PDA

View Full Version : Sooo what happened with the PT review?



Shaken1976
07-09-2013, 03:04 PM
Anything? I thought the CMSAF was gonna take six months to review? I haven't seen anything about the review or heard any rumors....odd.

KC-10 FE
07-09-2013, 03:46 PM
Anything? I thought the CMSAF was gonna take six months to review? I haven't seen anything about the review or heard any rumors....odd.

I believe the answer to your sig trivia is "Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure".

technomage1
07-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Who knows? Maybe it will get sequestered. Here's the funny thing, though. The old AFI had a memorandum attached to it dated 3 Jan 2013. It also states "The guidance in this Memorandum becomes void after 180 days have elapsed from the date of this Memorandum, or upon incorporation by interim change to, or rewrite of AFI 36-2905, whichever is earlier."

So, as of 1 Jul, the guidance on the memorandum is now void. So, technically, everyone should be testing every six months regardless of score, and the old score charts, instructions, etc are now in effect. Now, I'm not pushing this since I have less than zero desire to see this happen, but anyone who fails from 1 Jul until the new guidance is released technically can point to this, though it may or may not help them depending on the circumstances.

Shaken1976
07-09-2013, 03:51 PM
Who knows? Maybe it will get sequestered. Here's the funny thing, though. The old AFI had a memorandum attached to it dated 3 Jan 2013. It also states "The guidance in this Memorandum becomes void after 180 days have elapsed from the date of this Memorandum, or upon incorporation by interim change to, or rewrite of AFI 36-2905, whichever is earlier."

So, as of 1 Jul, the guidance on the memorandum is now void. So, technically, everyone should be testing every six months regardless of score, and the old score charts, instructions, etc are now in effect. Now, I'm not pushing this since I have less than zero desire to see this happen, but anyone who fails from 1 Jul until the new guidance is released technically can point to this, though it may or may not help them depending on the circumstances.

So what would this change? The minimums?

technomage1
07-09-2013, 03:57 PM
So what would this change? The minimums?

For most situations not much and not to the benefit of the member. The altitude corrections would be gone. And like I said, everyone regardless of score should test every 6 months now.

But, if I tested and failed, I'd sure be talking to my ADC about how I was read the void instructions instead of the AFI ones, etc.

CrustySMSgt
07-09-2013, 04:36 PM
I'm no math major, but a 6 month review announced in Feb would put the 6 months up in Aug...

Shaken1976
07-09-2013, 04:45 PM
I'm no math major, but a 6 month review announced in Feb would put the 6 months up in Aug...

I was thinking it was Jan....

CrustySMSgt
07-09-2013, 04:50 PM
I was thinking it was Jan....

AF Times story was pushed 5 March. Trying to remember when he came through here and announced it (before it hit the presses). He started the job 24 Jan, so it was in early Feb.

Bumble78
07-09-2013, 05:03 PM
Due to sequestration they had to furlough the review.

VFFTSGT
07-09-2013, 06:59 PM
Who knows? Maybe it will get sequestered. Here's the funny thing, though. The old AFI had a memorandum attached to it dated 3 Jan 2013. It also states "The guidance in this Memorandum becomes void after 180 days have elapsed from the date of this Memorandum, or upon incorporation by interim change to, or rewrite of AFI 36-2905, whichever is earlier."

So, as of 1 Jul, the guidance on the memorandum is now void. So, technically, everyone should be testing every six months regardless of score, and the old score charts, instructions, etc are now in effect. Now, I'm not pushing this since I have less than zero desire to see this happen, but anyone who fails from 1 Jul until the new guidance is released technically can point to this, though it may or may not help them depending on the circumstances.

This holds true for all Guidance Memorandums. It is in AFI 33-360. And according the rules, the GM cannot simply be re-issued.


AFPMs and GMs are used to issue or change policy or guidance when there is not enough time to process a new publication or take an action to permanently change an existing publication. The memorandum has a reduced coordination and approval process to expedite delivery, but this reduces opportunity for organizations to evaluate impact. For this reason, the use of AFPMs and GMs must be reduced to only those instances where immediate release is required due to immediate risk to life, safety, property, or mission.

Isn't it amazing that you cannot break the rules but the leadership can break Air Force rules?!

I think anyone that suffers any adverse action has a result of the GM would have a case against the AF with the BCMR.

Oops, looks like the Air Force changed the rules again... AFI 33-360 has been changed...it now says GM's are valid for 12 months (not 6 months).

grimreaper
07-09-2013, 07:06 PM
This holds true for all Guidance Memorandums. It is in AFI 33-360. And according the rules, the GM cannot simply be re-issued.



Isn't it amazing that you cannot break the rules but the leadership can break Air Force rules?!

I think anyone that suffers any adverse action has a result of the GM would have a case against the AF with the BCMR.

Oops, looks like the Air Force changed the rules again... AFI 33-360 has been changed...it now says GM's are valid for 12 months (not 6 months).

Yup, changed to one year. When leadership doesn't want to comply with their own rules, they just change the rules so they don't have to.

"GMs expire one-year after their effective date or when superseded by a guidance publication, whichever is earlier."

VFFTSGT
07-09-2013, 07:10 PM
Yup, changed to one year. When leadership doesn't want to comply with their own rules, they just change the rules so they don't have to.

"GMs expire one-year after their effective date or when superseded by a guidance publication, whichever is earlier."

