Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
GFAFB/CC Ousted for being fat >

GFAFB/CC Ousted for being fat

Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

GFAFB/CC Ousted for being fat

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-22-2013, 07:59 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AirGunner's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Position: King of somewhere hot....
Posts: 151
Default

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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$$.
Valid point, but if you "ball one up", you are not gonna be able to run a mile or even two to save your a$$ "fit" or not. Yards/meters from the scene is more accurate...
AirGunner is offline  
Old 03-22-2013, 08:17 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Default

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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.

You are missing the point. The standard is the same for everyone. Someone who is 5'4" can have a 38" waist. Do you realize what that person would look like? As you mentioned, a 36" waist would be marginally passing. Also, a lot of jeans/clothing that say "32" really aren't 32". So even though someone can wear a size 34 or 36 (as I do depending on brand), I tape out very near the limit. And don't get me started as to why females can have more forgiving standards than men. I mean, we all do the same job right?

The USAF always has had a way of screwing up PT tests. Back in the early 90s when I started, they used a bicycle ergometry test to validate the oxygen use level of each member under the conclusion that the more efficient your body used O2, the better fit you were. Well, not really. And they knew then that the program had big flaws. Just like now, the top brass looked the other way. They used that program until Congress mandated a change. Congress mandates a strength test, not a cardio test so the USAF had to get rid of the bike tests.
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 03-22-2013, 09:09 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
You are missing the point. The standard is the same for everyone. Someone who is 5'4" can have a 38" waist. Do you realize what that person would look like? As you mentioned, a 36" waist would be marginally passing. Also, a lot of jeans/clothing that say "32" really aren't 32". So even though someone can wear a size 34 or 36 (as I do depending on brand), I tape out very near the limit. And don't get me started as to why females can have more forgiving standards than men. I mean, we all do the same job right?

The USAF always has had a way of screwing up PT tests. Back in the early 90s when I started, they used a bicycle ergometry test to validate the oxygen use level of each member under the conclusion that the more efficient your body used O2, the better fit you were. Well, not really. And they knew then that the program had big flaws. Just like now, the top brass looked the other way. They used that program until Congress mandated a change. Congress mandates a strength test, not a cardio test so the USAF had to get rid of the bike tests.
But isn't that also why they have the push-up/sit-up and run tests? To ensure the "bottom end" is also fit?

I don't disagree that these could be better, but the military isn't an EEO employer either.

If the requirements were much more specific, would it be easier or harder overall? Would there still be enough variance in body sizes and segment lengths that there'd be quite a few outside the 95th percentile or whatever they choose to use? THEN you have a real hard time judging composition based on muscle, body fat, and all of those things, because it gets very subjective between individuals.

I'm not sure there's a perfect solution or that a significant change should be made.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 03-22-2013, 10:23 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Atlas Shrugged's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 747 CA
Posts: 344
Default

Originally Posted by Purple Drank View Post
Why do women have lower requirements?
What happened to "one standard?"
Oh no, you did'nt!
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 03-22-2013, 10:27 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AirGunner's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Position: King of somewhere hot....
Posts: 151
Default

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
Oh no, you did'nt!
Oh yes he did, Atlas...lol
AirGunner is offline  
Old 03-23-2013, 09:47 AM
  #26  
Straight QOL, homie
 
Purple Drank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Default

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
Oh no, you did'nt!
You're damn right I did.

Women do the same jobs and are paid the same as men.

Should women have different standards for their OPRs & EPRs? No? Then why are different physical standards allowed?

Anything other than equal standards is, by definition, discrimination...is it not?
Purple Drank is offline  
Old 03-23-2013, 11:28 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
UnderOveur's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Default

Originally Posted by Purple Drank View Post
Should women have different standards for their OPRs & EPRs? No? Then why are different physical standards allowed?

Anything other than equal standards is, by definition, discrimination...is it not?

Yep. The double-standards are everywhere.

Feminists wants equal pay and opportunity, but not equal "standards" (as Bill Burr so eloquently points out). Race-mongers think it's A-ok for anyone from any "minority" to be proud of their race, but not white people. It's just fine for PC-minded people to be intolerant of others, but someone who doesn't subscribe to their BS better not be intolerant. Pornography and violent video games are protected 1st Amendment rights, but don't ya dare raise a nativity scene during Christmas.

The list of such hypocrisies goes on and on. And we all know where they come from, too.
UnderOveur is offline  
Old 03-23-2013, 01:10 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: B-777 F/O
Posts: 119
Default Drawdown mentality

This whole thing surprised me since I thought the military waived or loosened the rules for many things during the last 10 years to keep the forces manned. Is this the beginning of the drawdown mentality where there is no free pass anymore. People get booted for what was overlooked the year prior and then rules keep tightening and tightening like the drawdown of 92-95? Easier to shed people this way instead of SERB, Passover, or RIF. All of which might be used again I suppose.
DoubleD is offline  
Old 03-23-2013, 01:14 PM
  #29  
Line Holder
 
106dart's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 44
Default

The AF PT test is a joke. I agree that if the person that upholds (and gives people the boot for not meeting them) the standards should be accountable for them just as everyone else. So in that regard it's good that the Col is getting the boot. However, what an incredible waste of money and experience the country is losing just because someone's waist is a few inches too large.

The PT test is a force shaping tool, plain and simple. If they really wanted the military to be healthy, they would get rid of the burger kings, taco joints, and sodas, snack bars, etc on base. The PT test is an easy kill to make up for our broken EPR/OPR system.
106dart is offline  
Old 03-23-2013, 04:50 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Atlas Shrugged's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 747 CA
Posts: 344
Default

Originally Posted by Purple Drank View Post
You're damn right I did.

Women do the same jobs and are paid the same as men.

Should women have different standards for their OPRs & EPRs? No? Then why are different physical standards allowed?

Anything other than equal standards is, by definition, discrimination...is it not?
You are preaching to the choir. The AF test is an effing joke. I watched a bunch of females take the test at my wing a few months ago. None of them passed by the standard, but they just kept on counting those pathetic pansy push-ups like they were setting some kind of world record.

The irony is that the PJs any many of us in my wing are in excellent condition but you would never know it on paper. I can't stand the hypocrisy of it all. I can't wait until it is all in the rear view mirror.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mike734
Pilot Health
155
09-03-2018 12:36 PM
Piedmonster
Regional
8
08-07-2012 09:07 AM
jackace
SkyWest
66
03-21-2012 04:15 PM
vagabond
Pilot Health
15
09-30-2010 05:31 AM
SWAjet
Major
0
03-14-2005 09:48 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices