# BFT+Air Force deployment policy...I don't get it !!!!



## airforcemissingthearmy (15 May 2008)

I'm an ex combat engineer who's trying to enjoy a continuation of my career into the construction trades and my journey took me to an Air Forces base. Like anny other place, we do work up training to deploy, the only diference, is the Air Force one last for ever. Early May to September for the BFT ( no kidding!! ) 

Here's my beef. I was some guy replacement for a ROTO ( somewhere in the middle east, but not Afghanistan, if you know what I mean) and despite the fact that he had so much time to train for the BFT, he still found a way to fail it. Like any soldier who want's to go over, I got all excited, but it was only to find out that the BFT was not a requirement, as far as the Air Force was concerned, to deploy in this country. How fair is that? I bust my @ss off and he get's to go. Once again, I see mediocrity beeing rewarded. What is wrong with the Forces. Why not send the best they got?

The story does't end there. Mr BFTFAIL found a friend while overseas, things built up as far as fraternisation and him and his new love get RTU'd for their disregard of CF policy on the mater. Since I was over has his HLTA replacement guess who get to stay?Me, but not long enought for the medal. He just proven the point that peolple that don't care about their hown fitness are more likely not to care about the mission and put their personal maters in front of the CF commiments.

The truth of the fact is that if you wear the uniform and you can't pass something as simple as the BFT you should get out. I agree with the latest debate about the BFT saying that it does not prepare you for battle but if you can pass it, it just proves how lazy you are.(please, don't give me the "if I've been broken for the past 2 years and I'm excuse everything except breathing bull sh**) I'm a 1 CMBG Mountain Man Chalenge finisher and I'm not saying it should be the test, but it should be where all soldiers should want to be. 

Is there anyone on this forum who can explain to me why the ratio "effort put into your job/reward" is so grossely disrepected. On the civy street, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid and you eventuly get fired. The day the military put a cut in pay for members that can't perform to the minimum standard (1) will be the day those members will have a real incentive to pass... or get out.

 (1) By minimum stardard, I mean doing what soldiers do and it mean's puting a load on your back with your FFO and your weapon... soldier first!

Meanwhile, I guess I'll just suck it up and soldier on. I was just told it was futile to even think about a redress to ensure a spot on the ROTO's to come. I guess this medal will go to an other BFT FAIL EXTRAORDINAIRE who realy deserve it! ( with loads of sarcasm, of course!!)


----------



## geo (15 May 2008)

Relax my friend.... you might get invited to do another HLTA replacement stint - thus qualifying for your gong.... 
(those days can be accumulated)


----------



## eurowing (15 May 2008)

Mr BTFFAIL's supervisors shall surely ensure his PER reflects his conduct, ethics and he definitely should get a Low Potential rating for dedication for putting his carnal needs before DND's requirements.  It will all come out in the wash.


----------



## DirtyDog (15 May 2008)

I see WAY too much mediocrity, laziness and plain old stupidity in the CF.  It embarrasses me and pisses me off.


----------



## hauger (15 May 2008)

Just to clarify, what you're saying is you're upset?  Quit worrying about this guy, chill out and wait for the old Karma wheel to spin around.


----------



## rifleman (15 May 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> Mr BTFFAIL's supervisors shall surely ensure his PER reflects his conduct, ethics and he definitely should get a Low Potential rating for dedication for putting his carnal needs before DND's requirements.  It will all come out in the wash.



If it was only true - He'll probably get promoted before the PER is written


----------



## Zoomie (16 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> He'll probably get promoted before the PER is written



Probably not - since all promotions after Corporal or Captain are based 100% on your PER standings.  CO's don't even promote anymore - DMilC takes care of that.


----------



## rifleman (17 May 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Probably not - since all promotions after Corporal or Captain are based 100% on your PER standings.  CO's don't even promote anymore - DMilC takes care of that.



And PERs are never inflated


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> And PERs are never inflated



Not when i write them thank you.


----------



## rifleman (17 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not when i write them thank you.



Good for you


----------



## Zoomie (17 May 2008)

I would say that most PERs are written rather concisely and fairly in the Air Force.  The nature of the job doesn't really allow for thuds to slip through the cracks - if a tech is bad at his/her job it is going to show in his/her work.  Same goes for aircrew and other trades.


----------



## airforcemissingthearmy (17 May 2008)

Yes, it's true. PER on Air Force base are written the way they should be when it's about work. If you take some of the situation I've seen and transfer them to an Army base the matter become completely different. When I was in 5 RGC Valcartier, you ad to complete the Co's challenge to be deployed overseas. I missed Bosnia ROTO 5 that way because I was out of shape and I paid the due price for my laziness and lack of dedication. This as noting to do with PER, I did not go overseas because I did not put the same effort than all my peers. Here again, I see Chubby Mc Tub, Fatty Mc Greasy, Constant-Broken Mc Crutches and Junkie Mc Crystal-Meth getting away with murder at the expanse of the hard working individual ( I know it doesn't sound professional, but I'm sick of all this and the only thing I can do is laugh at it!). Not only I have to pick up the slack for them abroad, they get my spot on tour!!! Even if this individual PER gets crushed, he still got away with 4 point of overseas service. 4 points I should of get. It's hard enough to keep people in those days... why not helping the ones that want to stay by giving them what they deserve!


----------



## Sf2 (17 May 2008)

Sounds to me that you really need to stop worrying about what others are doing, and concentrate on yourself.


----------



## cp140tech (17 May 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I would say that most PERs are written rather concisely and fairly in the Air Force.  The nature of the job doesn't really allow for thuds to slip through the cracks - if a tech is bad at his/her job it is going to show in his/her work.  Same goes for aircrew and other trades.



I think where air techs are concerned it's more of an artificial inflation issue than thuds who keep slipping through the cracks.  Not to say that we don't have our fair share of fools running around who manage to dance their way up the merit list, like anywhere I guess.  If you look hard enough I guess you can find something good to say about anyone, some supervisors just look harder than others it seems.


----------



## krustyrl (17 May 2008)

> Posts: 2
> 
> 
> Re: BFT+Air Force deployment policy...I don't get it !!!!
> ...






> Sounds to me that you really need to stop worrying about what others are doing, and concentrate on yourself.





Why don't you just get out if it is such a sore spot for you, really.??


----------



## Strike (17 May 2008)

Guys, we're all being a little harsh, aren't we?  Looks to me like someone just needed to vent.  We've all been there and if any of you haven't then I want some of what you're taking!  ;D


----------



## rifleman (17 May 2008)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Why don't you just get out if it is such a sore spot for you, really.??



Ah, I just love that line, "get out" instead of actually addressing the observation.


----------



## airforcemissingthearmy (18 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Ah, I just love that line, "get out" instead of actually addressing the observation.





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Guys, we're all being a little harsh, aren't we?  Looks to me like someone just needed to vent.  We've all been there and if any of you haven't then I want some of what you're taking!  ;D





			
				SF2 said:
			
		

> Sounds to me that you really need to stop worrying about what others are doing, and concentrate on yourself.



Thanks for your input guys. Yes I needed to vent... and I'm not sure I'm done. Has for the people that suggest tho take the easy way out and can not reckon the injustice in all this, I hope you're not part of the problem. If you stop to read it, it's because you're concern about it and you want to see if you can do something about it, right? Or maybe I'm wrong about all this. I guess it's just a fantasy of mine to want to steer the boat in the right direction making sure we don't lose good potential people. Obviously, the system is not working if we entertain all this. And getting out... it's just saying you win and I give up. Now, if you're one of those that give up...I return the suggestion... As for concentrating on myself I don't see what else I can do beside learning a second language, top student on my 5's and finishing the Mountain Man Challenge in 7 hours. When we don't worry about others, it's when it start to get out of control. I don't know about you guys, but it just make me sick to see our resources being waisted. Who wants to do something about it? I do... :cdnsalute:


----------



## aesop081 (18 May 2008)

airforcemissingthearmy said:
			
		

> As for concentrating on myself I don't see what else I can do beside learning a second language, top student on my 5's and finishing the Mountain Man Challenge in 7 hours.



I'm sorry but i went and got a second language, did very well on my QL6A, BAC, MOAT and category upgrade. I completed the Mountain Man Challenge twice. My career has gone pretty well. Sometimes its a shit sandwich but do the best you can at what you are assigned to do and look for ways to improve yourself. It will get noticed and having the ability to look at yourself in the miror in the morning and tell yourself that you did things right is worth its weight in gold IMHO.


----------



## zorro (20 May 2008)

airforcemissingthearmy said:
			
		

> Chubby Mc Tub, Fatty Mc Greasy, Constant-Broken Mc Crutches and Junkie Mc Crystal-Meth getting away with murder at the expanse of the hard working individual



LOL



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Sometimes its a crap sandwich but do the best you can at what you are assigned to do and look for ways to improve yourself. It will get noticed and having the ability to look at yourself in the miror in the morning and tell yourself that you did things right is worth its weight in gold IMHO.