It's funny, I guess... 33-360 WAS setup to prevent exactly what is (and has been) happening...arbitrary changes to AFI's with no real review.

It use to specifically say GM's cannot be "renewed" but I didn't see that statement in the new AFI. So I guess now, commands can just issue GM's over and over again.

grimreaper
07-09-2013, 07:28 PM
It's funny, I guess... 33-360 WAS setup to prevent exactly what is (and has been) happening...arbitrary changes to AFI's with no real review.

It use to specifically say GM's cannot be "renewed" but I didn't see that statement in the new AFI. So I guess now, commands can just issue GM's over and over again.

Yup, and because they did that, our AFI's are in a constant state of change with everyone chasing their tails trying to keep up. It just goes to show 1. how poorly the AFI's are written to begin with and 2. How stupid the people writing them are that they have to keep changing, adding to them and taking away from them CONSTANTLY...i.e. 36-2903, 36-2905.

CrustySMSgt
07-10-2013, 01:32 PM
Crusty shell game aside, do you actually think there is a real review going on somewhere?

With our previous CSAF, maybe not... but listening to the current one, who's not a skinny dude, I think he's got a vested interest in looking at it. And knowing Chief Cody, he wouldn't put himself out there and say he was going to do something he wasn't. We might not like the answer we get, but I do believe it is being looked at.

technomage1
07-10-2013, 02:51 PM
With our previous CSAF, maybe not... but listening to the current one, who's not a skinny dude, I think he's got a vested interest in looking at it. And knowing Chief Cody, he wouldn't put himself out there and say he was going to do something he wasn't. We might not like the answer we get, but I do believe it is being looked at.

Yep. I got my wish with the new CSAF with him not being a string bean. lol

Silverback
07-10-2013, 07:02 PM
It would be nice if the put the 5 year age brackets again. A lot can change in the current 10 year brackets.

Pullinteeth
07-10-2013, 07:14 PM
To be perfectly honest, I could give two shits less whether or not he reviews it. They won't make it better, they will just make it worse... I don't LIKE it and would like to see some changes to make it better but since they will just screw it up more, I would rather they just left the program the hell alone...

Class5Kayaker
07-10-2013, 08:17 PM
It would be nice if the put the 5 year age brackets again. A lot can change in the current 10 year brackets.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!

My body was so much more "broken" when I tested at 39.5 years old than when I was 30, yet held to the same standard.

We're the only service that has 10 year gaps before changing the minimums and/or points values. The Army has weird ages they change at (not "even" numbers like 20, 25, etc.) and I don't recall exactly what ages they change but it's definitely not 10 years before intervals.

The Navy is at the other extreme though, they change point values with age EVERY YEAR you get older.

BIGSKEEZA
08-02-2013, 05:23 AM
Seems to me that they want to wait until it goes into effect in October to announce what should have been announced a couple days ago...treating this like promotions...keeping people waiting except not patiently!!!!

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 06:28 AM
Seems to me that they want to wait until it goes into effect in October to announce what should have been announced a couple days ago...treating this like promotions...keeping people waiting except not patiently!!!!

So, how does the program work when it expired on 3 Jul 13?

BIGSKEEZA
08-02-2013, 07:26 AM
So, how does the program work when it expired on 3 Jul 13?

Well simple...they keep it in-place, because we can't hold leadership accountable like they can us, hoping that it keeps adding to the involuntary separations numbers they are looking for. When they can't get anymore on the bandwagon from PT then they will start looking at other avenues since they see the majority of the AF is passing the test now. Since it expired and they have the majority of the force on the PT bus...nobody will even pay attention to this review until it is brought up that they got rid of the waist measurement and shifted the 20 points toward push-ups and crunches. I wonder why the AC measurement is soooo important?!? They tell us that it is a measurement tool for illness (diabetes, fat around organs)...so why isn't the hospital taping us along with slapping a cuff on your arm and metal stick under your tongue? I would rather the medical experts let me know if I were sick or in danger versus 20 points (not for me...12.6) that my waist gains me from doing absolutely nothing physically but standing there during that portion of the AF PT test.

Drackore
08-02-2013, 09:14 AM
Let's just adopt the freaking Army standards and be 100% done with this nonsense.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 10:39 AM
Let's just adopt the freaking Army standards and be 100% done with this nonsense.

Be careful what you ask for.

BIGSKEEZA
08-02-2013, 03:49 PM
Be careful what you ask for.

Most of us just want to know where the dang review is...leadership had a deadline that they didn't meet...Let us not meet a deadline on something and see what happens.

Anon
08-02-2013, 04:01 PM
Most of us just want to know where the dang review is...leadership had a deadline that they didn't meet...Let us not meet a deadline on something and see what happens.

I don't get why there are so many impatient folks. I would like to see some changes myself, but would hate for some 'quick fix' to jack things up even more or more needed changes 6 months from now because they didn't get it right. Although I think this is a high priority for leadership, I doubt it is the #1 thing on their plate. Give it time.

airgunny
08-02-2013, 05:09 PM
Check e-pubs. The updated guidance memo dated 2 Aug 13 for 36-2905 has been posted. No major changes. Must be too hard to fix!

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 05:31 PM
Check e-pubs. The updated guidance memo dated 2 Aug 13 for 36-2905 has been posted. No major changes. Must be too hard to fix!

odd... mine still shows the 3 Jan 13 on top.

