Not sure if its worth it.

Right here's the deal.
I've been told that my eyesight is just borderline to join HMF, (Going by a printout I got from a guy I know that works at an AFCO)..

Now my optometrist said it could go either way depending on who does my medical and such..
But the problem is money is extremely tight and I don't want to waste my family's cash on something that might not happen but I'm dead keen on joining up, I'm not cut out to be a civvie and since I was 6 i've had a love for heavy armour...

So what I'm asking for is your thoughts gents, (and ladies)..
I can't ask my parents as naturally they aren't too happy about me wanting to sod off to a war zone..


edit: the cost is high because I have to fly in from SA and find a place to stay and such.
Just start your aaplication and see what the Medical brings!!! Dont fall before you even get to the first hurdle!
Thanks for the input guys
There is no "borderline" with the army mate. I was initially rejected as my right eye was apparently 0.25 dioptres outside the limit.

Do you know what your prescription is?
'Future Bootie' with a love for Heavy Armour? Are you sure it's just your mince pies that are dodgy?

Surely even those in the Cape Colonies have access to an optician? Borderline is ambiguous - which side of the border are you? One side is good the other not.

Have a check up young man. Don't give up - that won't be admired.

Chap in my Battalion memorised all the AtoZ cards - he was as blind as a bat, in fact the troops called him Mr Magoo and used to nick his specs!
If you are talking RM rather than army the standards will be a lot higher. I can't find them on the web but the navy and RAF were almost always a lot more stringent - used to be all 6/9, 6/12 uncorrected, which excluded a lot of people.
Yea I was going for Marines but decided it wasn't for me, not much of a fan of naked rollmat fighting :D.
And borderline is what the medical man said, not my words,
I would hate to give up but I can't justify wasting my family's much needed money right now, hopefully things will be better financially soon.
Gobbyidiot you have any idea where I can find a list of eyesight reqs for the Army?
Found this on it mate:

Eyesight Standards The standard personal weapon is the SA80 and this requires vision in the right eye to be correctable to no less than 6/9.
Vision in the left eye must be correctable to no less than 6/36. Spectacle correction must be no greater than -7diopters or +8 in any meridian.
Certain types of surgery or laser treatment to correct visual defects are unacceptable and clarification should be sought prior to application.
The standards required by the Army Air Corps are higher than for other branches: applicants should check current standards with the Army Air Corps.

Edited To add:
i think all the info about minimum eyesight standards and how they apply to which trade your going for are contained in this "PULHHEEMS ADMINISTRATIVE PAMPHLET 2007" kindly given to me by theoriginalphantom

cant remeber which specific pages you need to look at but bear with me and ill check

PAP 2007 PDF

have aread of chapter 1 pg 1-4 for description of eyesight codes and how they work.

then chapter 4 for entry standards for soldiers

then table 2 for soldier entry standards by arm and employment (table 6 seems to show same info)

and you could have a look at table 7 for the functional interpretation of PULHHEEMS codes

hope that helps
Tamera said:
Now my optometrist said it could go either way depending on who does my medical and such..
Well the Army does your medical, so I'd say you're well and truly fcuked. :roll:
There's actually quite a lot of ambiguity around sight tests. Some people will credit you with 6/6 if you get a couple of the letters, but really you should get them all, and reasonably briskly too. People with a little myopia and a useful bit of astigmatism going "the other way" can often see quite well with a lot of humming and hawing - how long do you give somebody? Then some of the charts aren't proper charts - all the letters should be equally difficult, but on old charts you can get M, W, R, K, which require a lot more resolution than T, V, L, A. A proper up-to-date chart, a LOGMAR chart, supposedly allows for everything, including the fact that the letters in the middle are harder than the ones at the ends because adjacent parts of the retina are being stimulated. Then there's the issue of the right illumination - a proper test is pretty bright (or backlit) to get the right contrast, but sometimes they conduct it in a dingy room which is much, much harder.

Anyone who wants to improve their performance should print a chart from the web, get up close and memorise it, then retreat to a blurred distance and go through it repeatedly, looking at the blurred letters while knowing from memory what they are. You can train your visual system to recognise what a blurred "T" looks like, and your performance can improve dramatically. This isn't any daft "training your muscles" nonsense, there's good science behind it. However blurred a T and L are, reason says the light must be hitting different parts of the retina. You can learn to use that, although it will just seem as if you are seeing it. Vision is eye plus brain, so your vision really will improve, although not for the reason the "Bates" people thought.

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads