PDA

View Full Version : At least 59 airmen wrongly failed fitness test due to mismeasured tracks



Bos Mutus
10-13-2016, 10:01 PM
Since 2008, 59 airmen at two bases may have unfairly failed their fitness assessments because the tracks they ran on were longer than they should have been, the Air Force announced Thursday.

As a result of the discoveries, Air Force leaders have ordered all bases to recertify their 1.5-mile running courses and 2-kilometer walking courses by Oct. 31 to make sure there are no other tracks with the same problem.

Air Force spokeswoman Brooke Brzozowske said the service is not halting use of those other tracks for fitness assessments while the recertification is taking place, since it has no indication now that they are mismeasured.

The Air Force said that officials at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas inspected its outdoor running course earlier this year and found it was 85 feet longer than required. The indoor running track at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts was even further off — 360 feet longer than required. The Hanscom track's mismeasurement was discovered after an airman filed an appeal.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/at-least-59-airmen-wrongly-failed-fitness-test-due-to-mismeasured-tracks



No doubt it is someone's job to certify running tracks...wonder if they'll have to put on their blues and explain to the wing commander how this could've happened...

sandsjames
10-14-2016, 01:10 AM
No doubt it is someone's job to certify running tracks...wonder if they'll have to put on their blues and explain to the wing commander how this could've happened...

Wonder what recourse those who got booted out for those failures, or missed promotion testing due to a referral EPR will have.

garhkal
10-14-2016, 04:58 AM
No doubt it is someone's job to certify running tracks...wonder if they'll have to put on their blues and explain to the wing commander how this could've happened...

I know when i was over in London, cause we went from an ave of 4-7 people failing the mile and a half run on the older course we did in hyde park (though it had ups and downs which the new regs said had to go to make it "flat", one of the PRT coordinators who ran all over hyde/kensington/green parks, changed our spot. THAT next PRT cycle, we had over 20 people (out of the 94 or so in the command) fail, and all failed on the run.. Command said "well, just give it one more cycle, to see if it really is the new course". Well the next one, hit and it went to 23 fails (and i was one on BOTH times).. Only times i have ever failed a PRT, though i came close on two cycles for pushups...


Wonder what recourse those who got booted out for those failures, or missed promotion testing due to a referral EPR will have.

They damn well should have the PRT score for those times should be erased and they should get to re-run them. If they already got out processed.. they should be able to immediately get reinstated..

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 08:10 AM
No doubt it is someone's job to certify running tracks...wonder if they'll have to put on their blues and explain to the wing commander how this could've happened...

85 feet too long, 85 feet ... meh.

When I was in the Marines, the run was 3 miles, the Marine Corps Order on the PFT allowed for a tolerance of a tenth of a mile on the measurement. The Navy allows the same thing. I don't know if the AFI has the same discrepancy tolerance (if they are directing everyone to remeasure thier courses maybe not).

A 1.5 mile course is 7920 feet, 85 feet too long is a discrepancy of 1.07% ... very low. Even if you were running on a typical circular track, an 85 foot discrepancy could be the difference between running the inside or outside lane for 6x 1/4 mile laps. Is it too bad for people that failed, yes ... give them a do over. If this failure caused them to get kicked out not sure how the USAF would handle that, not really sure procedurally how the Navy would either, reentry after separation is more than just "hey ... come to work on Monday".

Is this worth firing someone? Disciplining someone? There really aren't enough specifics to know one way or the other.

sandsjames
10-14-2016, 11:44 AM
85 feet too long, 85 feet ... meh.

3 seconds too slow. 3 seconds... meh. 1 push-up too few. 1 push-up... meh. The regs be the regs boss man...I've never known an AF commander who would just let the PT test score slide because they were "close enough". Your response is kinda worrysome.

It's absolutely worth firing someone. The people who miss the minimum score by 1 point get "fired". Those who miss passing by 1 point (or less) still get a referral EPR and are denied re-enlistment or promotion/testing if the failure happens just before the reporting period ends.

