i know exactly what you are saying. i firmly believe that the most important part of being a naval aviator is being a leader and an officer. however, being someone who teaches people to fly for a living, i know first hand that you can't teach anyone how to fly. you have plenty of people who are very bright but can't get the hang of flying. and please don't take this opportunity to cut down my skills down as a cfi. there are plenty of people who wash out of naval training squadrons as well. what i am referring to is people who have great officer potential, and have proven that they can complete aviation training programs (although different than military). My point was these people deserve a chance too, since it has been proven that military pilots can fly with poor vision. it has been argued that the requirements were there solely to thin applicants. if it was so dangerous for a pilot to fly with poor vision... then why wouldn't they take away the wings of aviators with deteriorating vision even though they spent 2 mil training them. that seems a lot cheaper than losing $40 million aircraft (assuming a blind person would pose some sort of similar threat). and solely talking money, it seems to me it would be cheaper if a SNA (a better applicant but with contacts) is sent through training and doesn't wash out then to send someone who has 20/20 through, washout, and lose that investment.
btw, i'm not trying to argue with anyone. just trying to portray the point of view of people who have flown with contacts. it may be hard for someone who has 20/20 to understand. i know several great pilots who have the potential to excel in military aviation, but can't because of their vision. and it is kind of a bummer when you hear about people washing out because they get airsick or can't fly instruments.