Bware
08-02-2013, 05:36 PM
odd... mine still shows the 3 Jan 13 on top.

I got 2 Aug 2013

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 06:32 PM
I got 2 Aug 2013

I must be stuck in a time warp; tried refresh and Googling and all I get is the old one. :dunno:

RobotChicken
08-02-2013, 06:34 PM
"Call 'Dr. Who'; he'll make a 'phone call' for you!"

UH1FE
08-02-2013, 06:46 PM
CMSAF needs to be marked down on his EPR since it appears he thinks it was too HARD to make common sense changes. I guess he just said F it I give up.

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 06:52 PM
CMSAF needs to be marked down on his EPR since it appears he thinks it was too HARD to make common sense changes. I guess he just said F it I give up.

From what I heard there were changes recommended, so if they were shot down by the CSAF, the blame can't go to the CMSAF. Of course I can't see the updated pub, so I'm just speculating lol

TWilliams
08-02-2013, 07:01 PM
CMSAF needs to be marked down on his EPR since it appears he thinks it was too HARD to make common sense changes. I guess he just said F it I give up.

Any Chiefs, let alone the CMSAF, getting EPRs in the first place is a waste of time.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 07:09 PM
I must be stuck in a time warp; tried refresh and Googling and all I get is the old one. :dunno:

I just checked epubs. The GM has been updated with a new date of 2 Aug 13. Not one thing has been changed except the wording to reflect that this GM will remain in effect for one year from date of publishing.

TWilliams
08-02-2013, 07:11 PM
Ha! Somone must have been reading this thread and rushed to re-issue it when they found out some people actually pay attention to stuff like that.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 07:19 PM
Any Chiefs, let alone the CMSAF, getting EPRs in the first place is a waste of time.

I know a Chief that has failed his test 6 times in a row while holding the rank of Chief. Also, I know of another Chief that failed his test while holding a position in the Air Force that should never allow that person holding that position to ever fail the test. Read into that last sentence whatever you feel.

technomage1
08-02-2013, 07:26 PM
I'm seeing 2 Aug now too. My guess is they realized the old memo was out of date and reaccomplished the signature real quick so there wouldn't be a reversion back to the original (and non member advantageous) AFI. If that's the case, that's fine, I just hope real, solid change is coming. I'd rather they miss an arbitrary "deadline" to get it right than rush and half @ss it.

imported_DannyJ
08-02-2013, 07:32 PM
I must be stuck in a time warp; tried refresh and Googling and all I get is the old one. :dunno:

It says the old date off to the right in the box, but if you open the AFI the new date is right on top.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 07:34 PM
I'm seeing 2 Aug now too. My guess is they realized the old memo was out of date and reaccomplished the signature real quick so there wouldn't be a reversion back to the original (and non member advantageous) AFI. If that's the case, that's fine, I just hope real, solid change is coming. I'd rather they miss an arbitrary "deadline" to get it right than rush and half @ss it.

The only way they can get this right is by making people retest 42 days after profile expires when testing in any exempted component and then MEB those that have exemptions exceeding one year in the cardio component. Eliminate the walk test.

technomage1
08-02-2013, 07:40 PM
The only way they can get this right is by making people retest 42 days after profile expires when testing in any exempted component and then MEB those that have exemptions exceeding one year in the cardio component. Eliminate the walk test.

I'm sure you'll have this opinion right up until the day you get hurt and the medical system misdiagnoses/ignores you.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 07:44 PM
I'm sure you'll have this opinion right up until the day you get hurt and the medical system misdiagnoses/ignores you.

If I'm hurt or injured to the point I can't run for more than a year, I'd want my MEB and medical retirement.

TWilliams
08-02-2013, 07:59 PM
I know a Chief that has failed his test 6 times in a row while holding the rank of Chief. Also, I know of another Chief that failed his test while holding a position in the Air Force that should never allow that person holding that position to ever fail the test. Read into that last sentence whatever you feel.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be evaluated or held accountable. I'm just saying that the EPR isn't the right way to do it. They should have something more simple. Maybe just a short statment from their rater recommending they fill a certain position or stating that they suck and need to retire. It is really neat to see old fitness reports for different ranks. My favorite is one that Gen Marshall wrote on Gen Eisenhower that stated he was the best General in the army and under justifcation it just said "I know them all."

CrustySMSgt
08-03-2013, 06:16 AM
The only way they can get this right is by making people retest 42 days after profile expires when testing in any exempted component and then MEB those that have exemptions exceeding one year in the cardio component. Eliminate the walk test.

You keep throwing out "MEB" like it results in an automatic discharge. A fair number of MEBs determine the issue has no affect on duty performance, deployment availability, or being fit for duty and the member is returned to duty, sometimes with a blurb in their medical records waiving off elements of the PT eval.

I'm all for not letting folks skate and turn in to fat bodies, but your logic perpetuates the though process that PT is the single most important thing we do, over job knowledge and the ability to apply it, skill, or leadership. The AFI has provisions to ensure members meet standards... might not be YOUR standards, so until you make it to the top and make the rules, we'll be stuck having to live by the current ones which have a measure of common sense.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-03-2013, 06:23 AM
You keep throwing out "MEB" like it results in an automatic discharge. A fair number of MEBs determine the issue has no affect on duty performance, deployment availability, or being fit for duty and the member is returned to duty, sometimes with a blurb in their medical records waiving off elements of the PT eval.