So take that "85 feet too long" bullshit somewhere else. You ever tell your troops "Well, your BAC was only .01 over the legal limit so screw those cops"? I doubt it...what a fucking joke with that response.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 12:12 PM
3 seconds too slow. 3 seconds... meh. 1 push-up too few. 1 push-up... meh. The regs be the regs boss man...I've never known an AF commander who would just let the PT test score slide because they were "close enough". Your response is kinda worrysome.

It's absolutely worth firing someone. The people who miss the minimum score by 1 point get "fired". Those who miss passing by 1 point (or less) still get a referral EPR and are denied re-enlistment or promotion/testing if the failure happens just before the reporting period ends.

So take that "85 feet too long" bullshit somewhere else. You ever tell your troops "Well, your BAC was only .01 over the legal limit so screw those cops"? I doubt it...what a fucking joke with that response.

I get your point, but again, the instructions for both services I have been in allow a tolerance for the distance ... so yeah ... I do have a bit of a meh factor on this. Let those that failed retest ... get the course right with the instruction etc.

No need to be rude just cause we disagree on it.

sandsjames
10-14-2016, 01:10 PM
I get your point, but again, the instructions for both services I have been in allow a tolerance for the distance ... so yeah ... I do have a bit of a meh factor on this. Let those that failed retest ... get the course right with the instruction etc.

No need to be rude just cause we disagree on it.

So what are you doing with those who were forced out of the service? Backpay? Reinstatement?

And this is where you draw the line on being rude? Really?

WILDJOKER5
10-14-2016, 01:54 PM
The last base I was at, my GPS always had the 1.5 mile marked at around the last turn of the track, but we had to run another 40 meters to finish. I only failed once by 26 sec, then I gained 30 or so secs from turning 30 and I was all good again. But every time I ran with my GPS on, it always marked the same spots for distances.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 01:55 PM
So what are you doing with those who were forced out of the service? Backpay? Reinstatement?

If any were forced out, would have to look at it. Got a bad eval as a result, expunge the eval. If separated, you can't backpay for time they didn't work ... maybe offer reinstatement at highest grade held.


And this is where you draw the line on being rude? Really?

Not so much a line, most of the jackassery in other threads develops ... in an otherwise professional, polite & benign conversation you decided to be rude and crass. Take a knee on that if you would.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 02:31 PM
The last base I was at, my GPS always had the 1.5 mile marked at around the last turn of the track, but we had to run another 40 meters to finish. I only failed once by 26 sec, then I gained 30 or so secs from turning 30 and I was all good again. But every time I ran with my GPS on, it always marked the same spots for distances.

When I was in the USMC, the instruction (Marine Corps Order actually) didn't specify the measurement device. The Navy instruction specifies you have to use a wheel or bicycle odometer ... it prohibits car odometer or GPS (which is weird since GPS would be hyper accurate).

In part this is why I am not ready to fire anyone. What device was used (does the AFI specify what device has to be used etc.?) Was the course accurate per the device that was used? Was the course previously measured using a wheel and a GPS (which is more accurate) showed the discrepancy noted because they got a new / more accurate measuring tool? Too many unknowns from the article to really state one way or the other.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 02:45 PM
Bitch Tits Are Our Greatest Strength!!!

Not sure what this relates to. Please take a knee on this.

sandsjames
10-14-2016, 02:50 PM
If any were forced out, would have to look at it. Got a bad eval as a result, expunge the eval. If separated, you can't backpay for time they didn't work ... maybe offer reinstatement at highest grade held.



Not so much a line, most of the jackassery in other threads develops ... in an otherwise professional, polite & benign conversation you decided to be rude and crass. Take a knee on that if you would.

Take a knee? What does that mean...seriously...not an Air Force term so I'm at a loss.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 02:53 PM
Take a knee? What does that mean...seriously...not an Air Force term so I'm at a loss.

Take a knee: take a break. 10 days sounds about right.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 03:43 PM
When I was in the USMC, the instruction (Marine Corps Order actually) didn't specify the measurement device. The Navy instruction specifies you have to use a wheel or bicycle odometer ... it prohibits car odometer or GPS (which is weird since GPS would be hyper accurate).

In part this is why I am not ready to fire anyone. What device was used (does the AFI specify what device has to be used etc.?) Was the course accurate per the device that was used? Was the course previously measured using a wheel and a GPS (which is more accurate) showed the discrepancy noted because they got a new / more accurate measuring tool? Too many unknowns from the article to really state one way or the other.

You are incorrect.

GPS's are nice ballpark devices, but they are not that accurate for measuring distance.

A wheel is far more accurate.

WILDJOKER5
10-14-2016, 03:47 PM
You are incorrect.

GPS's are nice ballpark devices, but they are not that accurate for measuring distance.

A wheel is far more accurate.

I would agree with you. I always found it strange though that the GPS (iPhone) would come up with the same distance every time, even on our 5k runs. Even when the gym closed down the inside lane for repairs, we still had to finish in the same spot every time. When we moved to the inside track, my time went down a lot. Other places I ran under 13 mins.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 03:57 PM
I would agree with you.

It is not so much an agree/disagree issue as it is a well-documented fact.


I always found it strange though that the GPS (iPhone) would come up with the same distance every time, even on our 5k runs. Even when the gym closed down the inside lane for repairs, we still had to finish in the same spot every time. When we moved to the inside track, my time went down a lot. Other places I ran under 13 mins.

"Ballpark" may be a bit of an exaggeration. GPSs are nice devices and convenient, and surely accurate enough for training, but should not be used to certify distances for this...can have errors up to 5% or so. Not only are they affected by satellite position, atmospheric shifts, weather etc....but they use a sampling technique that does not constantly monitor position, but takes as sample every so often and fills in the gaps mathematically.

USATF uses a wheel. A course measured by GPS could not be used for qualifying times, records etc.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 03:58 PM
I would agree with you. I always found it strange though that the GPS (iPhone) would come up with the same distance every time, even on our 5k runs. Even when the gym closed down the inside lane for repairs, we still had to finish in the same spot every time. When we moved to the inside track, my time went down a lot. Other places I ran under 13 mins.

I haven't looked it up, but I would venture to guess that an iphone is far less accurate than a stand-alone GPS device that you can buy in a sporting goods store.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 04:40 PM
In part this is why I am not ready to fire anyone. What device was used (does the AFI specify what device has to be used etc.?) Was the course accurate per the device that was used?

Okay...let's say the guy who was out there measuring the course followed the AFI perfectly. No accountability on that.

Who wrote the AFI? Did that person use due diligence...where they a course certification expert or did they consult one?

Let's root cause this deal...how did a 1.5 course get certified while being 360 feet long?


Was the course previously measured using a wheel and a GPS (which is more accurate) showed the discrepancy noted because they got a new / more accurate measuring tool? Too many unknowns from the article to really state one way or the other.

I would agree that from the article we can not possibly know where accountability should lay. But, for how much the AF preaches accountability, accountability when it is an individual PT responsibility...it should be pursued.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 05:45 PM
You are incorrect.

GPS's are nice ballpark devices, but they are not that accurate for measuring distance.

A wheel is far more accurate.

You are right ... I am more basing my thought on a milgrade that would constantly update.

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 07:20 PM
Okay...let's say the guy who was out there measuring the course followed the AFI perfectly. No accountability on that.

Maybe the person doing the measuring did. For the 85 foot discrepancy ... that small of a distance could be where on the course the individual measured (from the outside or inside of the turns etc.).


Who wrote the AFI? Did that person use due diligence...where they a course certification expert or did they consult one?

Good point, but in some cases again, my mentality on this comes from being in two services that allow a fudge factor on this. As a Marine, the run was "3 miles" (plus or minus a tenth of a mile) ... I am pretty sure I ran a few that were short, and a few that were long.


Let's root cause this deal...how did a 1.5 course get certified while being 360 feet long?

I agree, figure out what went wrong, fix the problem. Go in with the mentality that you want to find who to blame and burn, few are likely to cooperate with you doing so.

I would agree that from the article we can not possibly know where accountability should lay. But, for how much the AF preaches accountability, accountability when it is an individual PT responsibility...it should be pursued.

