Good for another 2 years

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...


I can't see diddly on a sectional anymore without holding it four
inches from my eyes. Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?
How about TRI-focals? Any benefit there?
--

I use trifocals. Got them because I wanted to see the instrument panel for
IFR without having to twist my head from side-to-side (vertigo inducing) and
also see approach plates up close. I also spend a lot of time in front of a
large computer screen.

Two things make them work for me: 1) The middle lens is set to focus at
about 18" (~instrument panel and/or CRT distance), which I believe is a bit
non-standard, and 2) the middle lens is 10mm high, which is very
non-standard. They'll try to tell you that 7mm is all that is available, but
this is not true. Settle for nothing less than the 10mm height. That plus
insisting that the frames are adjusted perfectly so the left and right eyes
are always looking through the same near/middle/far lens makes them easy for
me to use and adjust to. The top of the middle lens appears about 10 degrees
below my horizon, which I find about right.

Deane Judd
1977 Cessna R172K (XP) N1514V

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:30:49 GMT, "Deane Judd"
wrote in : :


I use trifocals. Got them because I wanted to see the instrument panel for
IFR without having to twist my head from side-to-side (vertigo inducing) and
also see approach plates up close. I also spend a lot of time in front of a
large computer screen.

Two things make them work for me: 1) The middle lens is set to focus at
about 18" (~instrument panel and/or CRT distance), which I believe is a bit
non-standard, and 2) the middle lens is 10mm high, which is very
non-standard. They'll try to tell you that 7mm is all that is available, but
this is not true. Settle for nothing less than the 10mm height. That plus
insisting that the frames are adjusted perfectly so the left and right eyes
are always looking through the same near/middle/far lens makes them easy for
me to use and adjust to. The top of the middle lens appears about 10 degrees
below my horizon, which I find about right.

I agree completely. During instrument training, I found trifocals
necessary to deal with my nearsighted and farsightedness. I had the
optician make the middle segment 12mm high and position it so that the
top of it is higher than normal, positioned where the windshield and
control panel meet while I'm looking out the windshield normally. The
bottom segment is only used for reading the finest print on the chart
in dim illumination.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I have my Class 2 renewal in January and have been wondering what a
difference the presbyopia that I started noticing in low light a couple of
years back will make in my vision test. Thankfully my distance vision has
thus remained 20/20 and except for the low-light small text presbyopia
thing,,, my near vision is quite good.


Yeah, my near-vision has gone completely to crap in the last few years.
I still don't wear bi-focals, but both my eye and medical doctors told
me that my days are, indeed, numbered.

I can't see diddly on a sectional anymore without holding it four
inches from my eyes. Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?
How about TRI-focals? Any benefit there?
--
I wear progressive TRI-focals and do not have any difficulty with the
constant shift of reading panel dials and outside scanning. The only
time I've had any discomfort is flying with foggles or under the hood.
After ten or fifteen minutes (as during a VFR review) I tend to get a
git nauseous(sp?). Don't know if that's a vision problem or an inner ear
problem. The good news is I have no intention of getting my instrument
rating.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?

The best results I've gotten are from these. I've tried the type of bifocals
that have a small circular reading section. Hated them because I had to move my
head back and forth to read. I tried trifocals. These were fine during the day,
but one of the lines went right across the brake lights of cars in front of me
at night, unless I held my head perfectly (and uncomfortably) upright.

The type I have are called by a name similar to "natural", but, of course, I
don't recall what it is.

From your post, though, it seems that your normal vision is ok -- you just need
reading glasses. If this is correct, you might consider getting a pair of half
glasses. Look straight out or up for distance vision; down through the lenses to
read. An A&P I know has these and swears by them. These would be a *lot* cheaper
than progressives.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

From your post, though, it seems that your normal vision is ok -- you just
need reading glasses.

Bwa-ha-haaaa!

I can't see ANYTHING without my glasses, beyond about 6 inches. 2000 years
ago, I'd be dead by now, simply because no one would want to hunt for me
anymore...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Bhydf.664$CX1.61@trndny05...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?

The best results I've gotten are from these. I've tried the type of
bifocals that have a small circular reading section. Hated them because I
had to move my head back and forth to read. I tried trifocals. These were
fine during the day, but one of the lines went right across the brake
lights of cars in front of me at night, unless I held my head perfectly
(and uncomfortably) upright.