+1


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

I was army for years and have not quite a year and a half in the Air Force environment day to day and all I can say is from the military perspective, you are talking two different cultures and mindsets IMHO.


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (20 May 2008)

I am an ex-grunt who is now Air Force and I miss the Army everyday!!!!  :crybaby: Since it was a medical remuster, I do not think I will go back to the mother ship!! The Air Force has different  R & Os with respect to the way it does things, having said that it shouldn't! We are suppose to be the Canadian Forces! Everday I fight the good fight and let my Supervisors know how things should be done with no joy! Be professional, speak up and good things will come your way! Don't sweat the things that you can't control.....you will only get angry!!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> I am an ex-grunt who is now Air Force and I miss the Army everyday!!!!  :crybaby: Since it was a medical remuster, I do not think I will go back to the mother ship!! The Air Force has different  R & Os with respect to the way it does things, having said that it shouldn't! We are suppose to be the Canadian Forces! Everday I fight the good fight and let my *Supervisors* know how things should be done with no joy! Be professional, speak up and good things will come your way! Don't sweat the things that you can't control.....you will only get angry!!!



Egad they are converting you!  I hate the word "supervisors" in relation to anyone who has a rank.  My pet peeve.  We have subordinates, peers/equals, and superiors.  Dammit.  (No I am not angry...just another round peg in a square hole  )  Supervisors work at...Walmart and...Burger King.  This is where I must invoke the term *mivilian.*  (mah-vill-yen:  one who is not really military in mindset or deportment, yet subject to the CSD and in the CF.  See rank "hey buddy".)  ;D


----------



## zorro (20 May 2008)

LOL

Embrace it!!!


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (20 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hate the word "supervisors" in relation to anyone who has a rank.  My pet peeve.  We have subordinates, peers/equals, and superiors.  Dammit.  (No I am not angry...just another round peg in a square hole  )  Supervisors work at...Walmart and...Burger King.



Your right ......I might be getting converted..I think that is the first time using it...yikes ;D..it took two yrs.....but I think I will stick with "supervisor" as I have not come across anyone in the Air Force I would consider my "superior" as far as leadership goes...yet...I am hopfull!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

We live in the same world.   ;D  Refer to post above, rank "hey buddy".


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Egad they are converting you!  I hate the word "supervisors" in relation to anyone who has a rank.  My pet peeve.  We have subordinates, peers/equals, and superiors.  Dammit.  (No I am not angry...just another round peg in a square hole  )  Supervisors work at...Walmart and...Burger King.  This is where I must invoke the term *mivilian.*  (mah-vill-yen:  one who is not really military in mindset or deportment, yet subject to the CSD and in the CF.  See rank "hey buddy".)  ;D



Hmmm ... "talk to the Clothing Stores Superior" just doesn't seem to cut it, nor does "IC Clothing Stores" when, of course, the Sup O is really the IC of everything Supply ... and she probably doesn't want you complaining to her. She'd probably tell you to go talk to the "Clothing Stores Supervisor" too ...  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

but thats the 'job title' more isn't it?   ;D


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> but thats the 'job title' more isn't it?   ;D



Dude. Get real. We are talking "Clothing Stores" here.   Some are superior, some are even outstanding, but most are merely skilled.  > (I know that shows my age -- it's from a couple of PER rating systems ago ...) 

But, here's the current just to irritate you even more (seems that supervisor is indeed accepted and standard terminology these days):

CFPAS PER:

Section 4 (Performance):

AF1: reads ... "Supervising"

 :-\

And from the handbook ... 



> Rank of Supervisor
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




I wonder if I throw my "position" in the signature block as "milvilian" -- if anyone would notice??  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

Mivilian isn't meant that way by me though


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mivilian isn't meant that way by me though



That must be the difference in Army and Air Force mindsets then!!   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

oh god there is there is!


----------



## Zoomie (20 May 2008)

"Supervisor" is an official term in the CF folks - not just the Airforce.  

Our particular structure is not based on the army section, platoon, company organization.  We have individual departments in which we employ specific trades.  As a Captain - I do not have NCMs that report to me.  Their direct supervisor (there it is again) is another NCM followed by an NCO (WO or MWO).  In my department we have 20+ Officers - we report directly to a Major who reports to the CO.  Another department under that same Major is full of NCMs who report to him directly.

This type of organization is not anti-CF - it is just the way it is.  Ex-army types have their issues at the start, but trust me, you will get over it and YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. 


ex-army Zoomie


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2008)

I don't think anyone stated that it was an "Air Force" term. Did I miss something?

Even CFPAS (applicable to the ENTIRE CF) was quoted. 

I assimilated well -- got out and went green.  ;D

Ex-Air Force Army girl.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2008)

I'll have to take a good look at the NDA for the word tomorrow   ;D  (hey I *did* say it was my pet peeve earlier )

Do you have one of those gadgets they had in MIB that can erase the mind (not that it would take long in my case) and make this less painful?   8)


----------



## Zoomie (21 May 2008)

Lady Vern] I don't think anyone stated that it was an "Air Force" term. Did I miss something? [/quote]
While not directly...
[quote author=Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> <snip> We have subordinates, peers/equals, and superiors. ..... Supervisors work at...Walmart and...Burger King.  <snip>


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 May 2008)

Ok ok so I just don't relate the term supervisor to the military... 

Now, lets all have a nice group hug, lead by our team supervisor.  Then I'll put on my nice blue vest and start greeting folks as they come into the store.   ;D

*edit - I didn't mean to say it is only the Air Force that uses it...I am only saying I hadn't heard it used [in my 17 years in at the time...] until I OTd to Air Force.


----------



## airforcemissingthearmy (25 May 2008)

YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. 


ex-army Zoomie
[/quote]

Not a chance my friend!!!!! There is things happening on an Air Force bases that would be qualified as a disgrace on Army bases ,and to put me in a better mood, I was just told that the deployment physical requirement for the Air Force is now the BFT. I don't have the reference yet, but as soon as I do I'll post it. Just to prove an other fact of life, even if your Air Force, the minimum standard always come back to the Army one...or should we call it the CF one...we all wear the same uniform don't we?


----------



## Strike (25 May 2008)

Without getting too much in the weeds, the standard to deploy to certain areas does include the BFT.  Some others do not.  It's not a "new" thing.  It all depends on where you will be based.


----------



## Zoomie (25 May 2008)

airforcemissingthearmy said:
			
		

> There is things happening on an Air Force bases that would be qualified as a disgrace on Army bases



I have also learned that there are many, many things that happen on LFC run bases that are pointless, useless and darn right funny.  

Who ever decided that we should never walk on the "Queen's" grass.  My first exposure to this was some huge RCR MWO in the spring of 1994 yelling at me from over a klick away.  I had to double over to him (across him precious grass) and get my first real reaming as a Trooper.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2008)

airforcemissingthearmy said:
			
		

> YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
> 
> 
> ex-army Zoomie
> ...



There are things happenning on an Army Base that would be qualified as a disgrace on an Air Force base.  What's the point?  2 different cultures, 2 different type of mission (with a common goal), I don't see what's wrong.  

Max


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2008)

Can you list some of them?  I agree with the 2 different cultures, hands down.  I'd never seen things that involve the 3Ds on an army base go unnoticed or uncorrected that don't even phase people where I've been the last 1+ years.  Snr NCOs with big loopy laces hanging out of their non-bloused LWCC pants and boots that hadn't seen polish since their last quarterly PDR review, in serious need of a haircut and an even decent attempt at shaving prior to RFD are the top of my list of 'things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmm"...

In the army (or atleast the places I was), being properly turned-out on a daily basis was not something that received any special notice, as it was the standard.  I am at a loss for words as to some of what I see, in the Jnr NCO/Snr NCO and higher ranks somedays.  As I sat in the waiting room of the CDU this morning past, a Lt Col walked by a Cpl, who said "hey how's it going?" to this Snr Officer.   :  

Speaking for myself, I used to take pride in the deportment that was normal in my old units when I was 'green'.  When I report to my Dept Chief now and 'come to the chow' smartly, I get scowls.  Before, I didn't get a pat on the back for being 'keen'; it was the standard.  We took pride in that standard.  Earlier in my career, when I was a Tp WO, I would report to the SSMs office, come to attention, and wait to hear "enter" or words to that effect.  Those of us who grew up that way are sometimes at a loss to understand why that is laughed at.  We grew up as NCOs learning things like the '3-Ms'.  The Mission, The Men, Then Myself.  I recently did something that was Mission focused, and find myself explaining why I put that ahead of something that was only applicable to myself.  My only explaination was 'the 3-Ms' to which I heard "thats not good enough".  I have no other way to explain it;  its like asking me why I breathe in, then out.  Its natural.