If you find negligence fine ... if you find that something changed fine. At the same time, examine the folks who failed. Would an 85 foot or 360 foot shorter course have mattered? If you are talking a few seconds ... maybe ... if you are talking a minute ... no.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 08:58 PM
Maybe the person doing the measuring did. For the 85 foot discrepancy ... that small of a distance could be where on the course the individual measured (from the outside or inside of the turns etc.).

I don't know the procedures so much for measuring AF 1.5 mile tracks...for a USATF track, it's not only about the instrument, but about a trained person doing the measuring. Part of that training is determining the shortest possible legal route around the course.

Now, in USATF, the important factor is that the course is not too short....because that would invalidate Olympic qualifying times, U.S. and world records, etc. The tolerance is on the plus side, it can be a few feet long, but not short.

I would think that the AF course's it would be opposite...better to be a few feet short than a few feet long since we are wrecking people's livelihood's with the results.

Anyway, point being...hopefully the certification process involves not only accurate equipment, but trained personnel.



Good point, but in some cases again, my mentality on this comes from being in two services that allow a fudge factor on this. As a Marine, the run was "3 miles" (plus or minus a tenth of a mile) ... I am pretty sure I ran a few that were short, and a few that were long.

Well, a tolerance, sure. All measurements have a tolerance. There is no such thing as an exact measurement.

A tenth of a mile is a pretty far way...not sure what the Marine's did with that result, but they should try to do better.

I don't know what the AF tolerance is...but considering the ramifications, it should be pretty tight and err on going short if one had to choose.


I agree, figure out what went wrong, fix the problem. Go in with the mentality that you want to find who to blame and burn, few are likely to cooperate with you doing so.

If you find negligence fine ... if you find that something changed fine. At the same time, examine the folks who failed. Would an 85 foot or 360 foot shorter course have mattered? If you are talking a few seconds ... maybe ... if you are talking a minute ... no.

By accountability, I'm not necessarily saying someone has to be fired or UCMJ'd....but accountable can me they didn't do their due diligence and maybe that lack of attention to detail, which could potentially cost the AF six figures in legal settlements...maybe that could be mentioned on their evaluation.

garhkal
10-14-2016, 09:10 PM
3 seconds too slow. 3 seconds... meh. 1 push-up too few. 1 push-up... meh. The regs be the regs boss man...I've never known an AF commander who would just let the PT test score slide because they were "close enough". Your response is kinda worrysome.

It's absolutely worth firing someone. The people who miss the minimum score by 1 point get "fired". Those who miss passing by 1 point (or less) still get a referral EPR and are denied re-enlistment or promotion/testing if the failure happens just before the reporting period ends.

So take that "85 feet too long" bullshit somewhere else. You ever tell your troops "Well, your BAC was only .01 over the legal limit so screw those cops"? I doubt it...what a fucking joke with that response.

I've gotten a lot of stick from many in my naval career cause i wasn't willing to 'give them' the pass, if they were close, especially on push ups and the sit ups.. Heck we had one e5 who was like 9 away and he was begging me to say 'he made it'..

Now, this is where i DO feel there should be some modification.
IF you score outstanding on say the run, you could (NOTE COULD, not should) get a 1 or 2 sit up/push up leeway, and an extra % on body fat..
Excellent, and you could get one OR the other.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 09:39 PM
Would an 85 foot or 360 foot shorter course have mattered? If you are talking a few seconds ... maybe ... if you are talking a minute ... no.

As you mentioned, there are 7920 feet in 1.5 miles.

I can't remember what a failing time is, but something like 14:30 or 870 seconds

7920/870 is approx. 9.1 feet per second.

So, for 85 feet it's at least 9 seconds if the person did not tire and was running their average speed at the very end. Of course, human nature is to sort of sprint the last little bit particularly if one is close to making or not making it, but that is beside the point....maybe they ran outta steam and walked the last 100 feet.

I'd say anyone with twice that...18 seconds, maybe more, had a pretty good case.

