USAF axes the bicycle aerobics test

[S. Sampson]

General Jumper released a policy this week, that all Airmen will
axe the high-tech bicycle aerobics test, and the troops will
return to jogging, push-ups, and sit-ups by 1 January 2004.

Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
uniform engineering).

The big change, will be in application. The chain of command will
enforce compliance, and not the squadron staff. If an Airman can't
run a mile, or do sit-ups and push-ups, it will be up to his/her
supervisor to fix it. If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).

[davidG35]

That was some of the most wasted money and effort ever followed closely by
"Quality AF", now the money and effort is being wasted on the dogma of "Risk
Management" that is not bad in itself except they've made kingdoms of dogma
and it has become its own entity like all the other boondoggles.
Thats my 2 cents after 20+.
Dave


"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
.. .
> General Jumper released a policy this week, that all Airmen will
> axe the high-tech bicycle aerobics test, and the troops will
> return to jogging, push-ups, and sit-ups by 1 January 2004.
>
> Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
> and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
> uniform engineering).
>
> The big change, will be in application. The chain of command will
> enforce compliance, and not the squadron staff. If an Airman can't
> run a mile, or do sit-ups and push-ups, it will be up to his/her
> supervisor to fix it. If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
> for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
> duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).
>
>

[Pete]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
.. .
> General Jumper released a policy this week, that all Airmen will
> axe the high-tech bicycle aerobics test, and the troops will
> return to jogging, push-ups, and sit-ups by 1 January 2004.
>
> Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
> and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
> uniform engineering).
>
> The big change, will be in application. The chain of command will
> enforce compliance, and not the squadron staff. If an Airman can't
> run a mile, or do sit-ups and push-ups, it will be up to his/her
> supervisor to fix it. If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
> for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
> duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).

That bicycle test was the dumbest thing ever. We had a marathoner fail, and
a 'drive 1 mile to work smoker/drunk' pass with flying colors.

The people administering it had no clue about cycling dynamics (No, the seat
needs to be this* high, not low enough that my knees hit my chin).

As far as a 'failed leader...sometimes, there is nothing you can do. We had
a guy on the fatboy program, long ago. Got bad enough that he was required
to eat all his meals at the hospital. This he did. In between, he was
sneaking pizzas. Sometimes 2 a day.

We tried. Short of putting the guy in CC, jail, or having him live in
someones living room....nothing would work. He got tossed eventually.

Pete

[JSH517]

>It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for a
>uniform.

Hopefully the General will go back to the old "four pocket" dress blues
eventually too !
Just my 2 cents

Jim
SAC Cop
78-88

[S. Sampson]

"Pete" > wrote
>
> As far as a 'failed leader...sometimes, there is nothing you can do.

We had the "Commanders 10% Club." If you got to within 10% of
your max weight, you reported to the Gym 3 days a week (even
deployed to Iceland, Bolivia, or Saudi). and then you did aerobics for
an hour, or we jogged at least 1.5 miles after calisthenics. I think it
was a great idea, and very popular. The only excuse was mission
planning or flying. I have an idea that that is what Jumper has in mind
for leadership. That is, the squadron will focus on programs to make
exercise part of the everyday life of today's Airmen.

We had a lot of racket-ball types in the squadron, and I think the
number of people who were on the fat boy/girl program could be
counted on one hand. The rule was, that if you were on the program,
then you were ineligible for promotion, and re-enlistment. I know of
one guy who got booted at 18 years when the commander refused to
let him re-enlist. He never showed up at the 10% club meetings, and
failed to lose weight. His supervisor was nowhere to be found, and
it's these guys, who I think that Jumper wants to get rid of as well.

In my day, exercise was a personal responsibility, and failure meant
that you were personally defective, even if the squadron had no
aerobic programs, or culture of physical training. I don't think
Jumper wants to go back to that, from what I read.

[Leadfoot]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > General Jumper released a policy this week, that all Airmen will
> > axe the high-tech bicycle aerobics test, and the troops will
> > return to jogging, push-ups, and sit-ups by 1 January 2004.
> >
> > Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
> > and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
> > uniform engineering).
> >
> > The big change, will be in application. The chain of command will
> > enforce compliance, and not the squadron staff. If an Airman can't
> > run a mile, or do sit-ups and push-ups, it will be up to his/her
> > supervisor to fix it. If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
> > for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
> > duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).
>
> That bicycle test was the dumbest thing ever. We had a marathoner fail,
and
> a 'drive 1 mile to work smoker/drunk' pass with flying colors.
>
> The people administering it had no clue about cycling dynamics (No, the
seat
> needs to be this* high, not low enough that my knees hit my chin).
>
> As far as a 'failed leader...sometimes, there is nothing you can do. We
had
> a guy on the fatboy program, long ago. Got bad enough that he was required
> to eat all his meals at the hospital. This he did. In between, he was
> sneaking pizzas. Sometimes 2 a day.

Sometimes it's just that persons tough luck to be born a fat person. If
thats the case the only solution is to medically discharge him.


>
> We tried. Short of putting the guy in CC, jail, or having him live in
> someones living room....nothing would work. He got tossed eventually.
>
> Pete
>
>

[S. Sampson]

Fit To Fight

Our superb Total Force performance in Operations
ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM secured
our reputation as the greatest Air Force in the world. We
should all take great pride in that. Our execution of the war plan
was also consistent with our core values. Integrity, in that we
upheld the highest standards of performance, learned from the
things we could have done better, and will make ourselves better
as a result; service before self, in that 40,000 warriors deployed
forward, supported by thousands more back home, to do the right
thing for the people of Iraq and to play our part in the joint air, land,
and sea effort; and excellence, in that we demonstrated the ability to
plan and execute air and space missions with a degree of precision
never before achieved. When looking at our Air Force overall, I am
very pleased. One aspect of our Total Force that does need
improvement, however, is our physical fitness.

About ten years ago, we transitioned to fitness testing based on the
cycle ergometry test. This was done to preclude injuries experienced in
the previous 1.5-mile run format. It was also deemed a more precise and
high-tech way to measure aerobic performance. My belief is that we are
a much different Air Force today. We deploy to all regions of the world,
living in tent cities and working on flight lines in extremes of temperatures.
Some of our airmen today are operating from inside Iraq, subject to attack,
and could be called upon to help defend the base, a trend that will surely
increase in the growing expeditionary nature of our business. The amount
of energy we devote to our fitness programs is not consistent with the
growing demands of our warrior culture. It's time to change that.

We will soon release a new fitness program that gets back to the basics
of running, sit-ups, and pushups. There will be accommodations made
for those who aren't able to run for legitimate reasons. The cycle ergometry
test may still be used for those not medically cleared to run. We are planning
to issue physical training (PT) gear as part of the program and to put
responsibility for PT in the chain of command, not with the medical community
or the commander's support staff. I expect this effort to be led from the top,
starting with commanders and senior NCOs, and I expect those who have
trouble meeting the standards to be helped by others in their unit until they do
meet the standard. Physical fitness should also be an area of concern for the
Air Force civil servants. I encourage the civilian members of our Air Force
organizations to join with their uniformed peers in participating in this program.

While we have weight and body fat standards that we must meet, there will be some,
weightlifters in particular, who may be perfectly fit but not meet these standards. This
is where I expect commanders to step in and make a decision. Everyone will have to
pass the commander's eyeball test about how fit we are to wear the uniform. Every
year we muster out about 400 people from our Air Force because of fitness issues.
We should ask ourselves how many of those people were really trying to meet the
standard and how many leaders and supervisors took an active part -- getting out
and running with them, etc. -- in helping them meet the standard.

We will start this program on 1 January 2004 so there is plenty of time for us to get
ready. You can use me as a benchmark. I am currently recovering from abdominal
surgery and am not allowed to run for another two weeks. I won't be able to do any
sit-ups for another month. During the first week in January I plan to lead all Air Force
General Officers in the Pentagon and the Washington, DC area in the PT test. During
the same week, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Murray will do the same thing
with our Command Chiefs in the area. We will follow that with the colonels, the
remaining chief master sergeants, etc. We will ask the MAJCOM commanders to
lead similar efforts as their operational situations allow.

I think all of us can agree that we were disappointed with the fitness standards we found
when we came into the operational Air Force. We expected to be required to sustain
the standards required in basic training, the Air Force Academy, ROTC, or Officer
Training School. Let's not disappoint ourselves any longer. The message is simple:
if you are out of shape, fix it. If you have people in your squadron who need help, help
them. January 2004 is the date. Be ready.