----------



## Zoomie (28 May 2008)

Some of those natural-ingrained actions will never leave you.  Still, to this day,  I come to attention at the door way of my superiors office.  I get the scowls, smirks, etc.  I deal with it.  I constantly get teased or whatever you want to call it for being "too army".  Yet I know that if I were still in a green environment, I would be "too slack".  So where am I?  I'm stuck in the middle, trying to conform to my workplace, yet still holding on to my view of the military.

A year ago I came across a situation where an NCM failed to salute - his hands were in his raincoat, his head turned against the driving rain.  My initial reaction to jack this airmen up was squashed with an uncertainty of whether that would be considered "over the top".  I instead did the air force thing - I wrote an email to the respective Chiefs involved.  Two days later I was in the Chief's office being jacked for not jacking up the Corporal.  So lesson learned there - go with your initial reaction.

I find that our Squadron Chiefs (CWO's) are trying their hardest to run a tight ship.  The last couple of Wing Chiefs and Squadron Chiefs have been notorious ball breakers.  They come aboard anyone with sloppy deportment, tell Captains to get their hair cut.  Our Chief's latest battle has been side-burns and enforcing their length.

I find most NCMs still address me as "Sir".  The FE's usually don't - they are a crusty bunch.  As Euro-Wing can attest, there is still a military decorum between the maintainers and the aircrew - it may be relax compared to the Army, but it still exists.


----------



## Rigger (28 May 2008)

Crusty... why I otta... I think the plane is broke no fly today


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (28 May 2008)

It is nice to see that others see and loath what I see!(Dress and Deoportment) We are suppose to be one Force (CF) and should have the same standards....but we do not! Now the Air Force wants to develop its own fitness standards! If we are all working to a common goal, why all the little kingdoms and different standards? Here is the article from the Maple Leaf...........

Project SOAR to develop new Air Force fitness standards
by Holly Bridges

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen – all are different, yet all are the same in their capacity as serving members of the CF. For years, the CF EXPRES Test has measured the fitness levels of all CF personnel, regardless of their military occupation.

Given the level of specialization of occupations within the CF, senior leadership has suggested that environmentspecific fitness standards would likely be more reflective of the demands placed on CF men and women. 

Now, under the recently launched CF Health and Fitness Strategy, the Air Force (along with the Army and Navy) has been given the green light to develop its own health and fitness standard.

The jobs that we ask of our airmen and airwomen are so unique that we must identify what those differences are from a physiological standpoint and measure them accurately,” says Air Force fitness advisor Todd Stride. “The jobs that they are doing are different, so the fitness standards should be different as well.” 

And, according to Air Force research manager Dr. Michael Spivock, the transformation in fitness standards is about more than improving operational effectiveness; it’s about ensuring that our fitness standards are in accordance with Canadian law. 

“When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”

So, what does this mean for the average member of the Air Force? Starting in June, a short, job-based survey will be sent to about half of all Air Force personnel, the results of which will identify the physically demanding aspects of people’s occupations. After the results are processed, a team of researchers from Ottawa, including Dr. Spivock and Phil Newton, will travel to select Air Force wings to begin testing personnel on the job to measure the actual physical exertion levels required to perform each job. All this will be translated into a new scientifically based Air Force fitness standard that should be implemented within about two years. 

Watch for updates on the Standards of Operational Fitness for Air Force Requirements (SOAR) project as they become available. In the meantime, visit our Newsroom on the DIN for more information.


    http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4408


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2008)

- This is the end of 'universality of service': The concept that ALL of us must dig a trench, carry a load, etc.  Once U of S is Kaput, there is no longer any excuse to maintain the joke of Unification of the CF.  It's back to the future with the RCN, Cdn Army and RCAF.

- After unification in 1968, former members of the RCN and RCAF had 'vested rights' not to serve in Army situations.  They appear to have a desire to regain that status.

- Logic will win out: we will return to three separate services under one NDA, and will be able to more scientifically employ our physically substandard new members.

- Wheelchair Battalions on the D.I.P. Line, anyone?


----------



## DirtyDog (28 May 2008)

What a bunch of utter crap.  Unblievable.


----------



## rifleman (28 May 2008)

Whats the problem? The army consistantly makes their own policies even when the CF has one in place. The BFT was put into place as a measure of "bona fide occupational requirements" for the Land Force. (the army disappeared in the 60s). Personally, I like the BFT but even the army does it wrong. They treat it like some special event - Oranges, safety vehicles and water. If you complete it, you get the rest of the day to recover. Some even get the weekend. 

Here is the old army coming out, if you can't handle the culture, get out!!!  ;D


----------



## DirtyDog (28 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Whats the problem? The army consistantly makes their own policies even when the CF has one in place. The BFT was put into place as a measure of "bona fide occupational requirements" for the Land Force. (the army disappeared in the 60s). Personally, I like the BFT but even the army does it wrong. They treat it like some special event - Oranges, safety vehicles and water. If you complete it, you get the rest of the day to recover. Some even get the weekend.
> 
> Here is the old army coming out, if you can't handle the culture, get out!!!  ;D


The air force can do what they want as long as I'm not assoiciated with it (ie. under the CF umbrella).  I have trouble when talking to someone and I tell them I'm in the military and they are like "Oh yes, my son's in the military too, I know all about it" when they're son is some navy/ air force clerk who shares next to nothing in common with me.

Also, different elements can have different policies and standards i suppose, but when they appeal to the lowest common denominator and are utter complete PC BS like this, I have a problem with it.

"bona fide occupational requirements"  : Gimme a gawd damn break.  How about this, your occupation is the military?  Screw some low ball standard for a pencil pushers.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 May 2008)

Maybe it's time the Mods lock this one up.  It has certainly outlived it's usefulness.  What started out as a "rant" because someone is pissed that someone else got a tour has turned into the "My element is better than your element" thread.  No better than the RegF vs. ResF threads, IMHO. 
For those of you who don't know, there are many operations taking place around the world that have different physical fitness test requirements.  These requirements are the same for anyone going on a particular operation *regardless of element*!


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Some of those natural-ingrained actions will never leave you.  Still, to this day,  I come to attention at the door way of my superiors office.  I get the scowls, smirks, etc.  I deal with it.  I constantly get teased or whatever you want to call it for being "too army".  Yet I know that if I were still in a green environment, I would be "too slack".  So where am I?  I'm stuck in the middle, trying to conform to my workplace, yet still holding on to my view of the military.
> 
> A year ago I came across a situation where an NCM failed to salute - his hands were in his raincoat, his head turned against the driving rain.  My initial reaction to jack this airmen up was squashed with an uncertainty of whether that would be considered "over the top".  I instead did the air force thing - I wrote an email to the respective Chiefs involved.  Two days later I was in the Chief's office being jacked for not jacking up the Corporal.  So lesson learned there - go with your initial reaction.
> 
> ...





Habits. I have some. Some good, some bad.

During an Air Force posting of mine to an Air Base that shall remain nameless ... my green uniform worked well if I wanted a tour. Also worked well for keeping me away from my actual place of duty and on tasking as often as I wanted it. They had to send someone, of course, and I was quite willing. DART/JNBCD stand-up? Vern wears green. Weapons? Vern wears green. Ice Storm? Vern wears green. Exercise is the States? Vern wears green. 9/11? Vern wears green. Refugees? Deployment? Vern wears green. I had a blast. It was great. It wasn't that they were tasking me because I was green ... it was just because I had actually seen and done some of this "stuff" before ... and the AF can get hit with just as many last-minute fast balls as the Army can dish out.

But, my army ways never left me despite the more social atmosphere of the Air Force. I don't say that in a bad way. I had a great time with the Air Force. I'd come to attention when entering the Wing LEOs office, the W SupOs office, the WChiefs office, the Senior Techs Office, my Sergeants office (who was actually a PO) ... it's just the way I work -- I even salute before entering appropriate offices. This irritated some people, but not others. 

But, there came this one time when the army in me just _had_ to be used ... in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was the MCpl they put in charge of heading up the Op Apollo deployment -- after we had packed up all the MAKs and fly-away kits along with the 30pers/30 day sustainment kits, water, etc ... I assigned all the chalk numbers to our assorted loads.

