Flight Visual Requirements and Testing, JAA and FAA

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: Visual Requirements for Airline Pilot in Europe

    Re: I am looking for confirmation for the following
    statements made by "Chet", a pllot.
    (Name changed for obvious reasons.)

    In Europe, the visual standard is 1.0, where they
    convert the fraction 6/6 to "1.0". Thus 6/12 is
    1/2, or 0.5, etc.

    Chet had been working with the plus, and was worried
    about passing the JAA (Joint Aviation Authority)
    test. He has verified his vision at 1.0 (both eyes)
    but was concerned about individual eyes.
    The FAA requires 20/20 in each eye. The JAA
    requires 0.7 diopters (each eye) but 1.0 diopters
    for both eyes together.

    Could some one (Jan) confirm this for me.
    I am curious about it.

    While the check for "1.0" they also test the
    eye with a minus lens, and are collecting the
    data.

    Could anyone tell me why.

    Typically a young person who is "emmetropic" (refractive
    status of 0.0 diopters, will have the potential
    of better than 20/20. Use of a mild minus will
    show this capability in a young eye.

    Here is the statement by the pilot -- who
    was pleased to pass the JAA test.

    While he passed this test, he is also on the
    threshold of failing the test. A change
    of refractive status of -1/4 diopter would
    probably result in 20/30 vision.
    This is why I advocate that a pilot
    consider the use of the plus -- if he
    is at that level of 0.0 diopters.

    ________________


    Hello!

    Chet> I'm currently home after the test.

    Chet> I passed! Within the limits of avoiding "must wear glasses" I
    got 0.8 on each eye and 1.0 with both. It feels great.
    Thanks. They also needed to test how much minus is
    required to be able to see better. I could see 1.2 with
    minus lenses. There are some JAA requirement that they need
    data on how much minus is required.

    Otis> This is excellent. The "old" word is "emmetropic". But the
    reality is that you need to continue to work with the plus
    (if you do a lot of computer work and reading.)

    Chet> But now I will receive a full "Class 1 medical" for commercial airline
    without the need for glasses.

    Otis> Again excellent. With all of that -- you could do slightly
    better, if you continue to work with the plus -- but that
    is now optional.

    Chet> I do have one thing that I wonder about.

    Chet> They do some test on the eye to see the pressure in the
    eyes.

    Otis> They are looking for glaucoma

    Otis> You are young an that is a very remote possibility -- but
    they must check for it.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    20/20= 1.0
    20/40 = 0.5 or 6/12 ( the notation 1/2 is not used)
    Otis, again I must say you NEVER learn.
    You are again mixing acuity numbers and dioptres.
    The ''0,7 and 1,0'' are acuity numbers, not a dioptres!
    If the airline pilots gets his information from Otis then the chance he gets
    misinformed is ernormous.

    http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jars/435247.pdf

    Below just a small part of the visual requirements
    These are the Class I for i.e your airline pilot
    Watch the numbers allowed in dioptres of ametropia and also the amount of
    astigmatism.
    Otis, please pay attention, they speak about ''emmetropia'' and
    ''ametropia'', recent used words you refuse to use.

    Very important to read carefully the first line where they write "OR
    BETTER".
    One reason for the excaminer to collect the data.

    JAR-FCL 3.220 Visual requirements
    (a) Distant visual acuity. Distant visual

    acuity, with or without correction, shall be 6/9

    [(0,7)] or better in each eye separately and [ ] visual

    acuity [with both eyes] shall be 6/6 [(1,0)] or better

    (see JAR-FCL 3.220[(g)] below). No limits apply

    to uncorrected visual acuity.

    (b) Refractive errors. Refractive error is

    defined as the deviation from emmetropia measured

    in dioptres in the most ametropic meridian.

    Refraction shall be measured by standard methods

    (see paragraph 1 Appendix 13 to Subpart B).

    Applicants shall be considered fit with respect to

    refractive errors if they meet the following

    requirements:

    (1) [Refractive error]

    [(i)] At the initial examination the

    refractive error shall not exceed ±3

    dioptres [(see paragraph 2 (a) Appendix 13

    to Subpart B)].

    [(ii)] At revalidation or renewal

    examinations, an applicant experienced to

    the satisfaction of the Authority with

    refractive errors up to [+5/-8] dioptres [ ]

    may be considered fit by the AMS (see

    paragraph 2 [(b)] Appendix 13 to Subpart

    B).

    (2) [Astigmatism]

    [(i)] In an [initial] applicant with a

    refractive error with an astigmatic

    component, the astigmatism shall not

    exceed 2·0 dioptres.

