stuckindayton

Do you know why your left eye is only correctable to 20/30?

You won't need a waiver, you meet the standard. See my comment above dated May 12th. The standard is now -3.00 and we've dropped any requirements for uncorrected acuity. There is no requirement to get refractive surgery. Just wear glasses or contacts if that is your preference.

Thanks for the offer deaddebate, but this one is out of my lane. I stick with eyeballs and vision.

Kilo is correct. This picture is harder than the actual test since nearly all color normal individuals can score 90/95+ on the CCT. However, you can't compare this picture to the CCT as the true test has highly calibrated color co-ordinates (which are specifically chosen to isolate each retinal cone pigment type) and contrasts. It's impossible to say whether this picture is an accurate representation. That said, if you can see down to 80/90, that's a positive sign.

This is the form you will need to complete if you've had PRK or LASIK......http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150310-028.pdf Most people will complete their flight physical 6-12 months before they expect to start UPT training. Note that the wait time from surgery to consideration for a physical is 6 months, not one year. You will want to get copies of your pre-LASIK/PRK exam, a copy of the surgical report and any post-op exams that include a refraction. The waiver will occur when you have your physical and will be handled by the optometrists and flight docs. You don't have to do anything other than get the documents I described. I'm not clear on your current status. If you are on orders, there is an application process even if you are going to a civilian doctor. If you are a traditional reservist, you do everything on your own. Let me know if you have further questions.

If your prescription for glasses/contacts is -2.75, you're fine. That includes the astigmatism as well? I'm attaching Table One of the MSD that covers refractive error. The most myopic meridian of your Rx cannot exceed -3.00, however, we only refract to 20/20 (not to best vision) and we do it under dilated conditions which relaxes the accommodative system and brings your Rx down. If you have any questions, post your latest refraction and I can comment more specifically. MSD Table 1.pptx

The standard used to be -1.50 and they used to waive up to -3.00. The waiver was a mere formality. They were granted 100% of the time. It just added additional administrative burden. So, the standard is now -3.00 and they don't waive above that. So, yes, if you are above -3.00 I would expect a DQ.

Waiver guide is here: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-160413-020.pdf I cannot find a non-CAC MSD (Medical Standards Directory). If you have CAC access, it's on the Knowledge Exchange. Most recent one is dated 02 Feb 2016. AFI 48-123 is no longer used for physical standards. I can tell you the only thing that has changed is that the standard for myopia for IFC I and IFC IA has become the old waiver limit and there are no longer waivers for myopia. This was a mere formality to reduce the number of waivers that were nothing more than an exercise in typing. It did not change who could get in and who could not. I may be able to upload a copy of the MSD, but I'd rather ask a few people if that would be appropriate before doing so.

If everything you have posted is correct, you must be dealing with someone who doesn't know the policy. If you care to scan and PM me the actual doctor's notes I can confirm this, although beyond telling you whether you're being screwed or not I don't know what else I can do to help.

To my knowledge, there has never been an ETP for color. In the recent past, the USAFA submitted 2 ETPs for color and both were rejected. They are no longer submitting ETPs for color as they don't expect to have them approved. What was your score on the CCT (the computerized color test)? If you were 55 or above you would meet the Navy's color vision requirement.

There is no running as part of the physical. Other than that, it's quite comprehensive. You'll get an eye exam, chest x-ray, blood work-up, hearing test, dental exam, EKG, etc. It will likely be spread over several days. If you are found to require a waiver, the process takes care of itself. The flight submits the paperwork to the waiver authority (AETC) and they either approve or deny. That takes 4-6 weeks. You do not have to do anything other than sit and wait for the results. If you make it through the FC I exam, you will then go to Wright-Patterson for the MFS (Medical Flight Screening) portion, which consists of a corneal topography, color vision, red lens test, anthropometrics and a long neuro-psychiatry test which is a combination of a personality and IQ test. It is not pass/fail. It's meant to get a baseline brain function test in case you ever have head trauma down the road and is a bit of a research tool to find out what types of people become successful pilots.