I'm all for not letting folks skate and turn in to fat bodies, but your logic perpetuates the though process that PT is the single most important thing we do, over job knowledge and the ability to apply it, skill, or leadership. The AFI has provisions to ensure members meet standards... might not be YOUR standards, so until you make it to the top and make the rules, we'll be stuck having to live by the current ones which have a measure of common sense.

Using your logic, one could argue why even have a test. Look, the AFI already has a blurb about this, but the fact remains that many units simply aren't referring members to the DAWG. As CMSAF has repeatedly said this year, this is not a jobs program. Get fit or get out.

You can't have exemptions to work a special duty position at the AFRC now. Things look to be changing.

CrustySMSgt
08-03-2013, 06:53 AM
Using your logic, one could argue why even have a test. Look, the AFI already has a blurb about this, but the fact remains that many units simply aren't referring members to the DAWG. As CMSAF has repeatedly said this year, this is not a jobs program. Get fit or get out.

You can't have exemptions to work a special duty position at the AFRC now. Things look to be changing.

I can run faster than most 30 year olds in my unit and I max the situps in 40 seconds... I don't think my inability to do pushups (without pain) classifies me as not being fit.

I believe the whole DSD program requires non-exempt PT evals... which is absolutely foolish. Putting one standard ahead of the rest will get you people who excell in that realm, regardless how they actually do their job.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-03-2013, 08:12 AM
I can run faster than most 30 year olds in my unit and I max the situps in 40 seconds... I don't think my inability to do pushups (without pain) classifies me as not being fit.

I believe the whole DSD program requires non-exempt PT evals... which is absolutely foolish. Putting one standard ahead of the rest will get you people who excell in that realm, regardless how they actually do their job.

I'm not doubting you. There are people that have legit issues. Personally, I could care less if a person can do push-ups or sit-ups. The FAC counts all of them anyway, so they don't matter. However, cardio does. It takes some effort to run and this is the component most try to avoid.

If the walk test is a valid measurement of fitness, why not just get rid if the run? I say eliminate the walk test and if members can't run over a specified period of time, get them evaluated and get them the proper benefits they need. I don't know anyone that graduates basic training with exemptions.

imported_DannyJ
08-03-2013, 01:23 PM
I'm not doubting you. There are people that have legit issues. Personally, I could care less if a person can do push-ups or sit-ups. The FAC counts all of them anyway, so they don't matter. However, cardio does. It takes some effort to run and this is the component most try to avoid.

I'm not sure where you are, but the FAC here didn't count 20 of my last push-ups, which is why I'm taking a video camera to my next one...


If the walk test is a valid measurement of fitness, why not just get rid if the run? I say eliminate the walk test and if members can't run over a specified period of time, get them evaluated and get them the proper benefits they need. I don't know anyone that graduates basic training with exemptions.

The walk test is there to provide a standard for those that can't run. There are a multitude of perfectly justifiable reasons why some folks can't in the long run; anything from bone spurs to lower back issues from MRAP rollovers. Do those issues that can let them walk and not run (which provides motivation to stay in shape; that shit isn't as easy as you think) justify separating them? At what cost? Experience ain't cheap and good folk are hard to come by.

I'm not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate here or just being a naive ass hat. Which ever the case, I hope you change your mind. Some sense of empathy is one sign of a good leader. I'd try to work on that were I you.

imported_AFKILO7
08-03-2013, 02:11 PM
The only way they can get this right is by making people retest 42 days after profile expires when testing in any exempted component and then MEB those that have exemptions exceeding one year in the cardio component. Eliminate the walk test.

Interesting stance on this subject. I was injured during unit PT, it took almost 90 days to be scheduled for surgery. This was only after "persuading" (short of threatening) every level of the medical system. If I recover according to the "timeline" it will take 6-8 months add on an additional "42" days and I will be passed the 1 year mark, barring any additional setbacks. If your ideas were AF policy it would be a great disservice to good Airmen that were/are injured either at work or doing PT. Honestly if this were to happen to me I would complete rehab and get a job with a police department if possible.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-04-2013, 04:42 AM
Interesting stance on this subject. I was injured during unit PT, it took almost 90 days to be scheduled for surgery. This was only after "persuading" (short of threatening) every level of the medical system. If I recover according to the "timeline" it will take 6-8 months add on an additional "42" days and I will be passed the 1 year mark, barring any additional setbacks. If your ideas were AF policy it would be a great disservice to good Airmen that were/are injured either at work or doing PT. Honestly if this were to happen to me I would complete rehab and get a job with a police department if possible.

Those of you with legit medical issues are the exception rather than the rule. 1 in 5 people are exempted from walking or running for more than a year and some have been since 2010. You can't convince me that many people are that injured.

If I were in your boat, I'd be screaming loud and clear because those people are giving profile a bad name. Just look around you at work. One in every five are on a profile right now. Do you know who they are?

technomage1
08-04-2013, 08:25 AM
Those of you with legit medical issues are the exception rather than the rule. 1 in 5 people are exempted from walking or running for more than a year and some have been since 2010. You can't convince me that many people are that injured.

If I were in your boat, I'd be screaming loud and clear because those people are giving profile a bad name. Just look around you at work. One in every five are on a profile right now. Do you know who they are?