    [(ii) At recertification or renewal

    examinations, an applicant experienced to

    the satisfaction of the Authority with a

    refractive error with an astigmatic

    component not exceeding 3·0 dioptres may

    be considered fit by the AMS.
    Certainly I can
    They perform a refraction, when an eye is myopic Otis, you have to use minus
    trial glasses as you have to use plus glasses in hyperopics.
    Besides, they do not check for the acuity 1,0 they want to measure the BEST
    vision acuity possible
    Not only emmetropics have a possible vision acuity of 20/20 or better, again
    one of your misinformations Otis.
    The use of a minus lens does not show a better vision acuity Otis when used
    on a emmetropic eye, you realy have no knowledge what so ever on this
    subject.
    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Oct 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    Thanks for the information on the JAA.

    I will pass it on to the interested parties.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    ******

     
    Otis Brown, Oct 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Looks to me Otis, you are making up your own "values". Don't believe me?

    Check out
    http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...ley20040702.pdf+jaa+vision+requirements&hl=en

    It's amazing what Google can do.....

    I would love to see the web source you are getting your JAA visual
    standards of 1.0.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Hey Allen,

    In England they use the 6/6 notation
    The rest of Europe (to many English the isolated part of Europe) uses the
    1.0 notation
    Both notations are pointing at the same.
    BTW my url posted is an English one.
    Different from your url they use the 1.0 notation.

    Otis however can not explain even the rules in the FAA regulations right so
    what to expect when he explains the rules for the Europeans?
    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    I forwarded your commentary to "Chet" who
    enjoyed your reveiw.

    For the record, Dr. Snellen (Dutch) set up the original
    chart to "key" on a resolution of about 1 minute-of-arc,
    under room illumination conditions.

    He simply made the letters 5 minutes-of-arc tall, and
    that became the visual standard for some time.

    During the "Great War" WWI, the Army found this
    requirment to be excessive, and changed it
    to 10 minutes of arc. This standard was
    adopted around the world at the DMV standard.

    Perhaps, rather than writing, 6/6,
    we should write 6/0.9cm so the size of the
    letters is absolutly clear to all.

    20/40 (0.5) would then be 6/1.8 cm.

    It that clear?

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    *****
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Yes and if we wanted to write someones vision acuity for the distand we
    place, in Europe and several other countries, the character chart at minimal
    6 meters to avoid accomodation.(in these modern days we use projectors
    instead of charts)
    At six meters and being able to read this character (segmented 5*1 minute of
    arc) we call the visus 1.0 or as the English are used to 6/6 (they want to
    show the six meters)
    Americans call it 20/20 (they want to show the 20 feet)
    I might think (if they did) they simply set there standard requirement in
    vision acuity to 20/40 in America.
    Adopted around the world?
    Noway........
    We?
    Trying to make your own rules again Otis?
    The international agrements are fine and understood in the whole world
    except for one person.......
    The notation of eyecare professionals are, yours are not.
    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
  8. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Subject: Correcting a "slip of the pen"

    Re: A Corrected JAA review -- I was typing up this
    statement and I used the word "diopters" when I meant
    "visual acuity".


    Chet certainly knows the nature of a diopter measurement as
    well as a Snellen measurement. He is a highly skilled pilot and
    understands the meaning of "diopter" and visual acuity. In the
    months he spent clearing his vision to meet the JAA requirements,
    the subject came up, and measurement thereof on repeated occasions.

    If you wish to review this, you will find our discussions on:

    www.myopiafree.com

    In addition, an optometrist was supporting Chet's efforts an
    double checked all statements made concerning objective facts
    concerning the dynamic behavior of the eye.

    The correction? Substitude the words "Visual Acuity" for the
    word "diopters".


    Otis> Chet had been working with the plus, and was worried about
    passing the JAA (Joint Aviation Authority) test. He has
    verified his vision at 1.0 (both eyes) but was concerned
    about individual eyes. The FAA requires 20/20 in each eye.
    The JAA requires 0.7 diopters (each eye) but 1.0 diopters
    for both eyes together.

    I thank Jan for catching this slip of the pen.

    1.0 = 20/20 in the JAA system. The "corrective" lens would be 0.0
    diopters for 20/20.

    0.7 = 20/30 in the JAA system. The "corrective lens" would be
    about -1/4 diopter for 0.7 vision -- if required. Since
    Chet had 20/20 with both eyes, a -1/4 diopter lens was NOT
    REQUIRED.



    Best,

    Otis

    cc Chet
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    "Otis Brown" <> schreef in bericht

    There he (Otis) goes again making his own requirements
    You may have an corrected ametropia Otis to achieve vision 1,0 (20/20)
    You may wear glasses or contactlenses (see for details the url
    http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jars/435247.pdf (English language)

    The only thing Chet is afraid of he has to wear contactlenses or glasses
    when flying, what the hack boys I should say

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Oct 20, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.