Airline Pilot Central Forums - GFAFB/CC Ousted for being fat

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Military (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/)

- - GFAFB/CC Ousted for being fat (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/73802-gfafb-cc-ousted-being-fat.html)

charts are not adjusted for age either. Waist is the same for all ages.

Air Force Physical Fitness Standards

Air Force Physical Fitness Standards

Air Force Physical Fitness Standards

Why do women have lower requirements?
What happened to "one standard?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweetdrvr (Post 1377542)

I have serious issues with the USAF Fit to Fight Program. And you said it best. Someone tall and muscular is penalized where someone short and fat gets a pass. I know most people on here have no sympathy for this Col. Personally I think this F2F program is a HUGE joke. In reality, it is a managed RIF so that the Administration doesn't have to get the negative press of a RIF. If you can't meet the standard, you can't meet the standard. Goodbye. :mad:

I've on both sides of this issue. I've been a person running the tests as well as someone who recently found himself pushing the waist standard (I too like Col Bush can pass all the other requirements).

The problem with this test is two fold. First, Tweetdrvr pointed out the obvious flaw. The waist measurement standard doesn't account for a person's height or skeletal size. Tall muscular guys or anyone with a big waist is penalized, and sometimes it isn't fat that is the problem. Some people's skeletal system is wider than others. If the distance between pelvises is 14 inches (and that isn't uncommon for someone taller than 6 foot), that's 28 inches without even considering depth of the body. Since there are points associated with waist size (smaller the waist the more points you get), these guys can't get scores like the skinny guys can.

Second, the F2F score sheets are clearly labeled with "Health Risk Categories." If you are in the "high" category, then they are telling you that you are at a high risk for "current and future cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and other health problems." However, the member is not evaluated for these issues nor are they told they are at high risk by the medical staff/doctors! (Don't want to put that in someone's medical jacket, we might have to pay disability)

I'm 6-1 and 225lbs. Even when I worked out 3-4 times a week, including weight lifting, running, and swimming (I love to swim and I'll out swim just about anyone), my waist has never been under 34 inches since middle school. In ROTC, I scored in the 400s (never got a perfect 500), but my waist still was 34 inches.

Without accounting for height, this requirement is a joke. And the USAF leadership knows it but they don't the testicular fortitude to fix it. And this is the same leadership who gives me a coke, candy bar, bologne sandwhich, and a bag of chips for a 14 hour mission over Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 1377667)

Without accounting for height, this requirement is a joke. And the USAF leadership knows it but they don't the testicular fortitude to fix it. And this is the same leadership who gives me a coke, candy bar, bologne sandwhich, and a bag of chips for a 14 hour mission over Afghanistan.

I agree that the requirement and methodology for the height/weight standard is flawed. And as you have said, until folks in the upper leadership have the testicular fortitude to fix it, these situations will continue to happen. I, for one, am glad to see the "standard" applied fairly in this situation. I got really tired of seeing some folks, who were BTW some of the finest, highly decorated combat aircrew/pilots that I have flown with in CSAR, get booted over the waist standard....even though they aced everything else on the test. There is too much of a what applies to CGO's/NCO's doesn't apply to FGO's/SNCO's philosophy in the AD side of Air Force today. So, based upon exclusively the issue of fairness, I'm glad the descison was made...even though I don't agree with the rationale behind it or sympathize with the individual.

I think there is a lot of fitting into the "appropriate" look that is in play.

I agree with KC10 - it is a convenient way to eliminate personnel costs while laying the blame on someone else. There really is no sense of fairness about the waist measurement, particularly if it's proven that an individual has low body fat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweetdrvr (Post 1377542)

Waist measurement is a waste and makes no sense. It is not adjusted for height. A man 5'5" can have a 39" waist and pass, but look like Homer Simpson, and a 6' 1" 227lb man with 40" waist will look more athletic and probably out do the "Homer" on the physical events but fail the test. If there was a height scale, it would make more sense.

We just had an individual leave the service as a captain over weight issues. He was held back about 6 weeks at the end of T-6s because someone thought he was too heavy for the ejection seat limits on the T-6, he was. He was also a pretty solid big weight lifter type. So he starved himself to slim down to finish T-6s. He goes T-1s and gets a C-17. This is before the new fitness test was implemented and was when the old weight management program was in effect. He gained weight again, mostly muscle. He finishes Altus, but is now overweight by the old standards. So he goes round and round over body fat percentage, BMI and was aceing the old PT and aced the new PT. Someone was going to give a waiver, then that person wasn't in charge anymore, so back to square one. Next person wasn't going to waive, so now he is looking for a job. Before that person can follow through, he moves on, so back to square one. Enter the new PT test, and he can't pass based on waist. He maxed all the other events, and probably uber maxed some, so on paper he gets a 100%, but fails. He tried waivers, had himself floated and measured with electrodes by sports medicine folks at a large university to show his body fat was around 7% or less to prove his point, but the AF was unbending. That is about the gist of it, I can't remember all the details, but it is reasonably close to the truth. So this guy just wanted to serve his country, and spent 5 years on active duty, graduated UPT, C-17 initial qual at Altus and then 3 plus years casual at a UPT base to separate as a captain. There is a win for the tax payers.

From the latest in AF Times, it sounds like Col Bush is not bitter and says the AF made the right call.

Colonel: AF made a ‘fair and just’ decision - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

K is one big ass dude. I'm 6'5" 235 and he made me feel like a little fella. What a waste. Especially since USAFA beefed him up for years to be an excellent lineman. What a joke.

6 former Presidents were overweight or obese.

A History of Fat Presidents - Forbes

I guess Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't have had a chance in today's Air Force; we'd have to change Mount Rushmore.

Leadership is overrated anyway - waist measurements rule!!! (sarcasm of course)

In my army experience there were very few muscle-bound types that I'd call "fit". They had "huge" guns, but couldn't run a 2 mile to save their a$$.

A 40" waist is huge for someone that's in shape. Even the huge muscle bound in-shape guys that are 6' or higher are rarely more than 36.

Just to be sure, this is the guy we are talking about right? Definitely not the "largest" picture I found. Seems to be quite the variance with his weight in the pictures I saw.

http://www.grandforks.af.mil/shared/...-ZW329-025.JPG

Quote:

Originally Posted by reCALcitrant (Post 1377742)

What a waste.

No pun intended.