"Recent appt1" is missing the sphere portion (the first number). Also, "recent appt1" was written in minus cylinder while "recent appt2" was written in plus cylinder, but when you transpose, the axis of the two are in agreement. Assuming the missing sphere numbers in appt1 are on pace with appt2, I see nothing here that would be disqualifying. Are you scheduled for an FC I exam? If so, there should be no issue. If they are trying to DQ you and not give you the chance for an FC I, you should appeal the decision. Is there a flight doc you have had contact with? I would think/hope they would help.

You may be referring to the fact that IFC I physicals at Wright-Patt will also issue an FAA class 3 if the individual meets the qualifications. I'm not aware of any other times this is done. It just happens that the flight docs at Wright-Patt are AME's and all of the FAA tests are done as part of the IFC I process. So they figure why not go ahead and save folks the time and money and issue the certificate.

Yes, you will be fine. The 21 year limit applies to active duty/ANG/Reserve wanting to get CRS while serving in the military. We've had plenty of pilot applicants show up with surgery before 21.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any indication the -4.00 D is astigmatism. In fact, if you're wearing a contact lens it is likely sphere. In that case the limit is -8.00 and you should be good to go with a good surgical outcome.

Folks, If you are considering an ETP, this is the best road map anyone will provide. The process is completely independent of the medical route and, in fact, won't occur until medical waivers have been exhausted. The key is to have people with clout support you. Thanks to ptwob408 for taking the time to post.

Refractive surgery is not out of the question, but in this case I would not consider it until all other options are considered.

If you take him to any AF Optometrist and explain that you want a cycloplegic refraction and stereopsis measurement it would go a long ways to determining if he is pilot qualified. Again, it's no guarantee, but you'll have a better feeling where he stands.

There's really not enough information to answer the question about qualification, however, there are several items I can comment on. The right eye is farsighted, hence the positive sign in front of the power. +2.25 is within the waiverable range, however, the only way to accurately measure farsightedness in many cases is with a cycloplegic refraction (using Cyclopentolate not Tropicamide/Phenylephrine). Second, the left eye is nearsighted, hence the minus sign in front of the prescription. When the eyes are different like this, stereopsis (i.e. depth perception) is often compromised. The only way to determine where your son stands would be to have an optometrist do a cycloplegic exam and measure the degree of stereopsis. Although it does not guarantee anything it would give you a much better feel for where things stand. If you choose to get this exam, either post or PM the results and I can comment further.

The reference to a "trained asset" usually means that you are an aircrew member who is trained to perform aircrew duties. For example, someone applying for pilot training is "untrained", whereas a pilot who has 1000+ flying hours is "trained." It's all about the money. The AF is reluctant to spend money when there is a risk that a person may have their flying career ended early due to medical problems. On the other hand, if the money has been spent, then it's all about keeping you flying as long as your medical condition doesn't carry the risk of sudden incapacitation.

There are alternative tests that can be used to get a depth perception waiver. Most people find them easier than the OVT (the box you look into that has Line 'A' that you referenced). However, if you can't see anything on Line 'A' your chances of passing the test needed for a waiver aren't very good.

That's not what I am seeing. Unless someone is ANG/AFRC, they may be "RPA only" and they only have to meet RPA Pilot standards. We see a handful of "RPA Only" every week. I have to caveat that I don't know the process, I just know who shows up at my door for an eye exam and what rules apply for the jobs they want.

Nothing to worry about at this point. Depth perception requirements for RPA Pilots were dropped when the 28 July 2015 MSD (Medical Standards Directory) was released.

When a waiver is submitted, the MAJCOM will usually disposition the physical for each category. So, if you are applying for IFC IA, they will consider IFC I/IA/III/RPA and commissioning. FC II only refers to trained pilots, navs and flight docs, so that doesn't apply. I've never dealt with recruiters, but from what I've seen they really don't have a good grasp on how waivers are handled. Let the system play its hand. If you don't like what is offered, then take the next step. But, don't do anything until then.

We've seen cases where services transfers had to meet FC I standards and cases where they were considered trained. In part, it has to do with whether you will be flying the same platform in the AF vs. the Army and, in part, it's up to AETC. I can't give you a better answer than that.