-
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
Point Paper/Letter Re: Aviation Greens.
- Thread starter MasterBates
- Start date
Hey, if TR could go into combat wearing a uniform made by Brooks Bros . . . :icon_tong
cyristvirus
STA-21 FY08 College Dude
I don't know much about officer uniforms but it seems with the Navy wants us to look just like the other guy. The whole separating each other from one another is just not part of what the Navy is moving towards. It's this whole being fair kind of bull sh*t thats killing the Navy in whole.
I would like to see this uniform get put back into the modern Navy and keep some kind of a tradition going. I am glad to see officers who care about the Navy still fighting for what they want. Keep up the good fight
I would like to see this uniform get put back into the modern Navy and keep some kind of a tradition going. I am glad to see officers who care about the Navy still fighting for what they want. Keep up the good fight
Just a hunch, but it's probably not gonna be an email but an actual letter (hence the title of the thread). Plus, what's the worse they can do, say no? Hell, if there's enough support they may actually change the plan and keep it around.
I know I'm just getting close to getting my wings but to me it'd be pretty cool to keep a uniform around that was worn we they first started flying. Plus, it identifies the uniqueness of what we do.
This is a nit pick concerning the proposal:
I would drop the term Sea Bag at the end of the letter, for several reason, the most prominent that AWG were never part of the "sea bag", sea bag being defined as uniforms that are required. AWG's were never a required part of the sea bag but always optional wear. I know, never and always are very big words. Thinking back they were probably "required" by the MATS crews, as never saw a Navy MATS crew member that did not wear AWG.
The rationale for change is that a nay-sayer reading the "bottom line" would be given a hook in which to challenge the proposal.
Just a thought.
I would drop the term Sea Bag at the end of the letter, for several reason, the most prominent that AWG were never part of the "sea bag", sea bag being defined as uniforms that are required. AWG's were never a required part of the sea bag but always optional wear. I know, never and always are very big words. Thinking back they were probably "required" by the MATS crews, as never saw a Navy MATS crew member that did not wear AWG.
The rationale for change is that a nay-sayer reading the "bottom line" would be given a hook in which to challenge the proposal.
Just a thought.
Not everyone can wear bags all the time. In some jobs you can't ever wear a bag.
Good point about the web forum angle. I am willing to sign my (real) name to this letter, once it is smoothed out by the forum. I hope I am not the only one willing to put pen to paper.
Good point, don't want to make it easy to say no.
It might be worthwhile to have some sort of a petition type thing attached to show interest. If you had enough names it would be relatively easy to defeat the cost argument because it would show sufficient demand. Names, ranks, commands. It could show that there is a general interest in keeping this uniform alive throughout the aviation community, from API and the VTs to the fleet and the puzzle palace. And yes I know, those of us unwashed in API and the VTs cannot wear them, but I hope that when I get my wings (knock on wood) this uniform will still be around to wear. Speaking of which, if there is anyone getting winged soon, if it is possible to convince your winging class to spring for the Marine field expedient Leather Greens variant and get a nice picture it might help. I think that we have a chance if we can show that (1) there is general interest across the community which amounts to enough demand to (2) defray any costs of keeping the uniform in the NEX's inventory and (3) that this effort finds most of its energy not in the old salts but rather in JOs who will ensure that this uniform doesn't die out again. Oh yeah, if we want to keep these, we all actually have to pony up the money and buy the uniform so that the brass sees that we are serious and not just blowing smoke. Just some ideas.
cyristvirus
STA-21 FY08 College Dude
The only problem with this whole idea is the the Navy is full of people who give to rats a$$'s what happens to the uniform or traditions. I don't see why the Navy would get rid of an optional uniform in the first place. Good chance it was someone who didn't like the idea of the air side having their own look. Either way I hope that the uniform stays so others like myself one day may be able to continue a tradition such as this.
I think a petition may be a better idea; or at least a letter-writing drive, which ever is more appropriate. That way, there is a breadth of support from all over the community and, it can't be dismissed as a bunch of nerds on a Web forum. Which, unfortunately, is how I think AW is viewed in some corners . . .
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
We are not this:
Perhaps more like this:
Ogre does clean up somewhat well
Perhaps more like this:
Ogre does clean up somewhat well
Count me in as a signatory!
I think a petition may be a better idea ... /QUOTE]
Petition? Sort of low level mutiny? Boss, collectively WE think ....:icon_rage:icon_rage
Let put it this way: On a Tin Can, Skipper declared no wash khakis in Wardroom for eve meal; knows will make all O's angry. As Weapons Officer, you write nice point paper to CO, pointing out how tough it is for engineering to comply, highlights factors CO may not have considered. CO accepts or declines but has high regard for Weapons for contributing.
Or: You circulate a petition, all O's sign. What reaction is the skipper likely to have?:icon_rage:icon_rage
And strongly suggest that you not stand in the shawdows of the AW Forum.