Where did you get the number from? It certainly doesn't wash with my units numbers. Also, why would people want a profile to get the walk test - which almost always results in a lower score - unless they really need it? And what does any of this have to do with our mission?

I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue, but people like you are the reason the PT test is so insanely overemphasized. Grow up and have a little compassion.

BRUWIN
08-04-2013, 09:06 AM
I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue,

"a bee in your bonnet" ????

Times are a changing. Back before we had ForumAdmin "hair up your ass" was more appropriate..

imported_StandardsAMust
08-04-2013, 12:38 PM
Where did you get the number from? It certainly doesn't wash with my units numbers. Also, why would people want a profile to get the walk test - which almost always results in a lower score - unless they really need it? And what does any of this have to do with our mission?

I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue, but people like you are the reason the PT test is so insanely overemphasized. Grow up and have a little compassion.

People don't get on profiles to do the walk test unless they have an injury that validates the need. Let me give you a big dose of reality. Here's how the game works.

If you have an A/C bigger than 37.5" and are put on a profile, you are going to fail. So, it makes sense to beg your doctor to "add" a component to the form so you can "pass" it. Usually, this results in pushups or situps, sometimes both....BUT NEVER EVER the Cardio component. While rare, a few do come through my office where someone is A/C only and exempt from p/u or s/u but can do the run/walk. This is the exception and when you review the history, usually you will find the member has had no history of cardio troubles, but has a history of failing p/u or s/u.

Next, you have the Cardio avoiders. These are the folks that hate to run period. They are a beast at p/u and s/u but just can't run. These people avoid this component at all costs and do whatever they can to not test on it. This is the most common profile I see. There are many members who don't do the cardio component and I'm sure some are reading this right now.

Finally, you have the absolute PT Test avoiders. These are the skinny ones who always seem to get on a profile right before their test...never in between. They test A/C only, score a 100 and do this for every test.

Why does it bother me? Because there is an obvious abuse to the program and I have the data that says so. That's why. And, it's malingerers abusing the system that gives legit "profiles" a bad rap.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2013, 02:32 PM
"a bee in your bonnet" ????

Times are a changing. Back before we had ForumAdmin "hair up your ass" was more appropriate..
I think “a bee in your bonnet” is a lovely euphemism! Bees are cute, bonnets are cute and putting the two together results in madcap hilarity of the wholesome variety. That other euphemism that you longingly lament is the type of thing one would hear in a CE squadron.


Where did you get the number from? It certainly doesn't wash with my units numbers. Also, why would people want a profile to get the walk test - which almost always results in a lower score - unless they really need it? And what does any of this have to do with our mission?

I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue, but people like you are the reason the PT test is so insanely overemphasized. Grow up and have a little compassion.

I get where you are coming from and sympathize with people who struggle with the test but I was glad to see more emphasis being put on the PT Test.

As for profile milkers, I know you’ve seen your share. Heck during the bike era we even had people trying to get out of taking that.

imported_KnuckleDragger
08-04-2013, 02:36 PM
Those of you with legit medical issues are the exception rather than the rule. 1 in 5 people are exempted from walking or running for more than a year and some have been since 2010. You can't convince me that many people are that injured.

If I were in your boat, I'd be screaming loud and clear because those people are giving profile a bad name. Just look around you at work. One in every five are on a profile right now. Do you know who they are?

Quit talking out your ass. Bring real stats to the discussion or stay out of it. Usually only a few people truly understand the full background of an individual's profile.

(Never been on a profile at test time/never exempted)

technomage1
08-04-2013, 03:43 PM
People don't get on profiles to do the walk test unless they have an injury that validates the need. Let me give you a big dose of reality. Here's how the game works.

If you have an A/C bigger than 37.5" and are put on a profile, you are going to fail. So, it makes sense to beg your doctor to "add" a component to the form so you can "pass" it. Usually, this results in pushups or situps, sometimes both....BUT NEVER EVER the Cardio component. While rare, a few do come through my office where someone is A/C only and exempt from p/u or s/u but can do the run/walk. This is the exception and when you review the history, usually you will find the member has had no history of cardio troubles, but has a history of failing p/u or s/u.

Next, you have the Cardio avoiders. These are the folks that hate to run period. They are a beast at p/u and s/u but just can't run. These people avoid this component at all costs and do whatever they can to not test on it. This is the most common profile I see. There are many members who don't do the cardio component and I'm sure some are reading this right now.

Finally, you have the absolute PT Test avoiders. These are the skinny ones who always seem to get on a profile right before their test...never in between. They test A/C only, score a 100 and do this for every test.

Why does it bother me? Because there is an obvious abuse to the program and I have the data that says so. That's why. And, it's malingerers abusing the system that gives legit "profiles" a bad rap.

There's another category...people who are legitimately hurt who are not large waisted. Regardless, the root cause of all of this is that the medical system is broken and the test overemphasized. The solution is to fix the root causes, not a scorched earth policy that hurts legitimately injured people.

technomage1
08-04-2013, 03:49 PM
I think “a bee in your bonnet” is a lovely euphemism! Bees are cute, bonnets are cute and putting the two together results in madcap hilarity of the wholesome variety. That other euphemism that you longingly lament is the type of thing one would hear in a CE squadron.



I get where you are coming from and sympathize with people who struggle with the test but I was glad to see more emphasis being put on the PT Test.

