Not best pleased...

Discussion in 'Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting' started by C20, Aug 4, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. C20


    ...having just returned from my AC medical and been told I should never have got to this stage as my eyesight falls short of the requirement. I am VA2 which was clearly written on my optician's report but the required standard is VA1.

    Not exactly amused that the last 9 months have been spent waiting in vain for something that is now not going to happen; ie me becoming an AC.

    As I was not the only one this happened to today (the other guy was from a different AFCO) I think the careers offices may need to check what they have written down for eyesight standards as there appears to be a nasty discrepancy with what the medical staff has for the standards.

    Now for the 2nd time in under a year I need to reconsider my options and think whether I really do want to join a navy which doesn't seem to want me :(

    OK rant over!
  2. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Sorry to hear of your experience, something clearly appears amiss.

    Did you undergo the AFCO Medical Examination then undergo an additional medical examination for AC elsewhere? Your Opticians Report Form is usually checked by the AFCO Medical Examiner during the medical examination because the completed form is 'medical in confidence'.

    The entry standards for Rating Aircraft Controller have recently changed.
  3. Dry your eyes Princess, if you can find the Man Sized Tissues without your specs that is.
    Read and inwardly digest the first line of Ninja Stokers post on Medical standards for Naval Service reproduced here.

    Whilst I'm sure the news that you're reconsidering even serving in the RN will come as a blow to the 1SL, I'm positive that after a nice lie down and a cup of tea he'll recover. :roll:
  4. C20


    I had the initial AFCO medical back in Sep08 when I was originally going in as officer and had my eyes tested at the same time at the opticians they suggested (D&A). Today's medical was at INM in Gosport and was a lot more in depth. Written on my optician's report was "fit to proceed" so someone had obviously looked at it and deemed it OK. TBH I'm more gutted than annoyed, it was a long wait from my FATS in Feb until this medical which I rashly assumed would simply be "a tick in the box" and after which I'd impatiently be waiting for a Raleigh date. But not to be apparently.
  5. C20 thats gutting for you, but don't throw away your chance over a little eyesight problem.

    Ninja the AC medical i did was down at the naval institute of medicine, they had all my notes sent down there for mine so i assume its the same for C20, i could be wrong though as everything's chanced.
  6. C20


    Fair enough NZ but at least a warning that there might have been a problem would have been nice; for them not to even pick up that my eyesight was potentially problematic seems lax, simply for the fact that the doc didn't understand why I'd been sent there in the first place.
  7. C20


    Yeah same process Jefs, he had all the notes down there.
  8. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Aircraft Controller (Rating) in the online version of BR3 on the RN website, Chapter 5 article 0527 Summary of Entry standards indicates Visual Acuity Standard 3:

    As does the same book, same chapter, article 0532 for Air Traffic Control Officer, VA3. ( )

    Possibly the book is wrong or the online book on the RN website has not been updated since Sept 2009 - but it maybe worth double checking just in case - we all make mistakes.
  9. C20


    Hmm that's very interesting to know NS, the doc said that AT officer was VA3 but the printouts he had placed rating entry as VA1. I'd love to think he's using an old version. Thanks for that info, I was calling the AFCO tomorrow anyway but I'll get them to double check and maybe, just maybe it's not the end of the line. Cheers.
  10. C20


    And yeah, I appreciate anyone can make a mistake I'm just looking for a scapegoat at the moment, once I get over the disappointment I'll not be quite so judgemental :)
  11. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Yep, I s'pose it depends when the doc printed out his copy as it's a live document. For all we know the online version on the RN Website is not as up to date as as the online version on the RN Intranet.

    I'd be very much interested to hear who/what/where is correct. Your AFCO will probably be aware there was a Recruiting Instruction issued earlier this year regarding Aircraft Controller changes in entry standards - Ican't remember whether it included changes in eyesight standard.

    It would be interesting to find out why Officers only need VA3 if Ratings need VA1, if it's indeed the case.

    Good luck.
  12. That's the way it works princess.

    They need to want you however precious you think you are.
  13. I was with the other fella who had the same problem last week (me and him share the same CA and he puts us together for the different phases of the application process as we applied the same time)

    Anyway, this was mentioned to him at the original medical back here in Cardiff, he got onto our CA and mentioned this and it was given the all clear, hence the trip to AIB for the medical.

    Anyway, apparently our CA has had a few words with the doctor carrying out the medical before to try and sort it as the rules state two different things, i suggest you do the same.
  14. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Interesting. The AFCO will act on the information held and when the initial medical results are entered into the computer system, any discrepancy for the job selected will be flagged. If the changes are implimented after the AFCO medical examination, then "legacy candidates" usually remain eligible if they were previously - but not always.

    As most will appreciate, there are over 50 different trades which each have different standards with regard Recruiting Test scores, Recruiting Test section scores, eyesight visual acuity, colour perception, hearing, minimum weight, academic requirements, age, height, gender, Nationality, residency, personal qualities, types of criminal conviction, certain boards or courses passed, differing PJFT times relating to trade, age & gender, etc., etc.

    Problem is that each trade can change the parameters & when they do, the online reference books may understandably take time to update. It's not unusual for the online reference book to state one thing on the RN website, the same book read differently on the RN intranet & a recent recruiting instruction to override that also.

    A good example of this is there was an announcement regarding females now eligible to apply as Divers - announced to the fleet, but not yet the AFCOs, which is entirely reasonable - I found out on here! At this moment in time, as far as AFCOs are concerned, females are still ineligible to join as Divers. As with any change it understandably takes time to roll-out the various updates. Such is life.
  15. Because an Occifer has ratings to do the job, as long as he can see the rating then he is OK :p :p
  16. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Makes sense :wink:

    Only just realised you had posted this whlst busy editing my poor grammar wot I wrote (twice above).

Share This Page