The type I have are called by a name similar to "natural", but, of course,
I don't recall what it is.


George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Rofl! 2000 years ago I'd have been just as dead. You'd have been named
Marco, and I'd have been named Polo and I'm afraid we'd have been
vegetarians because plants would be the only things we could sneak up on.

I took my physical a week ago, and the only thing I was worried about was my
eyesight. Class 2 requires vision corrected to 20/20 and I hadn't been to
the eye doctor in ages, so I had no idea whether my current glasses were up
to par. I wasn't worried too bad, because I really don't need a class 2, so
I left the application blank and if I my glasses didn't correct to 20/20,
I'd simply get a class 3 medical.

So, the Dr has me lean into the vision device and asks me if, with my right
eye, glasses on, I can read the top row of letters, the huge ones....
Nope... can't see a dang thing. He says "hmmm" Ok, left eye... nope not a
dang thing. So I tell him, that I really didn't think that there were any
letters there and he says "hmmm OOPS!" click, try now. Scared the crap
out of me, here I had thought I was going blind and he didn't have the
device set up correctly.

Ok, now which musical note is the arrow over.... um... um... I don't see any
notes, just the bars. OOPS! click, try now. Once again I'm wondering if
I'm blinder than I thought I was.

Anyway, after it was all over, my glasses are fine and I left with my Class
2 in my pocket. Slight low freq hearing loss in my left ear, and blood
pressure lower than average.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ViIdf.570057$xm3.484345@attbi_s21...
From your post, though, it seems that your normal vision is ok -- you
just
need reading glasses.

Bwa-ha-haaaa!

I can't see ANYTHING without my glasses, beyond about 6 inches. 2000
years
ago, I'd be dead by now, simply because no one would want to hunt for me
anymore...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Bhydf.664$CX1.61@trndny05...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?

The best results I've gotten are from these. I've tried the type of
bifocals that have a small circular reading section. Hated them because
I
had to move my head back and forth to read. I tried trifocals. These
were
fine during the day, but one of the lines went right across the brake
lights of cars in front of me at night, unless I held my head perfectly
(and uncomfortably) upright.

The type I have are called by a name similar to "natural", but, of
course,
I don't recall what it is.


George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I can't see ANYTHING without my glasses, beyond about 6 inches. 2000 years
ago, I'd be dead by now, simply because no one would want to hunt for me
anymore...

2000 years ago, hunting & gathering was kindof passe in most parts;
i.e., you might have been running an Inn as well, with a few slaves
to boot which helps with keeping costs in check, and who you could
have sent to the local shop or market to buy your food like any
civilized person; you could also get a cataract operation done in
those days and some kind of corrective lenses as well. Even the
post office was running better than today in most parts of Europe.
Only snag really, is that flying was still limited to birds.

--Sylvain

Jay Honeck wrote:

2000 years
ago, I'd be dead by now, simply because no one would want to hunt for me
anymore...

Hey, if you'd been born 2,000 years ago, you'd be dead by now. Period.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:
From your post, though, it seems that your normal vision is ok -- you just
need reading glasses.


Bwa-ha-haaaa!

I can't see ANYTHING without my glasses, beyond about 6 inches. 2000 years
ago, I'd be dead by now, simply because no one would want to hunt for me
anymore...

;-)
I used to be like that (well, it was closer to 2 inches). A bit of
Lasik and I was glasses free for 5 years, now it's the reading glasses
routine. 2 pairs of nothing on top and 1.25 on the bottom for $49.95
(clear or sun) from readingglasses.com.

Margy

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have my Class 2 renewal in January and have been wondering what a
difference the presbyopia that I started noticing in low light a couple
of
years back will make in my vision test. Thankfully my distance vision
has
thus remained 20/20 and except for the low-light small text presbyopia
thing,,, my near vision is quite good.

Yeah, my near-vision has gone completely to crap in the last few years.
I still don't wear bi-focals, but both my eye and medical doctors told
me that my days are, indeed, numbered.

I can't see diddly on a sectional anymore without holding it four
inches from my eyes. Can anyone recommend "progressive" bi-focals?
How about TRI-focals? Any benefit there?

With a correction of -6.50 my eyes are crap but the varifocals I wear are
excellent. Not bifocals not trifocals. Best thing I ever got.