Went in to give the briefing at WOps and all went very well and we were good to go. THEN -- someone above my rank, but from Supply piped up with a "but I only see one problem and it's quite serious". What is that says I? "Well, you have ammo and water slated for chalk one." Yes, so what exactly IS the problem Sir? "Well, you're moving million dollar aircraft spares too, and you have modular floors slated for chalk XX on your list." Yes, Sir, so what exactly IS the problem? "Well, they need to be chalk one because you can't just be sitting million dollar aircraft spares on the sand in the desert." SIR!! The spares are crated ... the floors can wait!" "Well, in my deployment experience ..." Vern cuts him off with "And, exactly WHAT deployment experience is that Sir??" He had a CD with clasp on his chest. He got up and departed the room ... and every eye turned to look at me. I then said something to the effect of: Ooops soory, but Mother of gawd ... we were deploying to a war zone and water and ammo is going to get bumped for modular floors (do you guys in the Army even know such a thing existed!!  >) !!?? ...

The response was an overwhlming: "Oh no it's not getting bumped anywhere."

When I got back to work, I just headed upstairs as I knew I'd be called to go up there anyway (go figure ...  ;D) ... I was greeted by a very loud: "That's it XXXXXX, I've F'n had it with you -- I'm posting you to ATESS!!" I just said, good enough Sir and went downstairs to my office.

But, every morning after that immediately upon arriving at work, I'd walk upstairs through the Customer Services section and the OR and would lean in his office door and say "Hey Sir -- you got that posting message yet??" It came 2 years later ... but alas it was not to ATESS, rather it was back to the Army.  

Heck, I can't complain -- I enjoyed my time served with all three enviornments ... and the Air Force even promoted me -- twice.  

I figured ... this was a good place to tell that story and to lighten the mood ... it ain't all bad folks. There's good and bad in all three elements. And it's all in your attitude whther or not you're going to make the best and the most of it ... or have a shitty time.

Look after you, look after your troops, don't sweat the small stuff, understand that there are factors at play well beyond some members realm of control.

People don't promote themselves. People don't post themselves. People don't deploy themselves. If you're bitchy or itching at them for them being the beneficiary of those things -- you're bitching about the wrong person. Shit like that causes aneurysms. It'll all wash out in the end --- and credit will come where credit is due ... and despite my extreme irritation of a certain Sir in the Air Force --- I can say that I did get the recognition for that which I had done ... he didn't make it personal. And the Air Force -- is VERY good at recognizing an individuals accomplishments/good work, they make a habit of it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> If you complete it, you get the rest of the day to recover. Some even get the weekend.



Says who?


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Says who?



I'm wondering that too ...

I'll be at work this Friday after I do mine. As will everyone else.

And, I'll be there on the 13th June after doing it all over again that day too.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm wondering that too ...
> 
> I'll be at work this Friday after I do mine. As will everyone else.
> 
> And, I'll be there on the 13th June after doing it all over again that day too.



Depends when you start I might see you  ;D


----------



## loadie (3 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog,

I see that you don't want to be associated with the Airforce.  I suggest that you remember that we are all one service here in Canada.  I also see from your profile that you have a whole 1 1/2 years military experience (mostly spent in the trg system, I presume).  Yes, there are "slugs" in the airforce and the Army has their fair share of them too..........I know.........I've seen them !!!!!!  I've had the pleasure of serving in both environments.  Both have their pro's and cons.  We all have a specific job to do to complete a mission.  The infantyman could not complete his job without the Airforce or Navy.  It would be quite the long "hump" to get to Afghanistan, wouldn't it???   Without the infantryman, we (Airforce) wouldn't have a job or purpose either.
We just have different ways of getting the job done.

Ok, the subject of clerks, etc......  You may not like Clerks, Supply Techs, Logistics trades, etc...... But I hope that you know how to procure, issue, or fix  your kit, or complete all of your adminstration needs because if you didn't have the hard working folks who happen to not be on the "front line" you'd be lost.  These folks put in a lot of hours behind the scenes so the Infantryman, Gunner, Trooper, or Sapper can do their job. 

As far as the BFT goes.........it's good, but not perfect.  As far as the Express test goes........I personally think it sucks (too easy), but that's my opinion.  I think there should be one CF standard.  

Just remember that when you get more exposure to the CF that we all need each other, so stop bashing elements that you have no knowledge of.  I'm not trying to start anything here, but don't bash anybody just because of their element.  We all bleed red and white!!!!   

Let me know if I'm just ranting, but I'm tired of uninformed pers bashing the elements that they do not belong to, or have any knowledge of.  If you want me to start bashing the army and it's ways of doing things, I'd have to block book a whole day to sit down and type it out, but that's not what I'm about................I understand that we need each other.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Says who?



The base staff at CFB Kingston! ;D You know you're not in battalion anymore.


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (3 Jun 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> The base staff at CFB Kingston! ;D You know you're not in battalion anymore.



...and you love it Steve...lol...... ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Jun 2008)

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> ...and you love it Steve...lol...... ;D



Yea, it's tough being retired. 8)


----------



## Strike (3 Jun 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> The base staff at CFB Kingston! ;D You know you're not in battalion anymore.



Good thing I don't work for the base then.  AT the base, yes, but not for them.  What can I say...I'm hard core.


----------



## almost there (12 Jun 2008)

I totally agree with the OP. The Air Force is currently in the process of switching to the IBTS - which includes the BFT as the standard for deployment training. Any one that is deploying to Mirage or TAF will complete the BFT, among other things (C7 PWT2, gas hut trg etc etc). We even being told to possibly brace for the currency to change to one year for all qualifications.. Thats right! gas hut every year. 

I think it's time the fly boys come back to earth and remember SOLDIER FIRST!


----------



## Sf2 (12 Jun 2008)

> I think it's time the fly boys come back to earth and remember SOLDIER FIRST!



Oh please, this isn't the Marine corps.  Perhaps you need to say that to some of your comrades in green as well where its even MORE relevant?
And the airforce has been doing ANNUAL gas hut and weapons training for YEARS, in the Tac Hel community.


----------



## hauger (12 Jun 2008)

Sure are some hard core "Hoo-AHH" posters kicking around.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

I'll remember those comments when the fur is flying and you folks who think "army" training doesn't need to be done by air types.

Good luck!


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

So much here that needs addressing...

But, I'll keep it to one thing - fitness standards, as that appears to pop up in various threads from time to time.

Firstly, I think that any attempt by the a** f**ce to develop fitness standards to match its work environment is only going to drop below the EXPRES level (presuming that it legally could as that's the CF minimum standard). The "average" person just does not have a physically demanding day on the job, so matching standards to that is going to be humorous. I'd guess that this is another self-justification project from the A3 DI Shop, which loves to exercise my (thanks to them, highly-developed) cringe reflex. I have an image of a timed repetitive wrench-turn replacing the trench dig, etcetera.

That being sarcastically said, there is no need for most of these people to have a higher standard of fitness than the EXPRES Test anyway, from a job perspective.

Those that deploy must meet the same minimum fitness standard as anybody else going to that location however, regardless of the colour of their hat or dress uniform. For Kandahar, that's BFT.

400 Squadron's current desired fitness test for all members is the BFT. This was decreed by our CO as we began preparations for our Roto 6 TUAV Flight deployment. There were two reasons: Squadron-wide solidarity with those of us, a relatively small chunk of the Squadron, who will deploy, and recognition that, given the likelihood of increased deployment of individuals and the Squadron assuming the High Readiness role in less than two years, it only made sense to maintain as many people to that level as possible. To that end, we are carrying on with ruck marches each Friday morning year-round. Sometimes they are cancelled for various legitimate reasons - meeting mission requirements for example - but more often than not they are happening. We did not stop for oranges or drinkies on our BFT in December, and we got everybody through with plenty of time to spare. It was a challenge for some, as we have many people well into their fifties (simply a fact of life in a largely Reserve flying unit) most of whom had never had to do this before. I believe that we may have been stood down for the rest of that day, but it was hard to tell; the vast majority were still at work at the normal quitting time whether we were stood down or were not.

We do not hump massive rucksacks up and down mountains in egg-frying heat (even those of us doing the TUAV thing are not going to be doing anything remotely close). That is not part of our job requirement, and there is therefore no need to train to that level. We do have to put serviceable helicopters into the air (or AVs into the air when we deploy) to support those who do, however, and we are short of techs, aircrew, and support pers in every flying community. It is extremely difficult most of the time to maintain currencies and support taskings with the personnel shortages that we've been dealing with for years, and which are likely to get a whole lot worse before they improve.

We could spend as much time on PT as Combat Arms folk, but to what benefit to anybody? Those who think that we should have a choice: we can do that, certainly, but at the cost of fifty percent of the helicopter support that you are currently getting (which is nowhere near enough, but that's a subject for other threads and I've already ranted about the reasons for that previously). Every minute spent running around is a minute less spent fixing or flying. We cannot afford to spend time on things that do not contribute to our primary purpose.

And for those of you carrying on with this "lowest common denominator" stuff, let's all go to one common medical standard, too. As LCD is not good enough, we can adopt the highest medical standard CF-wide: Pilot. Enjoy your early pensions, those of you who fall below that (presuming that you got past the recruiters in the first place).

