Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
It was impressed on me a long time ago that the only acceptable "visible" jewellery an officer could wear when on duty/in uniform was a wristwatch and wedding ring (if married).
My question is prompted by the edited photo below of a certain "personage" returning to AFG where clearly other "adornments" are visible. Is this type of stuff now acceptable ? If so ... how long will it be before we see a fully fledged shaman in "uniform".
Presumably said "personage" will be required to remove such items when flying on Flight Safety (FOD) grounds ?
I thought about this yesterday as I saw troops collecting.
I am time expired and middle aged, and haven't got a clue what my kids are prattling about. But I try, and I imagine that I'm receptive to change and I actually enjoy it. This sort of adornment is only a step beyond the norm that I was used to and I'm rational enough to accept that this to me, is nothing more than my norm was to those who came the working generation before me. It doesn't bother me, plus ça change.. I suppose the acid test is; how will I handle the next step or two?!
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,315
From that generation which considered, in the language of the time, that ear rings were only for 'girls, pirates and poofs', I admit to being out of touch with the current standards.
I also nearly hurled when I saw some overweight 'formerly known as WRAF' officer exposing a flabby gut roll incorporating a diamond in the Officers' Mess bar annexe at RAF Mount Pleasant a while back.... Not even 'Falklands pretty'!
And don't get me started on 'officers' with tattoos.....
But a H4H wristband is generally acceptable these days - and not unreasonably so.
I take it a few of these comments are from individuals not having set foot in the desert for a while.
The only people who see to care about this stuff as opposed to doing a good job and providing the best op output are blunties, senior officers thrusting for promotion and RSMs.
Nothing worse for morale when you are putting your neck on the line for the lads than some shiney tw@ dressing you down for arb nonsense, especially after working your nuts off for months.
As long as the guys are getting the job done, what does it really matter? Really?
When I wore green in the J, you didn't wear anything that flashed, jingled, sparkled, stood out, or that could give away your position - or wear anything that could get caught on projections, when jumping off vehicles/APC's/tanks.
Numerous blokes lost fingers when jumping down off stakeside trucks, and rings on those fingers caught on protruding bolt shanks. And anyone who has stuck a hand/arm close to anything full of electrickery with exposed bits, knows all about, how metal bits on digits and arms and legs can arc themselves to said components full of electrickery.
Starter cables are a classic - seen some particularly nasty deep burns when about 500 or 600 amps from a battery welded the jewellery to the cable terminals.
I've never worn a piece of jewellery in my life and not silly enough to get a single tatt, either. I can develop enough medical problems without the assistance of quantities of dodgy ink and dies being permanently ingrained in my largest body organ. I am carrying around a chunk of steel shrapnel lodged against a lung wall, so that's enough metal, in or on, the body for me.
It's a whole new world today, though - one used to be able to ID the difference between a girl and boy, as to which one was wearing the jewellery. Nowadays the bloke is likely to be wearing more jewellery than the girl.
Sorry to have to ask (I am a senile ex-pongo and a bit bored) but what is an OP in this context? Other person? Old pruner? Polite or witty replies only please. I may be old but I am still sensitive.
"When I wore green in the J, you didn't wear anything that flashed, jingled, sparkled, stood out, or that could give away your position - or wear anything that could get caught on projections, when jumping off vehicles/APC's/tanks.
Numerous blokes lost fingers when jumping down off stakeside trucks, and rings on those fingers caught on protruding bolt shanks"
That was how we were taught as well and for the same reasons.
But things have changed. Was watching the Sandhurst Program the other night and was sure one or two of the Officer cadets had tattoos.
When you are fighting an enemy that will happily chop off your nuts and sew them in your gob, worries about being "identified" kind of fade into insignificance.
I think its pretty obvious you are fekked either way if you get pinched over there.
Perhaps someone could explain to me (as an ex-ranker) just how a tattoo adversely affects some ones ability to be a leader?
With the decreasing size of the British armed forces surely it is more important now, than ever before, to ensure that those selected for commissioning are up to the job of leading their ratings/troops/airmen?
If some of those people have tattoos, body piercings, jewellery fetishes etc, then so what?
I would rather our guys have a competent reliable leader than some chinless, clueless buffoon who just happened to go to the right school/university and knows instinctively which knife, fork or spoon one should use whilst eating a formal dinner.
It's the 21st century, not 19th century colonial India.......
Not even 'Falklands pretty'!