As for profile milkers, I know you’ve seen your share. Heck during the bike era we even had people trying to get out of taking that.

Ironically, enough, I am in CE. I rarely tend to cuss, though. I could probably count on two hands the number of times I've cursed in this forum since I joined in 2007. When I do it's for emphasis or to prove a point. I don't do it just to do it.

RobotChicken
08-04-2013, 03:53 PM
Ironically, enough, I am in CE. I rarely tend to cuss, though. I could probably count on two hands the number of times I've cursed in this forum since I joined in 2007. When I do it's for emphasis or to prove a point. I don't do it just to do it.

"And don't use the 'e-coms' either to cuss, as I found out with a warning, now I don't know why they have 'em on there?"

imported_StandardsAMust
08-05-2013, 09:07 AM
Where did you get the number from? It certainly doesn't wash with my units numbers. Also, why would people want a profile to get the walk test - which almost always results in a lower score - unless they really need it? And what does any of this have to do with our mission?

I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue, but people like you are the reason the PT test is so insanely overemphasized. Grow up and have a little compassion.

1. Where do I get my numbers from? My AFFMS database and Profile website. Where can you confirm this? Call your local FAC and ask this question "Do you see alot of profiles while testing?"
2. It's not people like me that cause this...it's those that keep failing or avoiding the test that cause this program to insanely overemphazied.

Jay63
08-07-2013, 07:05 PM
I say more PT, good for the AF good for me. Stop crying chubbies and slackers anyone can be fat but the few are lean mean AF machines or Army!!!

EastCoaster
08-08-2013, 06:38 AM
I'd be ok with more PT. Better than being in an office!

Measure Man
08-09-2013, 03:46 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

Capt Alfredo
08-09-2013, 04:01 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

Ha! Can you imagine the Air Force making people do pull-ups? No. Freaking. Way. They did do a little flexibility test thing back in the late 90s when they were thinking about overhauling the PT test. How far can you bend over and reach? No soap jokes.

Giant Voice
08-09-2013, 04:05 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

That has to be a joke. We tried the flex test in the late 90's early 00's, which was fun to watch. Pull-ups would just be colossally hysterical for the "never done a pull-up folks".

This is how I see it go down "Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Come on, Pyle! Pull! Pull! You mean to tell me you can't do one single pull up Pyle? You are a worthless piece of shit, Pyle! Get outta my face!"

Measure Man
08-09-2013, 04:14 PM
No. Freaking. Way.


That has to be a joke.

You heard it here first. Three year phase in.

imported_DannyJ
08-09-2013, 04:17 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

Dislike the content, not the post.

wildman
08-09-2013, 04:58 PM
Ah just hire the Biggest Looser trainers to make a plan. It was a joke when I was in and apparently it still is a joke.

Always,
Wildman

wxjumper
08-09-2013, 05:26 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

Sweet. Bring it on!

technomage1
08-09-2013, 05:30 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

I could deal with that. Excuse me while I sign up for Yoga.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-09-2013, 05:48 PM
If such a bet were feasible:

I would bet all the money in my checking and savings accounts that if we randomly selected a squadron in the Air Force and marched them up to a set of pull up bars that 75 percent of the squadron could not do one pull up.

Maybe 2 percent could do more than three.

Measure Man
08-09-2013, 05:55 PM
If such a bet were feasible:

I would bet all the money in my checking and savings accounts that if we randomly selected a squadron in the Air Force and marched them up to a set of pull up bars that 75 percent of the squadron could not do one pull up.

Maybe 2 percent could do more than three.

While a $13.62 bet sounds tempting, I'm sure you are correct.

BigBaze
08-09-2013, 06:04 PM
If it is true it is kind of genius, no more waist wraps to sneak through the waist measurement, although I did see a female MSgt the other day that was pushing near 3 bills, not sure if that woulda helped..

imported_AFKILO7
08-09-2013, 07:31 PM
If this is true I'll be extremely happy. Pull ups are a better barometer for strength and fitness in my opinion. If you can't do more than 5 pull ups you have a problem, barring any medical issues preventing you from doing so.

Capt Alfredo
08-09-2013, 08:42 PM
If this is true I'll be extremely happy. Pull ups are a better barometer for strength and fitness in my opinion. If you can't do more than 5 pull ups you have a problem, barring any medical issues preventing you from doing so.

Pretty sure not even the CSAF could do five pull-ups today.

Chief_KO
08-09-2013, 10:02 PM
Retirees can do five pull-tops a day...

Mr. Happy
08-09-2013, 11:01 PM
This video pretty much sums up what I think of pull ups.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAWjW6p5TUg

Gonzo432
08-10-2013, 01:32 AM
Retirees can do five pull-tops a day...

That's on like a Wednesday. Friday and Saturday we can really crank out the pull tabs.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-10-2013, 08:17 AM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

Lol. Most of the AF would be exempt from this anyway. Wouldn't matter.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-10-2013, 12:15 PM
A true test of AF fitness should be to measure how many words per min one can type, how many emails you can read (and recall) in less than 10 minutes, and how many Diversity Day, Top 3, Habitat, Adopt-a-Road clean-up, or other events you can accomplish in one week. Physical exertion events not really required in 97% of career fields.

sandsjames
08-10-2013, 01:21 PM
Rumor mill: Waist measure is out. Pull-ups are in. Flexibility test is in.