Every member of the CF should also maintain a valid Instrument Rating, too. If you want me to have to do everything that you have to do, that's only reasonable, nein?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'll remember those comments when the fur is flying and you folks who think "army" training doesn't need to be done by air types.
> 
> Good luck!



And i'll remember your comment when the "fur is flying" somewhere's else than on the ground. Its not necessarily your argument that gets me, its your arrogant attitude that "fur" only happens on the ground.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

It seems that CDN AVIATOR thinks that I'm arrogant.
Fact is when your air types deploy, you seem to think that us ground types are there to protect you. We're not. You ahve to learn to protect yourselves.
When our fur flys it is very up close and personal. Sometimes face to face, very close ranges. I also didn't say fur only flys on the ground.
Not arrogance, stating a FACT.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

I wouldn't make the accusation of arrogance.

My whole quarter-century-plus in Tac Hel has been a constant process of educating those whom we exist to support, and such lacks of understanding are common, understandable, natural, and, to me, inoffensive.

Some instances are frustrating as well as comical: 4 CMBG's rating system, for example, included absolutely no measurement of how 444 Squadron did its real job, only how we did the same stuff as everybody else. Their team got rather annoyed one year because the people in MOPP or TOPP (or whatever flavour-of-the-day term was used back then) High in trench after trench were pointing nothing but pistols in the general direction of the enemy. "Where are their rifles?" "They don't have any - they're all Officers and Sergeants - Pilots and Observers." "They're supposed to have rifles and C2s." "Aircrew are only issued pistols." And so it went...

They did not care one whit if our helicopters were serviceable or not, or we were performing missions or not, only such things as having the right number of trenches for a unit of our size and the right number of people in them.

I find that the vast number of my ground-bound brethren understand quite readily when things are explained to them. There are so many of them, though, and we have less and less contact with them as time goes by.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

We can either protect ourselves, or provide support to you guys, with the number of personnel that we have and the type of training that they can be given, but not both.

A certain level of self-protection capability is required, hence basic weapons quals etcetera, but there is a reason for having specialties and that includes Infantry.

We, in turn, do not expect you to service and maintain the helicopters in which you ride or the Hercs from which you jump or the C17s which deliver your food, water, or ammunition.

This is why we have a symbiotic relationship: you bring your strengths to the table, and we'll bring ours, covering each other's weaknesses while increasing our mutual strengths.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

Thank you Loach for bringing some sanity here.
I know that the air guys bring their skills, been on enough chopper rides to know that!!

It's an attitude that may be a holdover from the old days...that infantry/army will protect the air strips.
Truth is we haven't got the manpower.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> You ahve to learn to protect yourselves.



I suppose that all the C7, pistol, gas hut, mine awareness, foreign weapons, ROE.........for pre-deployementy / Vanguard training is just a waste then.



> Truth is we haven't got the manpower.



Neither do we. Whats a solution here ?

Creating our own version of the RAF regiment or USAF security police ?


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

I always endeavour to remain sane and inspire it in others.

Nobody has enough manpower, nor ever will.

"Hoping for the best" is not a viable defensive tactic, but sometimes it is not possible to do much more until deaths and political embarassment bring improvement.

And then something else suffers in compensation anyway.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I suppose that all the C7, pistol, gas hut, mine awareness, foreign weapons, ROE.........for pre-deployementy / Vanguard training is just a waste then.



It helps, but it still does not bring us anywhere near the level of the outside-the-wire guys.

We could not do so and still do our own jobs, and that should be obvious.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Neither do we. Whats a solution here ?
> 
> Creating our own version of the RAF regiment or USAF security police ?



Yes.

Money, PYs, political will etcetera...

See "deaths and political embarassment" in my last post.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It helps, but it still does not bring us anywhere near the level of the outside-the-wire guys.



Nor should it.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

I will not disagree with that.

BUT...

Some of us expect to make the occasional foray, and our training should therefore IDEALLY be to a similar standard. PRACTICALLY, it can never be.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

I agree with AVIATOR. The air force should not seek to emulate the army. Train you for local defense, yes. For full combat? No. I would not want a well trained airplane mechanic (sorry about the terminology) to be my fire team partner for two reasons:

1. He/she won't have a clue what they are doing;
2. If said airplane mech gets killed, then we've just p!ssed away a very valuable resource, not to mention the greif and suffering their families will go through.

If you want the full meal deal for air field protection, find some reserve Combat Engineers, Infantry, Armoured, and Arty(with bird gunners), with some MPs, Logistics (ArmyVern you listening?) and basically form an Airfield Defence Battalion to deploy to whatever theater of ops you deploy to.
This may be difficult as a lot of us PRes are already deploying with the TFs to Afghanistan.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I will not disagree with that.
> 
> BUT...
> 
> Some of us expect to make the occasional foray, and our training should therefore IDEALLY be to a similar standard. PRACTICALLY, it can never be.



And for some of us, a foray on the ground means something went terribly wrong., but thats what we have ASERE for.  ;D


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> ...It's an attitude that may be a holdover from the old days...that infantry/army will protect the air strips.
> Truth is we haven't got the manpower.



- This discussion was mooted by fifty years in CFE.  The Brigade would 'Snowball' off the airfields ASAP (airfields being nuke targets) and begin their move to their operational areas.  BDFs would defend the airfields.  If any manoeuver unit had a task to defend Baden or Lahr in wartime, I would be truly surprised, as would about 50,000 other serving or retired soldiers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jun 2008)

WRT to the security of airfields/air assets...maybe someone already has the right idea.

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/GroundDefenceOfficer/


----------



## almost there (12 Jun 2008)

The CF is looking at this same specialty as we speak. As well as making smaller C JIRU type units across the country to assist the main C JIRU.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> WRT to the security of airfields/air assets...maybe someone already has the right idea.
> 
> http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/
> 
> http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/GroundDefenceOfficer/



- Now THAT would make sense.  This org would also no doubt produce the type of NCOs you would want to teach at an RCAF Recruit and Leadership Academy.


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

Chuck 130 said:
			
		

> DirtyDog,
> 
> I see that you don't want to be associated with the Airforce.  I suggest that you remember that we are all one service here in Canada.  I also see from your profile that you have a whole 1 1/2 years military experience (mostly spent in the trg system, I presume).  Yes, there are "slugs" in the airforce and the Army has their fair share of them too..........I know.........I've seen them !!!!!!  I've had the pleasure of serving in both environments.  Both have their pro's and cons.  We all have a specific job to do to complete a mission.  The infantyman could not complete his job without the Airforce or Navy.  It would be quite the long "hump" to get to Afghanistan, wouldn't it???   Without the infantryman, we (Airforce) wouldn't have a job or purpose either.
> We just have different ways of getting the job done.
> ...


I don't want to be associated with a group that wants to come out with low ball PC fitness standards.

I've been around long enough (A year out of training), and have had NCOs and officers around here lament about certain aspects of certain elements and trades enough to form certain opinions.  I speak in general terms and certainly don't mean to paint everyone with a common brush.  Of course the army has it's fair share of underachievers.  I see them everyday and beleive me, it drives me crazy.  However, in terms of maintaining a general military standard (I'm talking all things here... attitude, dress and deportment, physical fitness, dedication, hard work, etc.) the infantry, and the army, set the standard and certain other types seem to be lacking.  It's there to see in plain view.  I may not have a lot of knowledge for what certain people do in their day to day jobs in the military, but one look at them is enough in many cases. 

We all have different jobs, and they are all important and inter-dependant.   MY problem was with this specific policy, and the attitude behind it, that's want to set a low ball standard.  It's ridiculous.  Of course an air force supply tech shouldn't be held to the same physical standard as a infantryman, but they should atleast meet the CF minimum which is too low as it is.  This idea from another poster that since they are so busy maintaining aircraft (or whatever) to do PT as it isn't a high priority to the job doesn't cut it for me.  That sounds like an excuse for being out of shape.  If it's not, and a just an explanation as to why a mechanic may not be fit enough to hump 100lbs up a mountainside, then fine.  Also, this crap about being held to a pilot medical standard (no problem here) or being instrument rated is a joke.  Gimme a break.  No one said you have to do "everything" we do.  Just that people remember they are in the military and that some of us don't like being associated with out of shape slobs that don't carry themselves like dedicated militay members.  It's almost as if some people want to say certain trades are basically just that, tradesmen in uniforms.  That's bullshi1t to me, I'm sorry.  "Soldiers first" may seem like a ridiculous or gun-ho addage to some, but to me, in the military this should be the rule not the exception.  Fault me for that or call me naive if you want, you're not going to hurt my feelings.

