stuckindayton

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.

I don't know anyone who would do vision therapy for a 6-7 prism diopter exophoria. If everything is as you described, I would just relax and let the system do its thing. Unless there's more to the story you should be fine.

If it's an FC I, it's actually sent to AETC, not the SG. It sounds like a routine waiver. I think you're stressing more than you need to. I don't understand why you'd be seeing a civilian for an FC I exam. That's not how it usually works.

The exophoria standard for IFC I is 6 prism diopters. There is no stated waiver policy, however, I've seen exophoria up to 10 pd waived routinely and in some cases waivers are given for exos slightly larger. At that point it's really a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't seek vision therapy for this personally.

I would not sweat it. Dead Debate is right on that some waivers for excessive phoria are denied, however, sometimes that is due to the fact that they are associated with other conditions that are disqualifying. When waivers are submitted to AETC, they do not approve parts of the waiver and deny others. The entire waiver is either approved or denied. So, let's say that you have a waiver submitted for excessive phoria and color vision. Both will be denied (because color vision is not waived), despite the fact that the phoria might have been approved if it was the sole reason for the waiver. Waivers for excessive phoria are fairly routine. If you were told by docs at Wright-Patt that they were going to recommend a waiver, and the phoria was the only item out of standards, then you're pretty likely to get it approved