Jump to content


Super User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by stuckindayton

  1. 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.
  2. Yes, but it's not real common. Having an exophoria is normal, having an extremely large exophoria is a problem.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Not even close. It's extremely rare when a flight doc is turned down for medical reasons.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. They are different. He was issued an FAA First Class. That's a completely different animal than a USAF Flying Class I. Apples and oranges. Civilian docs can't issue USAF certificates- only USAF flight docs do that. USAF flight docs MAY also be FAA AMEs and may issue FAA certs. The docs at WP generally offer FAA third class certs to UPT applicants processing through WP who qualify.
  15. Yea, not uncommon situation at all. Without getting your hopes up too high, the vast majority of these cases went OK. The doc (optometrist) can hopefully help sort things out.
  16. I'm assuming you're still at WP. Maybe that's incorrect.
  17. Yes, that's not 9 esophoria. I forget the conversion, but that number means nothing without converting it. The techs always converted for us so I don't really know what the raw score mean. If you haven't seen one of the docs yet, just hang tight. People failed things all the time and we often could get them through with a little better instruction, etc.
  18. 9 esophoria is quite a bit. Did you have hyperopic (far-sighted) PRK by chance? It seems unlikely as 99.8% of PRK is for myopia, but esophoria goes hand in hand with hyperopia. Either way, the esophoria could certainly be associated with reduced depth perception (technically stereopsis if you to be technically correct).
  19. Yervis, Agree with you 100% on point #1. Regarding point #2, I'm not sure the AF cares that much. Let me give you an example. My son was in ROTC with the intention of becoming an AF pilot (he's since decided the military isn't for him and is going strictly commercial). At the "Welcome to ROTC" ceremony, I asked the ROTC commander if they did any type of medical screening before bringing in young folks whose sole goal was to be a pilot. I cited the example of color vision. About 8-10% of males are color deficient and it's relatively easy to screen. He said they couldn't afford to spend a couple of thousand dollars on the device. One of the first young fellows from my son's class failed color vision at WP and was devastated. Seemed easily avoidable to me. Can't change it (a person's color vision), but would have been a whole lot better to know before spending two or three years working towards an AF pilot slot. I get the whole thing about ROTC being there to create officers, not pilots, but that seems like a bit of a bait and switch to me. As you said, the AF is a bureaucracy. Nothing more. For the most part the individuals who work there are great- some of the best people I've ever met. But, in the end, big blue is there for big blue no matter what anyone says. Don't get me wrong, it can be a great career. I was married into it (i.e. a dependent) for twenty years and spent almost the same amount of time working there myself as a civilian, but in the end the organization's number one goal is self preservation at any cost, even at the expense a lot of good people.
  20. Your point is valid. There is no question that some people who would have been perfectly safe bets in hindsight do not get selected and some people who are selected go on to have major medical complications that cut their career short. I'd like to think there was a better way, but short of training everybody and making the final decision based on their UPT performance (which won't happen for financial reasons), I don't know what that better way is.
  21. To your question "Does an FAA FC1 translate to military flying duty whatsoever?" Simply put, not really. An FAA medical is based strictly on whether you currently meet the standards for a given class and if you are expected to maintain those standards for some limited length of time (I would assume they are looking for something like 6-12 months of stability since that's how long FAA physicals are typically good for). An AF physical, certainly an initial physical, is based on expected stability of 6-10 years depending on the class. For example, a pilot applicant has a ten year commitment, thus they want someone who will continue to maintain physical standards for that length of time. The FAA AME that is signing your medical doesn't have any vested interest in your flying longevity- only that you meet standards until it's time to renew the certificate The USAF flight doc is employed by the AF to help determine where the AF spends its training dollars. There's no question that getting disqualified sucks. And there was certainly a period of time recently where the AF was extremely short of pilots- and it looks like it's going to happen again soon. But, don't confuse a pilot shortage with a problem finding qualified people to fly. The last year I was at Wright-Patt, we medically qualified more than twice the number of people the AF could train in one year. It's a retention problem, not a recruiting problem. Bottom line is that the pilot selection process is a numbers game. There are people who get lucky and people who get the short end of the stick. I always encourage a person to keep trying and things may eventually work out, but not everyone who wants to fly is going to get that chance.
  22. When I was at WP, the policy was that the 20/50 was just used as a benchmark when there was a question about complications after PRK. A person wasn't DQ'd simply because they weren't 20/50. It was to gauge whether a complication (usually scarring after PRK) needed to be addressed. Having said that, the most common reason people aren't 20/50 is that they still have a little residual prescription after PRK/LASIK and the test gets rerun with the correction in place. If you can demonstrate you are capable of 20/50 with correction, that is all that is required. That doesn't drive the requirement to wear correction while flying. That is solely based on the 20/20 and depth perception requirement. The 20/50 is a little bit of a legacy holdover from when PRK had a lot more complication than we see today. Did you also say that you failed depth perception? Is it possible you have a bit of a lazy eye? That would explain both the depth and reduced contrast sensitivity. Perhaps I'm reaching.
  23. No planned changes to the color test per my ACS sources. There is a push to convert all of the testing to a computerized device called an AVT (Automated Vision Test), but that's still only a discussion and there are no solid plans to do so.
  24. It may be possible. I don't know, but it would surprise me. The two devices agree with each about 98-99% of the time so changing wouldn't affect the pass/fail rate to any meaningful extent. I'll ask the folks at ACS and let you know what I hear.
  • Create New...