I've worked a couple of ranges and was truly floored at how BAD a vast majority of the non-combat arms, non-army types shot.  It was horrible and it was not just a few.  Rank didn't seem to be a factor either.  MWOs, Majors, and LTCs were not immune.   Many didn't even get to the mounds in time during the run downs to get a shot off.  It's hard to zero someone when their groupings are measured in (multiple) feet.  I'm really not trying to bash anyone here, but it really was a shocker to me and was a dissapointment.  I realize for many it was their first PWT 3, but a PWT 3 is NOT that hard and anyone deploying to a combat enviroment, as these people were, should atleast show some sort of aptness for a very basic soldier skill.  The RSO had a lot of complaints from those shooting that it was "unfair" for them to be expected to pass.  This was an example of one of things that has led me to have a dissatisfaction with some people.  Again, I'm not trying to bash.... but the standard should be higher!  As it should be within my own element and trade.

BTW - I'm trying to find out where exactly I said I didn't like clerks, supply techs, and logistic types, etc.  Infact, the one's i've come across in my unit have been excellent (by and large, a few notable exceptions come to mind).  I have a lot of respect for anyone that is good at their job and dedicated to it.  Regardless of what that job is.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

The Army has probably about the same percentage of "underachievers" or "strivers for the minimum they can possibly get away with" as any other enviornment.

Dirtydog ... did your sources:



> I've been around long enough (A year out of training), and have had *NCOs and officers around here lament about certain aspects of certain elements and trades enough to form certain opinions. *



Serve with all those elements and trades? Or rather is their "informed" opinion not so informed - rather just conjecture? One f'n year??

Here's an informed opinion for you:

20 years service, 3 enviornments. I did regular formed Unit PT at two of those enviornments. The other one allowed us time to get to the gym 3 days per week individually but during working hours.

The pers that I worked with in the AF were JUST as fit as the soldiers I've worked with in the Army.

Now, you may say that's because we just aren't fit (possibly even falling in line with your personal opinion of say ..  perhaps "certain trades" - gained from your oodles of TI and experience and that "experienced" opinion from others you work with highlighted above).

Consider this:

Each and every pers where I currently work (Army) does regular formed Unit PT. They are ALL in good shape. 

And, to a man, each and every pers that I currently work with who are NOT in good shape, or who do NOT do formed Unit PT with the rest of us ... are in that condition precisely because they are ex-zero trades who are on PCats due to injury caused in their prior trade. So, the "impression" that your "TI" and that "experience" of those "leaders" you currently serve with ... may be quite a waaaayyys off kilter to the ACTUALITY of the situation. After 1 year of TI -- you'd know what "assumptions" do already. Those "unfit f'n Sup Techs" you guys want to bitch about and slam ... may very well be YOU after you injure yourself permanently and are forced to remuster ... and one of them may very well be the guy that YOU replaced over "there". *And*, HE may be dressed in a blue or black uniform now ... we do wear purple.

Experience would indicate that you be_ very _ careful in considering what the fuck you are talking about -- in your opinion.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I've been around long enough (A year out of training),



 :rofl:



> I've worked a couple of ranges and was truly floored at how BAD a vast majority of the non-combat arms, non-army types shot.



So ? I shoot Mk46 lightweight ASW torpedoes. If i'm shooting a C7 things have gone horribly, horribly wrong and its going to take alot more than me being a good shot to fix it. As a matter of fact, i dont even get issued a C7........


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

What about a parachute?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> What about a parachute?



I do have one


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

Not knowing if your Avatar is relevant, would that be like WW2 and bailing out the door of the B17 or some kind of fancy ejection seat?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Not knowing if your Avatar is relevant, would that be like WW2 and bailing out the door of the B17 or some kind of fancy ejection seat?



The WW2 thing........


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

Wow.  That is about worst case scenario you get and still breathing.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Wow.  That is about worst case scenario you get and still breathing.



The parachutes themselves are from WW2 ( seems like it anyways) so the general consensus is that unless the aircraft is about to explode, we will strap in our seats and ride it into the ground (if over land).....odds are just better that way.

Over the ocean, parachuting out is a dumb idea. Everyone gets separated, no survival gear. You are just delaying your death.


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:



Well, maybe this speaks to my so called ignorance, but I'll probably still hold the same attitude and perceptions in 10 years judging by my NCOs (who by and large I have a lot of respect for) and my frame of mind.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> =So ? I shoot Mk46 lightweight ASW torpedoes. If i'm shooting a C7 things have gone horribly, horribly wrong and its going to take alot more than me being a good shot to fix it. As a matter of fact, i dont even get issued a C7........


This particular group, for the most part, were going to be issued weapons.  Maybe they aren't going to spend a vast amount of time outside the wire (if any) but I would expect any person in the military, let alone those on the ground in a combat enviroment, to have atleast a basic proficiency and understanding of a service rifle.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Well, maybe this speaks to my so called ignorance, but I'll probably still hold the same attitude and perceptions in 10 years judging by my NCOs (who by and large I have a lot of respect for) and my frame of mind.



I guess you wont since you obviously have an open mind.

BTW, i'm an air force Sr NCO, in fairly good shape. My dress and deportment are above standard, i work long hours, i'm mission oriented and i put my troops ahead of myself. I am technicaly and tacticaly competent and deployable 24/7/365. I've spent 11 years as a combat engineer and i will not paint the entire AF the way you have.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Well, maybe this speaks to my so called ignorance, but I'll probably still hold the same attitude and perceptions in 10 years judging by my NCOs (who by and large I have a lot of respect for) and my frame of mind.
> This particular group, for the most part, were going to be issued weapons.  Maybe they aren't going to spend a vast amount of time outside the wire (if any) but I would expect any person in the military, let alone those on the ground in a combat enviroment, to have atleast a basic proficiency and understanding of a service rifle.



That's why I got rid of The RCR I was married to (edited to add: this actually isn't the real reason we are now estranged ... but the conversation below has actually happened) ...

He kept saying when are you Sup Techs going to start running faster and get into better shape?? I'd give him one of two responses:

1)  When the CF starts giving me 6 hours a day to do PT with too like you get every day; OR

2)  I'm not --- I'm a better shot than you so why bother (Yes, I outscore him on the range every year)? Don't matter how fast you run ... my bullet IS going to catch your ass.



You'll only hold those "completely wrong and misinformed/misguided" attitudes until YOU are one of the guys hurt so bad they make you remuster -- and then you too get to sit back and listen to your former "team"mates in the zero trade slam you (and your "lack of fitness and personal drive/determination" which is actually a TCat at work) and your new trade for something that is well outside the circumstances of your own control/the element's control OR the trade's control.

A good leader ... would get rid of those wrong misperceptions NOW instead of insisting on holding on to them. What a great "team" concept eh?


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I guess you wont since you obviously have an open mind.
> 
> BTW, i'm an air force Sr NCO, in fairly good shape. My dress and deportment are above standard, i work long hours, i'm mission oriented and i put my troops ahead of myself. I am technicaly and tacticaly competent and deployable 24/7/365. I've spent 11 years as a combat engineer and i will not paint the entire AF the way you have.


Again, I'm speaking in general terms and didn't blanket an ENTIRE element.  very few things are absolute. Only saying some things seem to be more prevalent in certain trades and elements.  Maybe my eyes and mind are a little predjudice and notice faults more readily on those outside of my element, but my perceptions have roots.  However inaccurate you may see them (or maybe, even _perhaps _ be in some instances).

As for yourself, everything I've seen of you here would seem to speak to your dedication and proficiency.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Again, I'm speaking in general terms and didn't blanket an ENTIRE element.  very few things are absolute. Only saying some things seem to be more prevalent in certain trades and elements.  Maybe my eyes and mind are a little predjudice and notice faults more readily on those outside of my element, but my perceptions have roots.  However inaccurate you may see them (or maybe, even _perhaps _ be in some instances).
> 
> As for yourself, everything I've seen of you here would seem to speak to your dedication and proficiency.



Of course they are more prevelant in other elements and trades!!

We have more per capita because WE get all the hurt ZERO trades who have to remuster because they CAN'T stay in YOUR trade. Fuck. THAT does not mean they are bags of shit because they choose to be - they just CAN'T be 6hour a day fitness "gawds" anymore. Get over it already. Cripes all mighty.

 :brickwall:


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You'll only hold those "completely wrong and misinformed/misguided" attitudes until YOU are one of the guys hurt so bad they make you remuster -- and then you too get to sit back and listen to your former "team"mates in the zero trade slam you (and your "lack of fitness and personal drive/determination" which is actually a TCat at work) and your new trade for something that is well outside the circumstances of your own control/the element's control OR the trade's control.
> 
> A good leader ... would get rid of those wrong misperceptions NOW instead of insisting on holding on to them. What a great "team" concept eh?


Well, this started off with my problem with a particular policy regarding PT, but my whole "problem" isn't completely PTcentric.