If this were true, would those who were kicked out based on multiple failures due to waist be allowed back in? It worked for others when certain regulations were changed/repealed.

wxjumper
08-10-2013, 03:13 PM
A true test of AF fitness should be to measure how many words per min one can type, how many emails you can read (and recall) in less than 10 minutes, and how many Diversity Day, Top 3, Habitat, Adopt-a-Road clean-up, or other events you can accomplish in one week. Physical exertion events not really required in 97% of career fields.

And how many taskers you can close out on a Friday afternoon.

technomage1
08-10-2013, 06:54 PM
A true test of AF fitness should be to measure how many words per min one can type, how many emails you can read (and recall) in less than 10 minutes, and how many Diversity Day, Top 3, Habitat, Adopt-a-Road clean-up, or other events you can accomplish in one week. Physical exertion events not really required in 97% of career fields.

Also how much BS you can shovel....

Bumble78
08-12-2013, 07:34 PM
If such a bet were feasible:

I would bet all the money in my checking and savings accounts that if we randomly selected a squadron in the Air Force and marched them up to a set of pull up bars that 75 percent of the squadron could not do one pull up.

Maybe 2 percent could do more than three.
I was TDY to MCAS Beaufort for some exercise. We were working in a hanger with some Marines, and every time they entered the hanger they have to do pull-ups. One day our Capt. decides he is going to show off in front of the Marines by having us out do them in pull-ups. It was embarassing. It had the opposite effect that he was hoping for.

cloudFFVII
08-12-2013, 11:43 PM
I was TDY to MCAS Beaufort for some exercise. We were working in a hanger with some Marines, and every time they entered the hanger they have to do pull-ups. One day our Capt. decides he is going to show off in front of the Marines by having us out do them in pull-ups. It was embarassing. It had the opposite effect that he was hoping for.

I would hope he could actually DO a pull up before attempting such a thing? ;) We guys tend to think with our muscles and not always our mind ;)

BIGSKEEZA
08-14-2013, 06:28 AM
Sooo...this PT review is just like the phrase, "Hurry up and wait if you're not Leadership". Long overdue but nothing is being done. I guess we'll find out once the force shaping/early out runs out and they pluck off a few more of the members before they roll out an answer. It's a shame!!!

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 02:58 PM
If this were true, would those who were kicked out based on multiple failures due to waist be allowed back in? It worked for others when certain regulations were changed/repealed.

Not exactly...when DADT was repealed (I assume that is what you were referring to), there were certian Re/SPD combinations that didn't require a waiver to get back in while others did/do. You also have to be otherwise qualified. IF someone got kicked out for FTF, it would be damn near impossible to prove it was for the waist-once you are out, no one can retrive your FTF scores until you are back in.... Could they get in? Sure. They can get in now (with a waiver), IF otherwise qualified. That would mean they would have to meet the DoD standard (ht/wt or BMI/BFM).

Silverback
08-14-2013, 07:40 PM
Sooo...this PT review is just like the phrase, "Hurry up and wait if you're not Leadership". Long overdue but nothing is being done. I guess we'll find out once the force shaping/early out runs out and they pluck off a few more of the members before they roll out an answer. It's a shame!!!

I just read the article explaining the delay. But even the article was messed up. The AFI for PT has not been AFI 10-248 for a couple of years now. It is now AFI 36-2905. I am curious what changes leadership is planning to make.

Bunch
08-15-2013, 03:04 AM
I just read the article explaining the delay. But even the article was messed up. The AFI for PT has not been AFI 10-248 for a couple of years now. It is now AFI 36-2905. I am curious what changes leadership is planning to make.

I read the article too and IMO the reason for the delay is that after trying to launch a lame preemptive strike to defend the junk science of waist measurements a couple of weeks ago that got quickly debunked by anyone who has an ounce of intelligence the big wigs went back to the drawing board.

imported_StandardsAMust
09-06-2013, 11:27 AM
I read the article too and IMO the reason for the delay is that after trying to launch a lame preemptive strike to defend the junk science of waist measurements a couple of weeks ago that got quickly debunked by anyone who has an ounce of intelligence the big wigs went back to the drawing board.

You might be right...nothing "official" has been released and we are about three weeks away from implementation on some strange new rules the CSAF said would take effect on 1 Oct 13..

imported_StandardsAMust
09-13-2013, 10:27 AM
We are just a few weeks away from Oct 1 and there is no AFI update to explain these new fitness changes...I'm beginning to lose faith with CSAF and CMSAF...

imported_StandardsAMust
09-24-2013, 06:57 PM
It's updated...I posted the info in the PT section.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-17-2013, 03:28 PM
AFI has been updated...see PT & Fitness area for details.

Pullinteeth
10-17-2013, 06:09 PM
AFI has been updated...see PT & Fitness area for details.

Where can one get a copy?

imported_StandardsAMust
10-17-2013, 06:46 PM
Where can one get a copy?

on ePUBS beginning 21 Oct 13.

wxjumper
10-17-2013, 11:17 PM
OMG I can't wait for this rewrite!!..........of practically no significant changes and a meaningless BMI measurement that practically is impossible to pass if you fail the tape test.

Folks, this is nothing more then AF leadership playing lip service, but really doing nothing at all, to the complaints the troops had on the tape test. Same shit, different day, from your leaders.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-18-2013, 10:28 AM
OMG I can't wait for this rewrite!!..........of practically no significant changes and a meaningless BMI measurement that practically is impossible to pass if you fail the tape test.