General Jumper

[Billy Harvey]

In article >,
S. Sampson > wrote:
>"Pete" > wrote
>> As far as a 'failed leader...sometimes, there is nothing you can do.
>
>We had the "Commanders 10% Club." If you got to within 10% of
>your max weight, you reported to the Gym 3 days a week (even
>deployed to Iceland, Bolivia, or Saudi). and then you did aerobics for
>an hour, or we jogged at least 1.5 miles after calisthenics. I think it
>was a great idea, and very popular...

So the max wasn't really the max, eh, but 10% below the max was actually
the max... I can see the approach now ...

HHQ: your maximum weight is 200 lbs - some insurance guys made these numbers
up but we're gonna use 'em - what's it matter that these numbers
are based on the dietary intakes of people over the last 100 years -
and yes, we know that muscle weighs more than fat - but we're gonna
use 'em anyway cuz we *like* rules.
MAJCOM: your maximum weight is 180 lbs - we take off 10%!
NAF: your maximum weight is 175 lbs - we want a buffer before the commanders
get fired.
WING: your maximum weight is 170 lbs - and you have to join the O'Club to
get promoted.
SQUADRON: Listen up! Any porkies weighing over 165 will not be allowed to
eat lunch - or breakfast - now stay healthy and be happy! Oh
yeah - pay your Club bills.
FLIGHT: You! Yeah, you, lard boy - you obviously eat too much - what do you
weigh? 160!! Good God man, lay off the marshmallows. Now get out
of here and go fly those jets - be sure to make me look good now!
Oh yeah, you're gonna pull double duty until you're a respectable
150 like Worm Boy here. BTW, everyone *will* be at the Club tonight
and *will* listen to the Safety puke's talk about "realistic
zero-accident training" and the Social Action weanie's discussion
of "tolerance in the kinder and gentler AF". Now go get 'em
killers!
JETJOCKEY: ... must eat more aspartame ... which diet pills
are non-detectable? Work. Sleep. No food. Work ...
FLIGHTDOC: No, I don't know why you have trouble staying awake and doing
your job well. Maybe you should eat more and study your
profession and ignore that other stuff.
PROMOTIONBOARD: ... a prime example of poor team attitude - make him a
mister ... good Lord, look at the mustache on that man ...
and he's not skinny! WGAS what his bomb scores are - bombs
on target are old-school - we gotta look good in the shower
and have a "balanced force" first and foremost!

[Les Matheson]

Don't laugh. For years I had to watch my weight as the max for my height 6'
2" was 218, ideal was 176 and I hovered around 205 all the time. Then I got
sick and lost a lot of weight. With exercise to recover, I got down to 178
when I weighed in at Brooks when I went to get back on flying status. The
first thing the flight surgeon told me was "you need to gain about 20
pounds." The doctors didn't even believe the weights in the regs.

Les

"Billy Harvey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> S. Sampson > wrote:
> >"Pete" > wrote
> >> As far as a 'failed leader...sometimes, there is nothing you can do.
> >
> >We had the "Commanders 10% Club." If you got to within 10% of
> >your max weight, you reported to the Gym 3 days a week (even
> >deployed to Iceland, Bolivia, or Saudi). and then you did aerobics for
> >an hour, or we jogged at least 1.5 miles after calisthenics. I think it
> >was a great idea, and very popular...
>
> So the max wasn't really the max, eh, but 10% below the max was actually
> the max... I can see the approach now ...
>
> HHQ: your maximum weight is 200 lbs - some insurance guys made these
numbers
> up but we're gonna use 'em - what's it matter that these numbers
> are based on the dietary intakes of people over the last 100 years -
> and yes, we know that muscle weighs more than fat - but we're gonna
> use 'em anyway cuz we *like* rules.
> MAJCOM: your maximum weight is 180 lbs - we take off 10%!
> NAF: your maximum weight is 175 lbs - we want a buffer before the
commanders
> get fired.
> WING: your maximum weight is 170 lbs - and you have to join the O'Club to
> get promoted.
> SQUADRON: Listen up! Any porkies weighing over 165 will not be allowed to
> eat lunch - or breakfast - now stay healthy and be happy! Oh
> yeah - pay your Club bills.
> FLIGHT: You! Yeah, you, lard boy - you obviously eat too much - what do
you
> weigh? 160!! Good God man, lay off the marshmallows. Now get
out
> of here and go fly those jets - be sure to make me look good now!
> Oh yeah, you're gonna pull double duty until you're a respectable
> 150 like Worm Boy here. BTW, everyone *will* be at the Club
tonight
> and *will* listen to the Safety puke's talk about "realistic
> zero-accident training" and the Social Action weanie's discussion
> of "tolerance in the kinder and gentler AF". Now go get 'em
> killers!
> JETJOCKEY: ... must eat more aspartame ... which diet pills
> are non-detectable? Work. Sleep. No food. Work ...
> FLIGHTDOC: No, I don't know why you have trouble staying awake and doing
> your job well. Maybe you should eat more and study your
> profession and ignore that other stuff.
> PROMOTIONBOARD: ... a prime example of poor team attitude - make him a
> mister ... good Lord, look at the mustache on that man ...
> and he's not skinny! WGAS what his bomb scores are - bombs
> on target are old-school - we gotta look good in the shower
> and have a "balanced force" first and foremost!
>