As for every person who is out of shape being on some sort of medical category as a result of some injury, well, I find that somewhat hard to believe.  I mean, if you say so, and that may be the case in your unit but I know plenty of people personally, including in my uni,t who have no excuse.  There are those who have substained injuries in either combat, training, or from years in the trade, and I feel for those guys big time.  But there are others whom are just lazy.

Also, you may be under some sort of medical category which prevents you from running and other rigorous PT, but is that an excuse to no exercise and eat cheeseburgers until you're bursting at the seams?

The insinuation that soem in my leadership are less then stellar because they throw in the odd tongue in cheek remark about other trades, or bash other trades in their attempts to motivate or jack us, is a bit harsh.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Jun 2008)

I've always found the people that train extra hard end up getting injured and thus frigged out of courses, tours etc while the slack people manage to barely meet the minimums and yet still have employment, tours, PLQ's etc..

So while I agree with DirtyDog that the CF as a whole needs higher PT, I guess not everyone is willing to sacrifice knees, ankles etc (and thus a career) to acheive stellar performance.


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Of course they are more prevelant in other elements and trades!!
> 
> We have more per capita because WE get all the hurt ZERO trades who have to remuster because they CAN'T stay in YOUR trade. frig. THAT does not mean they are bags of crap because they choose to be - they just CAN'T be 6hour a day fitness "gawds" anymore. Get over it already. Cripes all mighty.
> 
> :brickwall:


This isn't strictly about fitness.  And again, this point about us getting all the time in the world to do PT and other trades being full of broken soldiers seems to be kind of weak.  I'm not a fitness god, but I like to think I do pretty good nowadays but ONLY because I did PT on my own time as things have been so messed up around here between taskings and field ex's, that getting into any kind of regular PT schedule is impossible.  And you don't need to be a PT god.... just not a 300lb beachball.

Anyway, I've stated my opinion and this thread is going no where.  Yes, my TI is lacking, but I don't plan on going anywhere soon so we'll see what the future has in store and we'll see how my opinions might change.  God knows, in my short time so far, things have changed quite a bit already.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> This isn't strictly about fitness.  And again, this point about us getting all the time in the world to do PT and other trades being full of broken soldiers seems to be kind of weak.  I'm not a fitness god, but I like to think I do pretty good nowadays but ONLY because I did PT on my own time as things have been so messed up around here between taskings and field ex's, that getting into any kind of regular PT schedule is impossible.  And you don't need to be a PT god.... just not a 300lb beachball.
> 
> Anyway, I've stated my opinion and this thread is going no where.  Yes, my TI is lacking, but I don't plan on going anywhere soon so we'll see what the future has in store and we'll see how my opinions might change.  God knows, in my short time so far, things have changed quite a bit already.



I don't work with a single 300lb "beachball" and never have -- regardless of enviornment. And, don't think you're the only ones with taskings etc to fill up your day besides getting the gym done AND the regular support duties. WE do that too.

See what cliches do? You don't seem to like it when they are thrown back at YOUR trade do you?

Get the point yet?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jun 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> , I guess not everyone is willing to sacrifice knees, ankles etc to acheive stellar performance.



Theres nothing wrong with a high standard of personal fitness. Back when i was in my old trade, i even ran the 1 CMBG Mountain Man competition twice (1998 and 2000 ) and the training for that got me in awesome shape. Years later though, i am paying the price for that. Not everyone ends up with lasting problems from PT like that, but i sure did.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> things have been so messed up around here between taskings and field ex's, that getting into any kind of regular PT schedule is impossible.  And you don't need to be a PT god.... just not a 300lb beachball.



My deployment schedule makes going to the gym difficult on good days. I'm often away from home base living in various hotels around the world, with no gym around. Usualy i am on per diem and its restaurant food 3 meals a day. I'm not 300 lbs but the lifestyle sometimes makes it a battle.


----------



## DirtyDog (13 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I don't work with a single 300lb "beachball" and never have -- regardless of enviornment. And, don't think you're the only ones with taskings etc to fill up your day besides getting the gym done AND the regular support duties. WE do that too.
> 
> See what cliches do? You don't seem to like it when they are thrown back at YOUR trade do you?
> 
> Get the point yet?


Vern, I do see what you're trying to get at, just not sure abouth the way you want to get there.

You say "Well, we all don't get 6 hours for PT a day" and I say that's hardly the case.  

You then go on to tell me we're not the only busy ones, which I never argued.   

And I certainly understand circustances such as CND Aviator's.


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres nothing wrong with a high standard of personal fitness. Back when i was in my old trade, i even ran the 1 CMBG Mountain Man competition twice (1998 and 2000 ) and the training for that got me in awesome shape. Years later though, i am paying the price for that. Not everyone ends up with lasting problems from PT like that, but i sure did.
> 
> My deployment schedule makes going to the gym difficult on good days. I'm often away from home base with no gym around. Usualy i am on per diem and its restaurant food 3 meals a day. I'm not 300 lbs but the lifestyle sometimes makes it a battle.



I've been training hard since age 15, and almost 4 years since I'm starting to get frigged up. Really as long as a member can do their job well, and at the same time, not look like a "beachball" or die after a 2.4km run, I would be happy. 

I'm army albeit a part timer, and I have seen many either too feeble or too fat to be useful.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I don't want to be associated with a group that wants to come out with low ball PC fitness standards.



Good. Move along, please.

But first, what does "politically correct" have to do with any of this?

And, by the way, people with a little more time in than



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> (A year out of training),



have decided that both the EXPRES Test and BFT meet the requirements of the CF, until better measures are found. You're outvoted.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I may not have a lot of knowledge for what certain people do in their day to day jobs in the military,



Book.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> but one look at them



Cover.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> is enough in many cases.



Judgement.

You're not supposed to do that, you know.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> MY problem was with this specific policy, and the attitude behind it, that's want to set a low ball standard.



"Low ball" based upon what?

What justification is there to have a higher minimum standard? Opinion does not count. There has to be clear justification.

Show me examples of people who meet the standards but are not capable of doing their jobs. That should be interesting, being as you have freely admitted that you do not know what they do in the first place.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> but they should atleast meet the CF minimum



Yes, and action is taken if they do not.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> which is too low as it is.



Based upon what justification, again...?



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> This idea from another poster



That would be this poster, right here.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> that since they are so busy maintaining aircraft (or whatever) to do PT



That is NOT what I said.

After an irreverant summary of Infantry physical requirements, I said: "That is not part of our job requirement, and there is therefore no need to train to that level".

Now, if you think that I am wrong in that statement, please feel free to rebut.

My statement is based upon simple fact, ie it is not a stated requirement, and upon experience - twenty-six times your "year out of training" in my current environment alone plus over nine additional years in other areas.

I then went on to say "We could spend as much time on PT as Combat Arms folk, but to what benefit to anybody?", etcetera. Now, as I said, you have a choice - we could meet your personal fitness standard or we could provide you with helicopter support, but not both. There are not enough of us or enough time in the day to do both. That is reality.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> as it isn't a high priority to the job doesn't cut it for me.



You know what? I do not care what "cuts it for you". Your opinion is irrelevant.

And should you be in the unfortunate situation of bleeding badly somewhere someday, you'll realize that, too. You will not care one bit if I can do ten push-ups or a hundred, only that I can get you to where you really need to be in time. Likewise, you'll not care how many sit-ups the people that put me into the air can do, only that the helicopter works.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> That sounds like an excuse for being out of shape.



Define "out of shape".

You be "in shape" to do your job, and I'll be "in shape" to do mine, thank-you very much.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> If it's not, and a just an explanation as to why a mechanic may not be fit enough to hump 100lbs up a mountainside,



It is, and he/she does not have to be.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Also, this crap about being held to a pilot medical standard (no problem here) or being instrument rated is a joke.  Gimme a break.  No one said you have to do "everything" we do.



Some people seem to think so, especially on the PT side, and I did not specifically say you.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Just that people remember they are in the military and that some of us don't like being associated with out of shape slobs that don't carry themselves like dedicated militay members.



Some of us don't like being associated with holier-than-thou types who have no clue what others do and why, either.

And I've seen plenty of super-fit prettyboys who are more dedicated to their Schwartzenegger imitation than their proper military job, too, by the way, as well as those who have a struggle with the EXPRES Test yet contribute far more.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> It's almost as if some people want to say certain trades are basically just that, tradesmen in uniforms.  That's bullshi1t to me, I'm sorry.



It's also reality, more than you think, and I'm sorry about that.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> "Soldiers first" may seem like a ridiculous or gun-ho addage to some, but to me, in the military this should be the rule not the exception.



It's a nice ideal.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I've worked a couple of ranges and was truly floored at how BAD a vast majority of the non-combat arms, non-army types shot.  It was horrible and it was not just a few.



