Talk:Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist insignia

Badges?

I've never heard anyone refer to their EAWS pin as a badge... EVER. Although I'm not EAWS qualified (I'm just ESWS), we always call it either "EAWS pin", "EAWS qual", or just plain "EAWS." I'm thinking the article should be renamed Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist. Matter of fact, I think that ALL the warfare qualifications should be looked at and renamed as necessary (in my own stinky opinion). I started an article on the new Expeditionary Warfare (EXW) qual and named it "Enlisted Expeditionary Warfare Specialist." Comments? Hit me up on my talk page....

Supersquid 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed a statement from this article that erroneously stated that this badge recognized personnel "trained and qualified to serve onboard flight deck capable ships while deployed at sea". The statement was removed because it is untrue. Many who earn this badge NEVER set foot on a ship; there is a 12-month sea duty requirement, but this can be fulfilled by deployment overseas ashore; otherwise, patrol aviation (VP) sailors could never earn this badge! VP sailors often go an entire Navy career without ever setting foot on a ship. There are command-specific PQS requirements, and for sailors in units deploying to ships they do address this area, but earning this badge does not necessarily qualify anyone to "serve onboard flight deck capable ships while deployed at sea". So I am removing this statement again.

Also, while it is true that in order to earn this badge you must complete the Aviation Maintenance Requirements Fundamental Course and the Aviation Maintenance Requirements Supervisor Course, there is no requirement to be in an aviation rate to complete this award. I personally know Yeoman (YN), Hospital Corpsmen (HM) and other non-aviation rates who have completed this badge while attached to a qualifying unit. Go see OPNAVINST 1414.2A and MILPERSMAN 1220-060 and see if they say anything about having to be in an aviation rate.

Ray Trygstad 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Woah there, sailor...the tone of your message above is taking this a little too personnel. If you notice something wrong, just change it or add it to the article. I come from the surface community so didnt know all of that. Good for you for adding it. I did put back in a link to aircraft carriers, becuase most people who have this badge are connected to the carrier community in some way, but you are right that there are others. -Husnock 20Feb05

---

I think the line you added is a great compromise and makes the context far more clear. I just meant that if you're not sure of the facts (like perhaps because it's outside of your community) then you should go look up the primary source material, in this case the MILPERSMAN and the applicable OPNAVINST. I've been a member of both EAWS and ESWS boards, and I still went and looked up the info before I started typing. Accuracy of information is key to the ultimate success of Wikipedia, particularly when that accuracy is under assault as it has been lately. "Commonly accepted" knowledge just doesn't cut it. I'm very sorry if I sounded too personal, but the return of inaccurate material after it had been edited out just got me going a little. I think our paths might cross a lot here: I was a European Area Studies/German major at the Naval Academy, a Star Trek fan who has interviewed Gene Roddenberry, and a former Assistant Professor of Naval Science. I certainly want to be able to work well with you to help make Wikipedia the best resource it can be. Ray Trygstad 21:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)