360 feet...could easily get to a minute or more.

retiredAFcivvy
10-17-2016, 10:04 PM
I don't know the procedures so much for measuring AF 1.5 mile tracks...for a USATF track, it's not only about the instrument, but about a trained person doing the measuring. Part of that training is determining the shortest possible legal route around the course.

Now, in USATF, the important factor is that the course is not too short....because that would invalidate Olympic qualifying times, U.S. and world records, etc. The tolerance is on the plus side, it can be a few feet long, but not short.

I would think that the AF course's it would be opposite...better to be a few feet short than a few feet long since we are wrecking people's livelihood's with the results.

Anyway, point being...hopefully the certification process involves not only accurate equipment, but trained personnel.




Well, a tolerance, sure. All measurements have a tolerance. There is no such thing as an exact measurement.

A tenth of a mile is a pretty far way...not sure what the Marine's did with that result, but they should try to do better.

I don't know what the AF tolerance is...but considering the ramifications, it should be pretty tight and err on going short if one had to choose.



By accountability, I'm not necessarily saying someone has to be fired or UCMJ'd....but accountable can me they didn't do their due diligence and maybe that lack of attention to detail, which could potentially cost the AF six figures in legal settlements...maybe that could be mentioned on their evaluation.

Bos,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about trained and qualified personnel. I'm not sure there are any career fields that would cover any such qualification. There are civilian firms that do this but of course that would cost bucks, but probably not near as much as what this will cost the AF.

efmbman
10-18-2016, 12:43 PM
Bos,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about trained and qualified personnel. I'm not sure there are any career fields that would cover any such qualification. There are civilian firms that do this but of course that would cost bucks, but probably not near as much as what this will cost the AF.

Wouldn't the CE folks be able to do it? Someone must be able to accurately measure it... otherwise the error would not have been discovered.

retiredAFcivvy
10-20-2016, 05:15 PM
Wouldn't the CE folks be able to do it? Someone must be able to accurately measure it... otherwise the error would not have been discovered.

Possibly so. We really don't have enough information as to who made the original mistake or who did the remeasuring.

Bos Mutus
10-21-2016, 04:31 PM
Possibly so. We really don't have enough information as to who made the original mistake or who did the re-measuring.

Sounds to me like the re-measuring was done by an expert hired by the plaintiff.

If I had to guess, I would figure the course was measured by the Fitness Center or HAWC folks rather than CE.

Mjölnir
10-21-2016, 06:02 PM
Sounds to me like the re-measuring was done by an expert hired by the plaintiff.

If I had to guess, I would figure the course was measured by the Fitness Center or HAWC folks rather than CE.

Pardon my ignorance on this, who should be doing the measuring?

efmbman
10-21-2016, 06:28 PM
Sounds to me like the re-measuring was done by an expert hired by the plaintiff.

If I had to guess, I would figure the course was measured by the Fitness Center or HAWC folks rather than CE.

The text from the article you quoted to start this thread stated "The Air Force said that officials at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas inspected its outdoor running course earlier this year and found it was 85 feet longer than required." Whoever those officials are, that's either the culprit or the responsible party or both.

Bos Mutus
10-21-2016, 09:11 PM
The text from the article you quoted to start this thread stated "The Air Force said that officials at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas inspected its outdoor running course earlier this year and found it was 85 feet longer than required." Whoever those officials are, that's either the culprit or the responsible party or both.

Okay...I was referring to the Hanscom track where it says it was discovered when an Airman filed an appeal

Anyway...this is from the AFI, doesn't really help much:



A6.1. Course Requirements for 1.5-mile timed run (2640 yards/2414 meters) and 2.0-kilometer timed walk (2187 yards/2000 meters).

A6.1.1. Establish a standard course of accurate distance that is as level and even as possible.

A6.1.1.1. If a typical 6-lap track is used:

A6.1.1.1.1. For a 1.5-mile timed run, it should be 440 yards per lap; or 6 laps on a 400-meter track plus an additional 46 feet for 1.5-miles.

A6.1.1.1.2. For a 2.0-kilometer timed walk, it should be 5 laps on a 400-meter track or 4 laps on a 440 yard track plus an additional 427 yards.

