Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: At least 59 airmen wrongly failed fitness test due to mismeasured tracks

  1. #21
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,538
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,294
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,538
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    246
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by retiredAFcivvy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by efmbman; 10-18-2016 at 12:00 PM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    246
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,538
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by retiredAFcivvy View Post
    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.
    The Voice of Reason

  8. #28
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #29
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,538
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    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.

    The Voice of Reason

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •