retesting process. I wish I could be of more help.
  14. I'm sorry to hear about this. I'm sure they asked at WP, but is there any chance you had a recent or semi-recent URI, allergies, COVID? Anything that may have impacted your test results? I know the AF is very down on asthma. Even heard of an elite marathoner being DQ'd for it. Makes no sense to me, but I'm certainly no pulmonologist.
×
×
  • Create New...