I have seen that, more than once, and it has been truly scary at times. And it was that way, too, in The Good Old Days when we had far more ammunition to shoot as well.

I could also tell you about some of the dumb things that some physically-fit Combat Arms types have done to helicopters for which I have signed, or have come way too close to doing for my comfort. In one case, the helicopter was laid up for three months while Bell figured out _*how*_ to fix it, as nobody had ever damaged that part (major structural member) with a stretcher before, let alone that badly. The actual repair took another month or two on top of that. I've also seen a few of you come really close to serious injury.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> MWOs, Majors, and LTCs were not immune.



There are no "LTCs" in the CF.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I'm really not trying to bash anyone here,



Other than calling us fat, out-of-shape slobs...



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I realize for many it was their first PWT 3, but a PWT 3 is NOT that hard and anyone deploying to a combat enviroment, as these people were, should atleast show some sort of aptness for a very basic soldier skill.



As well as meeting the fitness requirements for that deployment, most definitely.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> The RSO had a lot of complaints from those shooting that it was "unfair" for them to be expected to pass.



They should have failed, and been told that it was "unfair" for others' lives to be put at risk, and then been given additional range time in order to meet the standard or been dagged red.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> This was an example of one of things that has led me to have a dissatisfaction with some people.



And some dissatisfaction is natural, however it should be tempered somewhat.



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I have a lot of respect for anyone that is good at their job and dedicated to it.  Regardless of what that job is.



As have I, and any normal person.


----------



## TCBF (13 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Of course they are more prevelant in other elements and trades!!
> We have more per capita because WE get all the hurt ZERO trades who have to remuster because they CAN'T stay in YOUR trade. ...



- A few years back, I thought we should introduce Fitness Catagories as well as Medical Catagories for each trade.   from an MHR perspective, it would probably be a big waste of time, but it would keep the Ninja's happy.

- I now see the other option would to be create 'Catagoried' employment positions.  Just like the German Army had 'Frostbite bns' and 'Flat feet Bns', we could load certain sub-units with people who could hold the line - maybe - but probably would never be able to make it back to the next one.  The old 1980s joke about the wheelchair mounted soldiers manning the DIP (Die In Place) Bridge Demolition Guard in the Neckartal comes to mind.

- So be it.  Not everyone makes it out of a disaster - that's why they call'em didasters.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Jun 2008)

Dirty Dog said:
			
		

> I've worked a couple of ranges and was truly floored at how BAD a vast majority of the non-combat arms, non-army types shot.  It was horrible and it was not just a few.



Similarly I have seen some horrible flying skills exhibited by "guests" on my flightdeck.  How hard is it to fly?  Basic hand and eye co-ordination is all it takes - much like weapons handling.  

I train hard to do my job so it looks easy - I may not be as much of a PT guru as I once was - but I'm a damned better pilot now than I ever was while pounding the ground with a ruck on my back.  

PWT 3 is a bit extreme for those never deploying outside the wire in KAF.  Zero them at 100m and then give them a whole wack of ammunition to develop their basic skills at exposures out to 200m.  Run-downs are way too advanced for those that will NEVER practice those skills again.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> PWT 3 is a bit extreme for those never deploying outside the wire in KAF.  Zero them at 100m and then give them a whole wack of ammunition to develop their basic skills at exposures out to 200m.  Run-downs are way too advanced for those that will NEVER practice those skills again.



We did that as part of our work-up, too. Some were not exactly brilliant, but everybody met the standard.

We did not question that the standard may have been too high - perhaps we were just enjoying it too much, run-downs and all.

And none of us can guarantee that we will not step outside, or need the skill.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jun 2008)

DirtyDog

Each trade is subject to the PT standards enforced by the Senior Command in the CF.  It doesn't mean that those that pass those standards are 'battle fit' either.  I might be able to do the BFT in record time but be a complete f--k up making tactical decisions in TICs that kill my troops.  Why are you not beating THAT drum?  

I used to think like you, and think, for the combat arms, your mentality is sound and I agree.  

However, you can't use the same measuring stick for ALL trades in the CF.  The question must be asked "what do I need from Person A, in MOC B, at Unit C?  Example, a 500 series tech at 12 AMS, who has passed the CF EXPRES test, and is a highly skilled tech keeping SeaKings in the air is of more use to the CO of 12 AMS than the semi-skilled 500 series tech who has the Wing record for all PT competitions on the base. 

As a former Cmbt Arms type myself, I know how you are thinking because, I used to think like you.  If you weren't a 'zero' trade, in my mind, you were a second class citizen, period (I was taught that and bought into it...much to my dismay to admit now).  Over time, I started to realize that trying to measure all MOCs with the same stick is like giving everyone the same size boots;  its just not smart.

Quoting yourself with just over 1 year out of training as reason to why your opinion is valid?  For the record, the current pair of the combat sock system I have ready to put on tomorrow has been in service longer than you.  Just a thought.

Ease up some.  You can be proud of your own, and your unit, and trade 'acceptable standard' in whatever subject, but what makes a good infantry soldier does not transfer directly over to making a good AVS, AVN, ATIS Tech, or Bos'n.  Just something to consider.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *If you weren't a 'zero' trade, in my mind, you were a second class citizen*, period (I was taught that and bought into it...much to my dismay to admit now).  Over time, I started to realize that trying to measure all MOCs with the same stick is like giving everyone the same size boots;  its just not smart.



AES Op 081... Zero Trade...

There are also the guys who can't pass the expres test but are able to do the BFT and vice versa.


----------



## MamaBear (13 Jun 2008)

Maybe the CF (and especially Dirty Dog) could use a saying we have in the professional theatre world.  "There are no small parts, only small actors".   Knocking what some people think are the less than valuable trades seems to be a strange way to support those who may very well save your life one day...or at least make it more comfortable.  

Just my civilian opinion.


----------



## Sf2 (13 Jun 2008)

Perhaps you should stop worrying about your ego tainting "association" and just concentrate about learning your job, and how your job is reliant upon other peoples' jobs.

Once you get that squared away, in oh, 10 yrs, then you can start worrying about your cheeseburger buddies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jun 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> *AES Op 081... Zero Trade...*
> 
> There are also the guys who can't pass the expres test but are able to do the BFT and vice versa.



Doh!  I should have known that one.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Doh!  I should have known that one.



Actually --- in the context used in your original comment it goes quite well !!



> _If you weren't a 'zero' trade, in my mind, you were a second class citizen,_



I know some AESOPs ... and most of them would agree (at least amongst the blue uniforms!!)  >

I now await the really hot pilots (and their simulators) to come along and sort me out on that (fast air need not apply).  ;D


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know some AESOPs ... and most of them would agree (at least amongst the blue uniforms!!)  >



It's a free country. The poor, misguided things are entitled to their opinions.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I now await the really hot pilots (and their simulators) to come along and sort me out on that (fast air need not apply).  ;D



Dum-dee-dum-dum...


----------



## TCBF (13 Jun 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> Maybe the CF (and especially Dirty Dog) could use a saying we have in the professional theatre world.  "There are no small parts, only small actors".   Knocking what some people think are the less than valuable trades seems to be a strange way to support those who may very well save your life one day...or at least make it more comfortable.
> 
> Just my civilian opinion.



 "There are no small parts, only small actors".   I like that.  Can I steal it?


----------



## MamaBear (13 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "There are no small parts, only small actors".   I like that.  Can I steal it?



By all means!


----------



## Bert (15 Jun 2008)

SF2 said:
			
		

> Once you get that squared away, in oh, 10 yrs, then you can start worrying about your cheeseburger buddies.



Why is everyone dumping on cheeseburgers?  

http://www.layercake.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/cheeseburger.jpg


----------



## stealthylizard (15 Jun 2008)

I am another of those that have problems with the Express test, but throw a ruck on my back and I can go forever.  I would rather do the BFT every day than a morning run once a week.   >


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2008)

Ditto.

I have permanent nerve damage in my right leg from the EXPRES test last summer. I am somewhat leary of risking that again.

It occurred on one of the turns on the shuttle run. When the shuttle run first came out several years ago, I was already too old to do that and the step test was the norm for my age group. They were concerned about leg injuries in older members initially, but those concerns seems to have been pushed aside. I think that they were valid concerns.

I run, but not religiously, and I have never (like the CDS) been the fastest. It's the turns on the shuttle run that are the problem, though.

Fortunately, my injury is minor and sensory only, however I have little desire to aggravate it or cause worse. It caused me considerable discomfort for the first two months, making walking or sitting in any one position for more than a few minutes annoying, but has since settled down and I rarely notice it anymore. I had X-rays, bone scans, CT scans, and a lengthy visit with a neurologist before a firm diagnosis was made. I was greatly relieved when it was determined that it was not a spinal injury.

Being as the BFT is the standard for deployment, I'd much rather do that for both reasons.


----------

