Speaking of Vision -- How 'bout Progressive Bifocals?

On 2 Jun 2006 15:11:16 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Thus, removing my glasses
has become my preferred way of viewing sectionals, but that makes
maintaining any kind of a scan (inside OR out) impossible.

I once knew a guy who had Ben Franklin glasses, distance vision high
up, nothing below.

(Not clear glass! He read beneath the wire frame, or maybe they were
frameless.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

In article bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.

Amen, brother, but it sure beats the alternative!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21...
How do you look out of the top of your progressive lenses when you're
trying to spot something on the ground directly below the aircraft?

Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just progressive lenses, either.

How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've got your near-vision corrective lenses on
the bottom of your glasses? It would seem nearly impossible?

Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Well, it helps to have a high wing plane! ;-)

Actually, never had an issue with looking straight down. Like you pointed out, I will sometimes flip my glasses upside
down when working under the plane or similar.

I assume you mean progressive glasses, since I've been told it's no
longer possible to get a progressive bifocal section, at least not in
plastic.

??

What is/was the difference?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article bb6gg.1002798$xm3.949010@attbi_s21,
says...



Crap -- now THERE is something I had not considered. And it's not just
progressive lenses, either.

How DO you guys (that wear bifocals) look down from the plane when you've
got your near-vision corrective lenses on the bottom of your glasses? It
would seem nearly impossible?


No big trick - you just move your neck a few more degrees than you would
have perviously - you get used to it and you won't even notice it.

I use progressives when flying and driving, and they do not make me sick or
uncomfortable. I am "moderately" nearsighted, and can read the charts and
panel easily with no correction. The panel is just at the distance where a
slight correction is beneficial though. I find the progressives to be a good
solution - but do take the precaution to get them fitted right. Bring a
sectional with you to the optician, and sit in your pilot's posture with the
chart on your knee, or wherever you use it, and get your "close" correction
set for that. This is a bit different from the way they will set them if you
don't tell them anything specific, and it will make all the difference.

I completely agree with those who say you have to learn how to walk again -
and you should make your first steps carefully, and avoid curbs etc.

If you are very style-concious, you will be appalled by the unstylish frames
the progressives require, because it is not possible to make them effectively
in the tiny little sliver-lenses that all cool people are wearing today. You
will become persona non grata in the chic bars of Iowa City!

GF

Jay,

I see this has prompted allot of response (more than I will read), so I'll
just tell you this. I went to these for the same reasons a few years ago.
I do not have any problems. How ever in my case I can actually read a
sectional better with out any glasses. I often need to take them off to
read the airport information.

Ron Gardner

Jay Honeck wrote:

I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)

So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
distance).

So, I ordered them.

Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
thanks to the eternally variable prescription!

So, what's the verdict from my fellow "old farts" on this group? Do
you guys wear "progressives"? Or do you prefer the "lined" bifocals?
LensCrafters has a 30 day money-back guarantee (I don't actually have
them, yet), so I can change my mind.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article , says...



"Jay Honeck" wrote

Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
balking at the idea.

For good reason, IMHO.

I don't care if the "bad" result rate is only .1%. I do not want to be the
one in a thousand that gets worse vision out of the deal, or bad enough
vision that you could never fly again.

Glasses are not that bad, once you get accustomed to them. I'll keep mine,

I asked my eye-doctor about this, and his response was very pragmatic.
He said the "primary" risk was probably low enough to be acceptable, because
even though flying is important to me, not doing it any more would not be a
career loss issue. But, he said, I have over 30 years of normal life
expectancy left, and we have something like 20 years clinical experience
with this procedure, which to him makes it an unacceptable risk to benefit
ratio (because glasses are a relatively painless and effective alternative).

GF

Greg Farris wrote:

In article , says...



"Jay Honeck" wrote

Lasik (and reading glasses) is probably the ultimate solution, but I keep
balking at the idea.

For good reason, IMHO.

I don't care if the "bad" result rate is only .1%. I do not want to be the
one in a thousand that gets worse vision out of the deal, or bad enough
vision that you could never fly again.

Glasses are not that bad, once you get accustomed to them. I'll keep mine,


I asked my eye-doctor about this, and his response was very pragmatic.
He said the "primary" risk was probably low enough to be acceptable, because
even though flying is important to me, not doing it any more would not be a
career loss issue. But, he said, I have over 30 years of normal life
expectancy left, and we have something like 20 years clinical experience
with this procedure, which to him makes it an unacceptable risk to benefit
ratio (because glasses are a relatively painless and effective alternative).

That is pretty much the same logic I've used as well. Maybe it is too
conservative, but I'd hate to find out after 20-30 years (when I'm in my
late 60s to 70s) that there is some nasty side effect of this surgery.


Matt

On 2 Jun 2006 14:59:49 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com::

I have been forced to face the fact that I can no longer read a
sectional chart with my current glasses. It's been getting worse for
some time, but lately I've realized that it has become downright
dangerous. (Moreso driving a car, actually.)

Well, at least you're getting wiser. :-)

So, it was off to the eye doctor, who said I would definitely benefit
from progressive (the ones with no lines in the glass) bifocals. When
I asked her about flying, she said that they would be excellent for
viewing the panel (one distance) *and* the charts (another, closer,
distance).

The main drawback of progressive lenses compared to trifocals, is the
narrow, vertical, corrected viewing area of all but the distance
correction at the top. (Did the optician show you a diagram of the
portion of the lenses where the correction is?) This forces you to
turn your head and point your nose at what you want to see in the
close/medium range. It seems you're always nodding up and down to
make sure you're looking through the best spot for the distance you
want to see. You do that with trifocals also, but you know when
you've transitioned from one zone to another.

So, I ordered them.

Now, of course, I've talked to a pilot friend who tells me that
progressives totally suck, and will make me nauseous in the plane,
thanks to the eternally variable prescription!

I didn't suffer nausea, but I found trifocals far superior for IFR
operation. Just have the middle zone made wider (top to bottom) and
raised a few millimeters.

Beware. Polarized lenses will make it difficult for you to read LCD
displays.

Nikon polycarbonate transition lenses are light weight and very
scratch resistant. However, expect the windscreen to block enough UV
to impair the darkining while flying/driving.

Consider two pair of glasses, Trifocals with a magnetic clip-on sun
glasses for combined night and day flying use use, and progressive
transitions for casual ware. That way you can cater to your vanity
without impacting your airmanship.

Ugh. This getting old stuff sucks.

Amen, brother, but it sure beats the alternative!

Yep. I was a pallbearer for my uncle yesterday. Looking down through my
progressive lenses, I couldn't find the correct section of the lense to
focus on the grass. So as I was walking I was moving my head slightly up
and down until the grass came into focus.