[S. Sampson]

"Les Matheson" > wrote
> Don't laugh. For years I had to watch my weight as the max for my height 6'
> 2" was 218, ideal was 176 and I hovered around 205 all the time. Then I got
> sick and lost a lot of weight. With exercise to recover, I got down to 178
> when I weighed in at Brooks when I went to get back on flying status. The
> first thing the flight surgeon told me was "you need to gain about 20
> pounds." The doctors didn't even believe the weights in the regs.

Doctors are always giving NCO's weight waivers. General Jumper, as part of
his new program, says that doctors and staff don't get a vote, only the chain
of command gets a vote (who I'm sure will weigh the doctors opinions).

[Les Matheson]

That's because the weights in the regs are BOGUS. If they want to stick to
some standard, they at least ought to review what the standard is, or should
be.

Les


> Doctors are always giving NCO's weight waivers. General Jumper, as part
of
> his new program, says that doctors and staff don't get a vote, only the
chain
> of command gets a vote (who I'm sure will weigh the doctors opinions).
>
>

[Les Matheson]

The doctor was appalled that a 6'2" person should be 178. He said I should
be at 200. Of course that was a while ago and I am definately at or above
200 now.

Les

"Jughead" > wrote in message
.21...
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in
> news:xZYWa.1969$ug.552@lakeread01:
>
> > Don't laugh. For years I had to watch my weight as the max for my
> > height 6' 2" was 218, ideal was 176 and I hovered around 205 all the
> > time. Then I got sick and lost a lot of weight. With exercise to
> > recover, I got down to 178 when I weighed in at Brooks when I went to
> > get back on flying status. The first thing the flight surgeon told me
> > was "you need to gain about 20 pounds." The doctors didn't even
> > believe the weights in the regs.
>
> I'm just about the same height as you (74½" = 221 max). I weighed about
180
> much of the 4 years I was on active duty. I thought I looked quite healthy
> at the time and felt healthy as well. Once I got to AFRC, I made it up to
> about 200-205 as well. I wasn't the least bit happy with the way I looked
> and all of my friends and family who who remember the 180lbs me would all
> comment on how "fat" I was starting to look. I'm still in AFRC, but have
> since cut down on the food intake, picked up on the water consumption and
> exercising (especially basketball games during lunch breaks), and am just
> getting back to a hair below 190. I look a lot better than I was looking,
> but I still think I looked better at 180 than I do now.
>
> Not sure why that flight surgeon would think you should gain 20lbs after
> seeing you at 178. I suppose that would be okay if you keep the fat
percent
> down and gain all of the 20lbs in muscle weight. But being of medium build
> and not having any real fascination with being more muscular, I'd be
> perfectly happy with being at 180 myself.

[S. Sampson]

"Les Matheson" > wrote
> The doctor was appalled that a 6'2" person should be 178. He said I should
> be at 200. Of course that was a while ago and I am definately at or above
> 200 now.

He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).

