Lose my licence because of no glasses?

PanJet

PanJet

Well-Known Member
Okay, this is more of a curiosity post, but I was reading through the AOPA legal services stuff I get in the mail from time to time and they have this list of infractions and the standard penalties for them. Most of them were stuff like airspace violations, runway incursions, failing to comply with ATC commands, etc. and most had penalties of licence suspensions of anywhere from 30 to 120 or more days. However, two infractions listed "Revocation" as the penalty. The two were "Part 135 Operations under Part 91," and "Failure to comply with conditions on a medical certificate." What I thought was interesting is that my medical says I have to have corrective lenses. (My vision is 20/30, fine to fly with no glasses, but I got a first class medical). So I guess that means I could get in more trouble for not wearing my glasses than for busting into Class B or a TFR. At least that's the way I read it. I thought that was interesting. Maybe AOPA, as much as I like them, is just trying to get you to buy their legal services by presenting the worst possible scenario as an alternative.
confused.gif


Comments? Clarifications?
 
I think its pretty self explanatory. When your license says "Must wear corrective lenses" then you must wear corrective lenses. Next time you get your medical try to get it removed if you can get through the test without them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think its pretty self explanatory. When your license says "Must wear corrective lenses" then you must wear corrective lenses. Next time you get your medical try to get it removed if you can get through the test without them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that, and obviously it's a reg that must be adheared to, and I do. What's also self explanatory are the regs that say you must get a clearance to enter Class B or that you must stay clear of a TFR or that you may not taxi onto an active runway without clearance. My point is that I would think any of the above listed infractions are more serious infractions than something like not wearing glasses, yet the penalty is less.

I'll put it this way. It would be like getting a simple speeding ticket vs. a wreckless driving infraction but the speeding ticket sent you to jail while the wreckless driving infraction only made you pay $xx. That's kinda how I see it anyway. I'm not arguing against the rules, I'm more or less curious why?
 
Read the cert.

The funny thing about it is that it says you must have them in your possession. Know what I did after I got my eyes lasered?

I put my glasses, which I didn't need anymore, in my flight bag. Know why? If I got ramp checked, I was complying with the certificate.

Sure, I could have told the FAA that I had my eyes lasered, my vision was 20/20, and I no longer needed my glasses. Odds are they'd have accepted that explanation and not done anything.

But why risk it?
 
Well, they couldn't tell they were busting the class B airspace because they couldn't see!
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing against the rules, I'm more or less curious why?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a question of impact of the event.

Ask yourself: Is busting bravo more serious than flying without glasses?

IMHO, no. Busting bravo means you strayed into airspace, got caught by ATC, and then (hopefully) you promptly corrected the error, but it does not impact your ability to pilot the aircraft. Just means you made a mistake. It happens. Could you lose your ticket for that? Absolutely.

On the other hand, if you take off without your glasses how do you see traffic, signs, clouds, buildings, towers, mountains, or the runway for that matter? By not wearing your glasses your putting yourself and others in immediate risk, because you can't see.

To draw a parallel between this and your driving example, speeding is busting bravo. Not a good idea, but all told not the worst thing in the world, because as long as corrective action was taken promptly chances are no one got hurt. Flying without your glasses is like reckless operation, because you are putting others at risk as soon as you start the engine. In truth flying without your glasses would be more akin to DUI, because you're ability to operate the aircraft has been impaired.

That's how I see it.

Naunga
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, they couldn't tell they were busting the class B airspace because they couldn't see!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Huh, that's interresting. Maybe I should have my prescription checked becasue now that you mentioned it, I don't think I've ever been able to see any kind of airspace. I mean I see it on the chart, but when I look for it in real life, all I see is air. Shoot, now that I think about it, I can't see air either. My eyes must be going fast.
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, they couldn't tell they were busting the class B airspace because they couldn't see!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Huh, that's interresting. Maybe I should have my prescription checked becasue now that you mentioned it, I don't think I've ever been able to see any kind of airspace. I mean I see it on the chart, but when I look for it in real life, all I see is air. Shoot, now that I think about it, I can't see air either. My eyes must be going fast.
grin.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
You mean you don't see those big blue walls in the sky around bravo airports?

Huh. You must just be weird
insane.gif


Naunga
 
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Next time I'll try harder.

And I'm spoiled. I get a fancy laser light show if I bust airspace.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing against the rules, I'm more or less curious why?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a question of impact of the event.

Ask yourself: Is busting bravo more serious than flying without glasses?

IMHO, no. Busting bravo means you strayed into airspace, got caught by ATC, and then (hopefully) you promptly corrected the error, but it does not impact your ability to pilot the aircraft...

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying, but to that effect I believe that if you bust bravo, or more seriously and importantly a TFR, your ability to pilot, or at least navigate, the aircraft has already been impacted for whatever reason: poor or wreckless navigation skills, neglegance to do your homework, using obsolete nav charts, etc. From time to time accidents do occur even to good pilots though; I understand that.

With regards to the glasses, I see your point and I agree. I guess I more or less don't see it that way for myself personnally, however, because I can see fine without glasses. My vision is good enough to drive legally without them, and had I not gotten a first class medical (I got one to make sure I could get one before spending thousands on an aviation career) I could legally fly without them as well.

Thanks for your excellent insight.
 
[ QUOTE ]


The funny thing about it is that it says you must have them in your possession. Know what I did after I got my eyes lasered?

I put my glasses, which I didn't need anymore, in my flight bag. Know why? If I got ramp checked, I was complying with the certificate.

Sure, I could have told the FAA that I had my eyes lasered, my vision was 20/20, and I no longer needed my glasses. Odds are they'd have accepted that explanation and not done anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

My medical states "holder must wear corrective lenses for distant vision". Yours may be different than others depending on the AME.

Also, aren't you supposed to inform the FAA you had lasik completed? When I was investigating lasik, the doctor who performed it needed to send a form to FAA offices that my vision was 20/20, and then the FAA would issue a new medical with the restriction removed.

~wheelsup
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Next time I'll try harder.


[/ QUOTE ]
confused.gif
Maybe its me who should try harder. My apologies, didn't mean to offend. I thought your joke was funny and I was just trying to add to it.
 
[ QUOTE ]

My medical states "holder must wear corrective lenses for distant vision".

[/ QUOTE ]
Even so, if you've got them in your possession during a ramp check, there's no way the inspector could prove you weren't going to wear them once you started the engine up. Having them with you kind of implies intention to wear them, and that would work in your favor if the FAA wanted to push the issue.
 
Throw a $10 pair of 'cheaters' in your flight kit and don't worry about it.

So when the fed says "So, umm, where are your corrective lenses", you've at least got something.

Since you're not exercising the class of certificate that requires the corrective lenses, you might be ok, but even if you're right, if you're violated it's going to take you way more time, money and hassle than it would just to throw a set of Walgreens reading glasses in your flight kit.
 
According to part 67 in the FARs, vision for first and second class medical privileges must be 20/20 or correctable to 20/20. Although you may exercise airman privileges with a third class medical and 20/40 (or correctable to 20/40) vision, the demands are higher for first or second class holders.
 
The AOPA blurb on penalties is based on an official FAA chart on the enforcement. program. But the document refers to ttypical ranges of penalties for the violation. "It's not: violate this and thou shalt receive," which much of this discussion seems to presume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top