Progressive lenses OK for pilots?

My experience is that the progressives are fine as long as you put the
money out for quality lens. There's a big difference in quality between
the cheap and the pricier lens. Also, if your lenses are really thick
there may be too much distortion, it depends on that.

ncoastwmn

skyfish wrote:
I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
let alone the bottom part.

2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
are far enough apart to require a head turn.

3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
will be out of focus.

4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
looking out the window or at my instruments.

Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

skyfish wrote:
I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the lens,
let alone the bottom part.

2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn my head for
every single thing I want to look at... flight instruments and radios
are far enough apart to require a head turn.

3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. I can only get
good focus on about 1/3 of it. The beginning and ends of the sentence
will be out of focus.

4) how much of my attention will be on getting my glasses to work vs.
looking out the window or at my instruments.

Some of it is just getting used to the glasses. The size and shape of
the lenses is a big factor, too. The popular small-lens glasses today
can be difficult to work with. Your optometrist can probably recommend
frames that will minimize your problems.

Having said that, I use very small frame progressive lenses.
Technically, my distance vision is good enough to fly without them, but
I have corrected it to 20/15, which makes spotting other aircraft a lot
easier. But my peripheral vision is good enough without glasses that I
don't have to worry about it. Mostly I use them for reading when I am
not flying.

OK. They are progressives with 3 different focal lengths.

Now do you know what I meant?

I'm not a freakin' optician.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Yours might be a little more problematic, but I think you will adapt over
time. My brother-in-law has progressive trifocals. Talk about a PITA. You
get used to them after a while.

He either has trifocals or progressives, but not both. Trifocals have
three distinct lens whereas progressives blend continuously and thus have
theoretically an infinite range of powers.

Matt

Dan Luke wrote:

"skyfish" wrote:


I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens ...


I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.


I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with.
It sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

Matt

Ron - I do not understand "Monovision contacts are still right out as far as
the FAA is concerned."
Are you saying the FAA approves of disapproves of monovision?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
pgbnh wrote:


IIRC, about ten years ago there was an accident involving a plane which
crashed on final. It was blamed on the pilot's use of monovision. The FAA
at that time said 'no' to monovision. But also since that time doctors
have gotten better & smarter about its use. It seems the perfect solution
for the 'mature' pilots who are losing distance vision, can correct for
it, but then once corrected, can no longer read (without further
correction - bifocals or switching glasses).

Monovision contacts are still right out as far as the FAA is concerned.
Monovision LASIK (and the like) are OK.
I don't know how the FAA would feel about a monocle.

Margy got LASIK'd a while back, she now has bifocal reading glasses
(clear on top, reading correction on bottom).

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:40:10 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

"skyfish" wrote:


I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens ...


I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.


I've tried Bi-focals, tri-focals, blended, and progressive.
The first night landing I did with progressives was like the old drunk
who looks up and sees three different roads. When the nose came up in
the flare that is exactly what I saw. Like the drunk I picked the one
in the middle while I was frantically trying to pull the glasses off
and thow them in the back seat. They had worked fairly well during
the day.

I never did manage to sucessfully use tri-focals. No mater how they
ground them, or how I wore them the lines were always in the wrong
place. I finally went back to bifocals. Now some 15 years later I no
longer need glasses at a distance. My distance vision has gone back to
20:20. Now if it'd only go back to 20:10 like it was 25 years ago.

What I need are some "Ben Franklins" for reading the charts.

I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with.
It sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

Normally, "for me" they aren't a problem, but I do occasionally need
to readjust the position of the glasses on my nose.


Matt
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

skyfish wrote:
I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

Progressive lenses work great for me. My wife even has progressive
contacts (!), which she swears by. I"ve got to try those someday.

1) the distortion of my peripheral vision for the top part of the [...]
2) the narrowness of the "corridor" that forces me to turn [...]
3) can't view the entire width of a 81/2 piece of paper. [...]

None of these sound like a progressive lens problem. What else is
wrong with your vision?

Regards, Kev

"skyfish" wrote in message
0...
I want to get current on my VFR Single Engine Land license but my eyes
are not what they used to be. The strength I need for good far vision
makes it so I can't read charts in the cockpit without taking them off.

I figured I would try a progressive lens because I thought it would
eliminate the extra task of taking my glasses off to look at a chart
(less work load is good right?), but I'm concerned about a few things:

...
Any thoughts, ideas or personal experience you would care to relate
would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

This has been covered quite extensivly here recently - a quick google search
should yield lots of opinions.

But, to sum up a few hundred posts -

A) Progressives suck - regular bifocals are better. And,
B) Regular bifocals suck - progressives are better.

Depends on who you ask.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.


I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than
the progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with. It
sounds like this isn't a problem for you??

No. After a short period of adjustment, you don't notice them. I get the
mid-range ground for arm's length.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I had progressive lenses when I started flying, but I found they produced
some subtle distortions that I found bothersome. I changed to trifocals,
with the middle range adjusted for panel distance. They work fine.


I've contemplated trying conventional bifocals or trifocals rather than the
progressives, but I figured the lines would be a pain to deal with. It sounds
like this isn't a problem for you??

No. After a short period of adjustment, you don't notice them. I get the
mid-range ground for arm's length.

Although I have not tried progressives, as a carpenter walking around on stuff
way up in the air, I rather like knowing which range of lens I am looking
through.

The lines do not bother me at all. I do want to get a pair of those glasses
with a bifocal (close in lens) at the top _and_ the bottom, with distance in the
middle, for when you need to work over your head at partial hands reach. It is
sometimes not possible to tilt your head back far enough to get your work into
focus, if you know what I am dealing with. g

What was the fancy name of those things again? Anybody?
--
Jim in NC