[BUFDRVR]

>He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
>can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).
>

Yeah with steroids. Gaining 20 pounds of muscle in 10 weeks is barely possible
for professional athletes and they can afford to pay dieticians and trainers
and literally devote their full off season time to putting on 20 pounds of lean
muscle mass. The closest I've come to serious muscle weight gain since I exited
puberty was a 4 month tour on Diego where I all I did was eat, lift and work
about 4.5 days a week. End result was a gain of about 6-7 pounds of muscle
weight. Even with the Mark McGuire method ("healthy" portions of creatine, next
best thing to andro which can't be taken by USAF aircrew), we had guys gain
just over 10 pounds in 4 months, but with creatine, at least a third of that is
water weight which will be gone within days of your last dose.

To put this back on subject, I'm pleased with the new weight ROE. I've only
been at or below my max allowable weight for my first year and a half on active
duty, and thats because I was scared there would be serious consequences if I
exceeded it. I was a shell of my former self and much less healthy. Once I
realized it was ok to exceed my max allowable weight (requirning a simple
measurment test to insure I was; "under fat"), I got back in the gym. Now, age
and increased responsibilities at work (ie less time during the week to
exercise) have conspired to throw about 5-7 pounds of "waste" around my mid
section, but I still believe my overall health (strength, endurance and
flexibility) is better now than when I showed up at Minot with circles under my
eyes, little energy and the strength to barely bench my own weight
(exaggeration, but not too great). Every year I head on over to the hospital
for my tape test (which, on another note is the most unscientific method of
determining body mass I've ever seen). From now on I'll be able to just simply
have my commander look me over. My life just got easier.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Harvey]

>Doctors are always giving NCO's weight waivers. General Jumper, as part of
>his new program, says that doctors and staff don't get a vote, only the chain
>of command gets a vote (who I'm sure will weigh the doctors opinions).

Yeah, what would doctors who personally attend patients know about their health.

[S. Sampson]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
> >can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).
> >
>
> Yeah with steroids. Gaining 20 pounds of muscle in 10 weeks is barely possible
> for professional athletes and they can afford to pay dieticians and trainers
> and literally devote their full off season time to putting on 20 pounds of lean
> muscle mass.

Did I write that :-)

I was probably thinking about his recovering from a serious illness where he lost
a lot of muscle mass.

[Walter Luffman]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:04:31 GMT, "C Knowles" >
wrote:

>> Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
>> and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
>> uniform engineering).
>
>It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for a
>uniform.

Composite wings serve a purpose; but they should be *rare* exceptions
to the rule.

As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
whites.

> If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
>> for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
>> duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).

I'll speak to this as someone who was "pushed out the gate for being
too fat"; turned out I was developing Type 2 diabetes, but that's
beside the point.

The armed forces need people who are physically fit. Each service has
its own requirements and testing methods, but in general every person
in uniform has to be physically capable of doing most jobs in any
environment -- that includes traveling on foot and engaging in (or
evading) an enemy on the ground. Physical standards can be measured
on a pass/fail basis simply and with improvised or simple-to-build
equipment.

I went through basic training with the Army, not the Air Force; every
training company had a horizontal ladder and a few other pieces of
equipment in its company area, and every training cadre member knew
one or more measured routes for the morning run. The training center
(mine was Fort Campbell) had ranges for proficiency (as opposed to
mere physical conditioning), and a central physical testing site for
the final "graduation" test.

Oh, each battalion had a building set up as a sort of gymnasium -- the
inclined ramps were built from lumber and painted olive drab, the mats
were old cot mattresses, the weights were various sized cans filled
with measured amounts of concrete or gravel. But we trainees only
used this "battalion gym" when weather prevented the usual pushups,
situps, low-crawling and other normal fitness activities outdoors.
(The cadre could use it anytime, of course.)

I didn't pass the "graduation" PT test the first time, or even the
second; I wound up in Special Training Company working on my running
until I could bring up my speed. Even in Special Training Company we
didn't use specialized gear for workouts or testing; mostly we ran and
did pushups, same as before.

The post gymnasium (and those at every post or base where I served)
was nicely equipped with specialized equipment, of course. But the
point is, the services don't need high-tech gear to measure basic
physical fitness, or even to correct most deficiencies. Lay out a
cinder track, mark off every road in one-mile increments, make sure
every barracks has at least one horizontal ladder in back.