Folks, this is nothing more then AF leadership playing lip service, but really doing nothing at all, to the complaints the troops had on the tape test. Same shit, different day, from your leaders.

Wrong...now, those with a 39" waist will pass under this change...so you can be fatter and now be considered fitter.

BOSS302
10-18-2013, 01:30 PM
Wrong...now, those with a 39" waist will pass under this change...so you can be fatter and now be considered fitter.

I've come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-18-2013, 03:03 PM
I've come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.


Really? So this week, if you have a 38" waist, you fail, next week, you can have a 39" waist and pass. Who's the idiot here?

20+Years
10-18-2013, 03:10 PM
People with a 39 aren't going to pass. They already told us the number that would pass with the secondary test is very small, as it would have changed a very small number of failures. Its a way for AF to say, "Ok, we understand your concerns. Lets check this and this, nope, your still a fatty".

wxjumper
10-18-2013, 03:17 PM
Really? So this week, if you have a 38" waist, you fail, next week, you can have a 39" waist and pass. Who's the idiot here?
I have also now come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

Pullinteeth
10-18-2013, 03:32 PM
People with a 39 aren't going to pass. They already told us the number that would pass with the secondary test is very small, as it would have changed a very small number of failures. Its a way for AF to say, "Ok, we understand your concerns. Lets check this and this, nope, your still a fatty".

I am glad you believe everything they say....

wxjumper
10-18-2013, 03:44 PM
39 inches has always passed (unless you guys are talking about being exempt from all the other components and needing to score a 37.5 or below, but I didn't see any reference to that in the last couple pages).

20+Years
10-18-2013, 03:58 PM
I am glad you believe everything they say....

You do have a point. It would often be unwise to trust what we are being told, but in this case I believe it. The AF did not want to say that every PT test failure on waist had been in error or unfair, so they developed a standard that showed very few mbrs would have passed anyways. I don't see the new options as a "get out of jail free" card for everyone, but a search for that one goose laying golden eggs. For those very few people, enjoy your 2nd chance, for everyone else, the boat is still sinking and your weight/eating habits/lack of exercise is the main reason.

20+Years
10-18-2013, 03:59 PM
39 inches has always passed (unless you guys are talking about being exempt from all the other components and needing to score a 37.5 or below, but I didn't see any reference to that in the last couple pages).

Your right, it should have been a 40 failure will not pass the additional tests either.

BOSS302
10-18-2013, 07:22 PM
Really? So this week, if you have a 38" waist, you fail, next week, you can have a 39" waist and pass. Who's the idiot here?

Still you.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-18-2013, 09:33 PM
I have also now come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.


Still you.

Only an idiot would think that the fatter you get, the fitter you get...that means BOSS302 and wxjumper fit this mold.

The AFI is clear...if you are exempt from all components and have an A/C greater than 37.5", you are deemed unfit and fail the test. Starting next week, if you have a 39" waist, you are now fit and will pass the test. So, the fatter you are, the fitter you just got. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

imnohero
10-18-2013, 09:57 PM
Oh my, is it possible that Big Blue has realized that waist size does not directly translate to physical fitness? Say it isn't so!! I demand they go back to disavowing medical realities, now!

BOSS302
10-18-2013, 10:40 PM
Only an idiot would think that the fatter you get, the fitter you get...that means BOSS302 and wxjumper fit this mold.

The AFI is clear...if you are exempt from all components and have an A/C greater than 37.5", you are deemed unfit and fail the test. Starting next week, if you have a 39" waist, you are now fit and will pass the test. So, the fatter you are, the fitter you just got. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

Dumbass.

grimreaper
10-18-2013, 11:36 PM
Only an idiot would think that the fatter you get, the fitter you get...that means BOSS302 and wxjumper fit this mold.

The AFI is clear...if you are exempt from all components and have an A/C greater than 37.5", you are deemed unfit and fail the test. Starting next week, if you have a 39" waist, you are now fit and will pass the test. So, the fatter you are, the fitter you just got. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

That was a stupid rule to begin with. 39" is 39". Whether someone is doing all of the components or not, it should make no difference. If a doctor determines that someone cannot do the other components, that person should not be penalized because of it and be forced to be at 37.5". If 39" is the maximum under the standard, then it should be exactly that across the board. If you disagree, tell me why there should be different standards when it is a doctor who is telling a member they cannot do the other components.

wxjumper
10-18-2013, 11:40 PM
Only an idiot would think that the fatter you get, the fitter you get...that means BOSS302 and wxjumper fit this mold.

The AFI is clear...if you are exempt from all components and have an A/C greater than 37.5", you are deemed unfit and fail the test. Starting next week, if you have a 39" waist, you are now fit and will pass the test. So, the fatter you are, the fitter you just got. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

Of course you say this now in a failed attempt to save face. But nowhere in your original post did you mention it was a fail for somebody who couldn't test on any of the other component, which 99% of the people here wouldn't give a shit about. You just said strait out that a 39 inch waist was a bust on the test, no mention of profiles.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-21-2013, 11:31 AM
Here's the updated link:

http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131018-072.pdf

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 01:31 PM
Did anyone else happen to notice that ANG that pass (75 or above) still only test once a year? Everyone else has to test every six months unless they get an excellent....