A6.1.1.2. Course should have limited exposure to traffic, should not have a continuous incline/decline or rolling hills; avoid slopes exceeding two degrees. If using a road course, where possible, start and finish should be at the same location.

A6.1.1.3. Clearly mark the start and finish lines (and half-way point for road courses).

A6.1.2. Trained personnel will monitor participants, ensuring all members complete entire course and are continuously observed for course completion, safety, counting laps if required and recording run times.

A6.1.3. Indoor track may be used at the discretion of installation leadership however the track must be certified.

efmbman
10-22-2016, 02:30 AM
Okay...I was referring to the Hanscom track where it says it was discovered when an Airman filed an appeal

Anyway...this is from the AFI, doesn't really help much:

If you are referencing AFI 36-2905, then 2.12.5.2 states that the Installation Commander, ANG WG/CC. or Equivalent has the specific responsibility to approve "1.5 - mile run/2.0 - kilometer walk assessment course in conjunction with local CES, FSS, and Wing Safety and files approval memorandum at the FAC."

Bos Mutus
10-22-2016, 08:06 AM
If you are referencing AFI 36-2905, then 2.12.5.2 states that the Installation Commander, ANG WG/CC. or Equivalent has the specific responsibility to approve "1.5 - mile run/2.0 - kilometer walk assessment course in conjunction with local CES, FSS, and Wing Safety and files approval memorandum at the FAC."

There ya go! It's the commander's fault :-)

efmbman
10-23-2016, 01:29 AM
There ya go! It's the commander's fault :-)

Granted, I served in the Army not the Air Force, but the principles of military leadership seem to be the same. One can delegate authority but not responsibility. We were always taught that the commander is responsible for everything that does or does not happen in a unit.

sandsjames
10-23-2016, 01:40 PM
This shouldn't be surprising at all. Look at military pay. You owe them money, they're going to take it all at once. They owe you money, they'll take their sweet time, even if it means you default on a bill. Then they'll write you up for defaulting because you didn't plan ahead.

Pretty standard stuff. They don't care about you. Your leaders don't care about you. You should have prepared for the course to be too long and, if you fail because of it, that's on you...here's the door. And it's all because the Commander wants his slideshow to be all in green when he takes it to his boss.

Mjölnir
10-30-2016, 11:02 AM
This shouldn't be surprising at all. Look at military pay. You owe them money, they're going to take it all at once. They owe you money, they'll take their sweet time, even if it means you default on a bill. Then they'll write you up for defaulting because you didn't plan ahead.

Pretty standard stuff. They don't care about you. Your leaders don't care about you. You should have prepared for the course to be too long and, if you fail because of it, that's on you...here's the door. And it's all because the Commander wants his slideshow to be all in green when he takes it to his boss.

It is likely inaccurate to say that all leadership doesn't care about their people. I am sure some don't, am also pretty confident that most do, to varying degrees.

When I became the XO, we identified 11 people who if they failed one PT test would be admin separated. They had been doing the Fitness Enhancement Program (FEP) with various levels of effectiveness. I assigned one of our Ensigns (O1) (former Academy linebacker who is a PT beast) to lead the FEP sessions. FEP went from 3 days a week (M, W, F) to 5 days (M, T, Th, F, Sa morning at 0800). In the spring cycle 2016 we had 1 who failed the body fat taping and was separated, in the fall cycle (which just ended Friday), we had zero. Average weight loss is 18 pounds, most of them did far better than the minimum on the test.

Now, did I direct this because of a slide or report? No, I could really care less that in the annual report we send to our ISIC that about 9-10 pages in I will have one line saying what our PT pass/fail and separation related rates was. I am really happy that I have 10 Sailors still onboard who otherwise would have been shown the door within 45 days and only their GI Bill (no severance for PT separation). Had they wanted out, all they had to do was tank the test, none of them did ... that tells me they wanted to stay. Were they happy about coming in on a Saturday to PT, most weren't but I had one tell me on Friday that she is much happier to have lost some Saturday mornings than she would have been had she been separated during the holidays.

Bos Mutus
12-22-2016, 03:33 AM
Da da da dummmmmm...

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-track-review