Something else that might be beneficial would be optional uniforms
like the Air Force's old Combination 6 (I think that's what it was
called) -- Class A dress slacks and an Air Force Blue long-sleeved
shirt (worn with a necktie) that was tailored to look good only on
those with very little body fat. Fatties like me need not bother.
Neither should bodybuilders for that matter, since too much upper-body
development looked a bit grotesque in that particular uniform. (Those
with really wide shoulders or bulging biceps should probably stick
with either blues or some variety of work uniform.) Eliminate,
redesign or ban from everyday wear any uniform that conceals more than
an acceptably low amount of fat around the middle, so that overweight
is noticed (and corrected) before it exceeds standards.

Granted, some people are actually physically fit but don't fit the
stereotypical image. I knew a few guys (mostly wrestlers and weight
lifters) in both the Army and Air Force whose "fat look" was actually
powerful muscles under a thin layer of fat; as long as they could meet
standards in the annual physical fitness tests (which I suppose the
services still require) they stayed off the "fat lists". Soldiers in
combat units didn't have much of a problem anyway, since they proved
their physical prowess through routine training; it was big guys in
"soft" jobs who usually attracted (or deserved) fitness-scrutiny from
commanders.

>So, if someone cannot meet the standards it's the leader's fault and the
>leader should be punished? Ridiculous. That's what leads to "leaders"
>covering up for their failed troops, or pushing them off on others. Some
>people simply will not or cannot maintain standards, whether weight,
>drinking, performance, etc. While leaders should make every attempt
>practical to bring these folks up to speed, at some point they become more
>trouble than they are worth. At that point it's time to boot them out. If
>someone is overweight and no one is taking action, that's a failed leader.

I couldn't say it any better myself ... I know because i tried.

None of this means that service members who fail to maintain military
standards can't continue to be effective as clerks, mechanics, or most
other jobs (excepting combat). But if they can't, or won't, meet
military standards it's time for them to leave the military.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Walter Luffman
> writes
>As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
>shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
>shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
>of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

I work with Navy and RM at the moment. Navy shore working rig (whatever
the correct designation is) is black trousers, white shirt with rank
tabs (short sleeved, open-necked, for summer; long sleeved with a black
tie for winter), and ID pass. Probably more comfortable than the RM's
summerweight combats in the current heatwave (if only because the RM
don't roll the sleeves of their combat shirts), but having worn
lightweight Soldier 95 myself it's good kit and more comfortable than
most "smart civvies".

Certainly when you work in a warfare centre, you don't bat an eye at
someone in a combat suit. Back when I was (part-time) Army, "working
dress" was lightweight trousers, GS or KF shirt[1], and pullover... once
enough personnel collapsed from heatstroke, "summer rig" would be
approved which meant you could lose the wool sweater, but had to roll
your shirtsleeves to pass the RSM's inspection. It's good to see things
have improved.

(As a civilian analyst I'm allegedly supposed to be wearing a tie, but
I'm there to work not to suffer :) )


We could do with some crabs for balance & info, but until we get them I
don't know what they do for working rig at a shore command.

>For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
>choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
>office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
>whites.

Places where "working dress" is unsuitable should be rare and require
justification, IMHO.

<big snip of cogent & sensible arguments about fitness - no argument,
just didn't want to bin it unremarked>

>I couldn't say it any better myself ... I know because i tried.
>
>None of this means that service members who fail to maintain military
>standards can't continue to be effective as clerks, mechanics, or most
>other jobs (excepting combat). But if they can't, or won't, meet
>military standards it's time for them to leave the military.

Trouble is, the scope for a lot of those clerk & office jobs is
shrinking, as is the opportunity to divert an officer who's done well
but hit a ceiling to an operational analysis job, because force numbers
are under a lot of pressure and civilians _are_ cheaper than servicemen
for office jobs (raw salary's a lot less, and civilian staff only get
relatively expensive when you deploy them overseas and/or put them on
defence watches or... in offices it's a clear cost saving)

I know what my "military equivalent rank" is and roughly what my
"military equivalent" earns compared to me. I'm jealous but I wouldn't
swap jobs casually - they generally don't get that money for nothing.[2]


>Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
>Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

[1] GS shirts were fairly heavy green cotton, but otherwise good for
what they were. KF shirts were woven from a mixture of donkey wool and
machine-shop shavings, thick enough to deflect bullets (or so it felt),
and would not take a crease even if you scorched the damn things -
making "neatly creased sleeves" impossible in summer.

