Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Letters

BMI Backlash

I am glad that our Air Force leaders are thinking about revising the physical training test [“PT shape-up,” Nov. 24]. I know that our senior leaders are hearing concerns by the lower ranks.

My issue is with the waist measurement and body mass index standards. I am a bodybuilder, and under current standards of weight and height I am considered overweight. I am 5-foot-9 and 240 pounds, but with minimal body fat.

The BMI and waist measurement should be scrapped and the points divided between the push-ups and sit-ups. Then, make those exercise standards higher: If a person can pass a PT test with higher standards, they are in shape.

Another suggestion would be to add pull-ups and a shoulder press. That would define a person able to do everything needed in combat.

I am sure there are airmen who score well on the test but couldn’t pull an airman from a burning vehicle. I don’t think you have to look like a beanpole to be fit to fight.

Tech. Sgt. Donald Stachum

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

Revamp the PT mentality

If you’re puzzled as to why obesity among airmen rose slightly yet only 1 percent failed the physical training test, this is due to two factors: The scoring of the PT test is laughable, and PT leaders routinely grade PT tests incorrectly.

I have witnessed several PTLs count push-ups and sit-ups incorrectly in the last eight months. I watched one PTL start 12 subjects in the down position for the push-ups and the up position for the sit-ups. One PTL observing 12 individuals is wrong to start with — and he didn’t know what he was doing.

As far as the scoring, if you are thin enough, you can do one-third the maximum push-ups and sit-ups and walk the 1.5-mile “run” and still pass. Something is very wrong here.

The test still does not assess true body composition; it just measures you for pants. Sit-ups are not a good measure of true abdominal strength. A timed static hold, known by many as “the plank,” would be a much better assessment of true core conditioning.

I doubt very much that any “overhaul” of the PT test will do any good. Airmen will still fail because of their lifestyle. Air bases provide fast-food restaurants and few healthy eating options. One hour of PT three times a week does not counter the damage done by eating crap seven days a week.

With all due respect to leadership, it does not matter what you do to alter the test, more than half of those who pass the PT test will not pass legitimately. They will continue to pass only because the PTLs pencil-whip the results.

Staff Sgt. James Baylis

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

A new Scoring system

The current PT program in the Air Force is a joke. Body mass index is worthless; the waist measurement is unfair and scored too high. So I’ve roughly planned out a new PT scoring system:

• The waist measurement would count for a maximum 10 points. The run still would count for 50 points, and the push-ups and sit-ups would count for 20 points each.

BMI measurements would be eliminated; they are inaccurate and do not prove physical fitness. The waist measurement is also inaccurate, and its impact on the total fitness score would be greatly reduced. There are plenty of fit people with low body fat who are scored unfairly by these measurements. The waist measurement should only be an aid in determining Air Force standards for those who barely meet them.

• A person could be awarded extra points. If an airman can do 70 push-ups in one minute, he should receive credit for it.

• The better your score, the longer you can wait until you test again.

• An airman could be ordered to take the PT test at any time by a commander.

Staff Sgt. Vince Cooper

Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

Salute confusion

After considerable reflection, I think new provisions allowing veterans and active-duty military not in uniform to render a military-style hand salute during the national anthem and raising and lowering of the flag are well-intentioned but misguided [“New salute rule,” Frontlines, Nov. 24]. The real problem is that the majority of people at public events probably know to stand for the national anthem, but they otherwise are clueless as to proper etiquette — being silent, facing the flag, etc.

Military personnel and veterans in civilian clothes at least can set a good example by using the civilian hat-off, hand-over-heart salute.

If troops or veterans are in civilian clothes, civilians can’t tell they are military and will get the wrong signal to follow. Those in civilian clothes should follow civilian saluting protocol.

Lt. Col. Stephen R. Troy (ret.)

Arnold, Md.

Adjust disability ratings

Why do we as unemployable veterans receive the same amount of compensation (rating) as someone who is rated 50 percent to 100 percent disabled and can still work?

The Department of Veterans Affairs must change the rating for the unemployable disabled veteran who can not have two paychecks.

For example — a mailman at 70 percent disabled receives $1,900 in compensation a month, but he also receives $38,000 a year plus sick time, vacations and paid holidays; if he has dependents, they receive more money.

As an unemployable disabled veteran, I receive $2,500 a month. If I get a cost-of-living increase, someone who can still work gets two of the same. It’s not right that we are not on a different system.

The rating board must change this issue. If I could work, I would.

Sgt. Paul G. Jeffery (ret.)

Cheektowaga, N.Y.

New war, new POW rules

With great interest I read the letter responding to Robert F. Dorr’s column on detainees in the Dec. 8 issue [“Detainees aren’t POWs”]. I empathize with the writer’s thoughts and leanings. But I think he is misguided in stating that “POW status is only given to those who fight by the rules.”

Rules? Japan did not fight or treat our POWs by the “rules” in World War II and neither did Nazi Germany. For that matter, neither did Russia. Moreover, neither did North Korea or North Vietnam (ask John McCain, for one).

The writer further states, “POW status is ... not given to terrorists who do not wear uniforms.” Was he not in Vietnam? Did he not see how we dealt with the Viet Cong who wore PJs? And our special operations soldiers did not wear uniforms in combat. Should they be denied POW status if captured?

Furthermore, he infers that terrorists should or must be “authorized to fight for a government.” We, the U.S., declared war on terror (rightfully so), but those fighting for terror have no uniforms and there is no specific government they fight for. It must be realized — wars have changed.

We didn’t use torture? We do not need to improve our world image? Does the writer not know what has been going on? The Abu Grahib prison pictures and the rhetoric accompanying them have perhaps done more damage to our military and our country’s image than all the good attributed to our fighting and dying and civil and humanitarian efforts. Our image is tarnished, but not beyond polishing.

Another letter on the same subject says, “First, POWs are combatants of a government’s armed forces.” That does not seem to be an apt statement these days, does it? But I agree with that writer: We need to eliminate any hint of torture.

Both writers have their weapons pointed in the right direction, but they need to check their ammo and make sure it’s the right caliber. I was not a POW, but I experienced World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and the “rules,” as they say, were made to be broken: They were horrendously broken in all three wars, and will be again. War-crime trials seem to be the only remedy for those who break them.

Master Sgt. Lee Yagel (ret.)

Surprise, Ariz.