jwebster412
Registered User
Are you talking about redesignating?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
New Vision Requirements
- Thread starter redmidgrl
- Start date
Are you talking about redesignating?
No no no for the love of God no! Do NOT make the mistake of relying on that contact lens waiver to get a slot as an SNA. Unless something has changed in the last few months, that waiver is only for designated (read winged) aviators. I got caught when it changed over to only being designated aviators and got a shiny new NAMI whammy to go with my commission. If I were you, I would get confirmation from NAMI and be prepared to get PRK to even qualify for SNA.
jwebster412
Registered User
I am only repeating what my CO said. I am a BDCP SNFO designate and he said with confidence that I should pursue the waiver thing if I wanted to try for SNA. I am not trying right now, so I havent found out directly from NAMI. Just repeating what the Captain said in June. Also, at one point, I actually read the waiver info on the NAMI site.
Double check with NAMI by all means (via the proper channels of course
). That's the responsible thing to do. All I'm telling you is that that waiver is/was only for designated aviators as recently as two months ago. If you are going to try to get in on a waiver, I recommend you double check no later than 6 months prior to your commissioning physical if you intend to go for SNA to verify that the waiver is and will continue to be applicable to you. If you get past that point, you're too late to get PRK and you run the risk of getting disqualified and having no chance for a backup plan (unless you get lucky like I did and get stashed FOREVER and have time to get PRK then...but that's a rare condition from what I've heard).jwebster412
Registered User
If I decide to try and make the switch, I will def check. My problem is that I am not allowed to get PRK until after my commissioning. If I could get it on my own, I would, but they dont want me screwing around with it right now, which sucks for me. As often as they change things, I wouldnt be surprised if in a few months, it was all completely different. Like I said before, why dq so many good applicants based on visual acuity if PRK is so trustworthy? Seems like a waste to me.
What commissioning source are you coming from?
Stuff like this, the right answer is almost always to go ask a flight doc (maybe 2 if you don't like the first answer you get). I wouldn't worry about what non medical types say. Our info tends to be outdated or sometimes just plain wrong.
And this is getting a little beyond the scope of the original discussion. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the basic requirements to be physically qualified for SNA have changed wrt eyesight. If my understanding is correct, reading 20/30 or 20/40 on your physical does not require a "waiver" (ie another piece of paper to be approved). On mine, the flight doc just wrote "Qualified SNA, Qualified SNFO, Must wear corrective lenses" in the notes section and furthermore, when I asked him a question related to the contact lens waiver thing, he said "When we qualify an applicant for SNA or SNFO, it is not platform specific".....so as of even a few months ago, NAMI was still approving 20/25 (or as bad as 20/40 uncorrected) w/o waivers, again if my understanding is correct. I'm almost positive that I would have heard something by now if things had changed, as they had me go 10 hours out of my way last time around to just get a second set of signatures for my anthro sheet (they changed anthro sheet forms a few months back)
well, being that I'm commissioning on friday, and in doing so have gone through NAMI mid-June this year, I can tell you this is bad gouge. I tested 20/40 in my left eye and had the flight doc shake my hand and tell me I made it through the most nerve-wracking part of getting a pilot slot...as he handed me my chit that PQ-ed me for pilot. I have heard absolutely nothing from NAMI since then, so if it had changed, I would have known (and been pissed). Check it out. I sincerely doubt it's true.
The gouge I am getting about the vision standards is mixed. The NAMI website still has the 20/40 or better uncorrected policy on its PDF files. My advisor is getting back to me about the most recent policy, but as usual these policies are shaped to help fill the needs of the Navy...
For your future reference, the NAMI website is not gouge, it is official policy. It may just be out of date or incorrect. Everything else you hear or read, unless coming from a NAMI/BUMED/FS type is gouge.
Don't let the timing fool you. NAMI can and will get you when it is most inconvenient. When I was in OCS earlier this year, we had a guy in my class get a call from NAMI saying that he was NPQ because of some chest x-ray issue. That was the day before graduation/commissioning. He managed to get all the garbage sorted out that morning (and he missed our parade), but he was still able to commission with us in the chapel afterwards. Moral of the story....NAMI is disorganized and inconsistent, and they always have bad timing.:icon_rage
I know, that's why I referred back to NAMI as my source.
My advisor got back to me about the 20/40 thing. Apparently he got it confused with the now defunct 20/400 waiver. The 20/40 policy is still in place. My apologies for creating an uproar of uncertainty.
Now all I have to go back to worrying about are my Anthros...
~Red
I know, that's why I referred back to NAMI as my source.
My advisor got back to me about the 20/40 thing. Apparently he got it confused with the now defunct 20/400 waiver. The 20/40 policy is still in place. My apologies for creating an uproar of uncertainty.
Now all I have to go back to worrying about are my Anthros...
~Red
haha...I think you owe us all a round
I'll collect when I see you in A-pool
Like I mentioned earlier, very little draws out the rubberneckers more than bad gouge on SNA/SNFO vision requirements.