Today's soldiers wear what I'd call a "tropical combat shirt" in summer;
I could only get away with it on exercise and had to buy it myself, for
them it's working dress. Lucky bar-stewards... but I'm glad they're more
comfortable & practical than me. That's progress.


[2] And that assumes you buy into civil-service grades equating to
military rank at all, which I don't. I'd outrank the captain of many RN
warships by that standard, which is certainly and clearly a load of
********; or rank alongside an Army battalion commander, which is even
more testicular in nature to me.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Les Matheson]

Well, speaking of uniforms, has anyone seen the new Air Force blue/grey BDU?
Seems the powers that be are tired of being mistaken for soldiers. Didn't
we have blue fatigues once upon a time?

Les


"Walter Luffman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:04:31 GMT, "C Knowles" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
> >> and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
> >> uniform engineering).
> >
> >It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for
a
> >uniform.
>
>
> As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
> shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
> shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
> of place in an office including a wing commander's office.
>
> For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
> choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
> office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
> whites.
>

[Vee-One]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:UilYa.9329$ug.988@lakeread01...
> Well, speaking of uniforms, has anyone seen the new Air Force blue/grey
BDU?
> Seems the powers that be are tired of being mistaken for soldiers. Didn't
> we have blue fatigues once upon a time?
>
> Les
>
>

Here at Robins, we're going to be one of the test bases. I've yet to see
anyone in them, but I've got my eyes peeled. The article on the AF site
mentions a new T-shirt, a 3-button job with US Air Force embroidered on one
side, and our name on the other. (Sigh) So much for squadron t-shirts in
uniform. Also, I wonder about stripes. Are they going to change the colors
to blend with the new uniform?

I seem to remember the blue fatigues were worn by missile crews. The
Thunderbirds still wear blue, with the large t-bird logo on the back.

MSgt (sel) Peter Vierps
116 AMXS

[Thomas Schoene]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:UilYa.9329$ug.988@lakeread01
> Well, speaking of uniforms, has anyone seen the new Air Force
> blue/grey BDU? Seems the powers that be are tired of being mistaken
> for soldiers. Didn't we have blue fatigues once upon a time?

Just posted a new thread on the topic. Strikingly inspired by the "kewl"
new Marine utilities.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Pete]

"Vee-One" > wrote
>
> MSgt (sel) Peter Vierps
^^^^^^^^

Congrats.

Pete

[Walter Luffman]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:15:05 GMT, "S. Sampson" > wrote:

>"Walter Luffman" > wrote
>>
>> I'll speak to this as someone who was "pushed out the gate for being
>> too fat"; turned out I was developing Type 2 diabetes, but that's
>> beside the point.
>
>No it's not! Type-2 is due to obesity in almost all cases.

Incorrect. VERY incorrect. Type 2 diabetes is often linked to
obesity, but that is not the same as saying that one causes the other.
Current thinking (at least among the doctors and Certified Diabetes
Instructors I know) is that something -- probably a genetic factor --
is the most common cause for both Type 2 and obesity.

FWIW, I have an uncle (my mother's sister's husband, no blood
relation) who was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes just this past week.
He's 70 years old, tall and lean, a lifelong athlete who still plays
golf at least three days a week (yes, he uses a cart -- the
two-wheeled kind you pull). But Type 2 diabetes is common in his
family, he halfway expected to develop diabetes sooner or later.

OTOH, my maternal grandmother's family included a number of diabetics
(apparently both Type 1 and Type 2, although not known as such then)
as blood relatives. My maternal grandfather's close kin included a
few Type 2 diabetics. Both of them were obese most of their adult
lives. He died at age 83 of acute lymphocytic leukemia. She lived to
be nearly 91; she died of chronic leukemia. Neither ever had any
symptoms of diabetes, nor did the many blood tests they received ever
show elevated blood glucose. (They were tested routinely when blood
was drawn for tracking the leukemia's progress, at least until near
the very end.)

I'm not suggesting that obesity causes leukemia, of course. I'm just
pointing out that skinny people sometimes develop Type 2 diabetes and
obese people sometimes escape it. In many cases it's strictly a
matter of genetic predisposition and time.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer