Forum Home
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (taykuhls), 2 guests, and 7 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
330RCSBFACS, thereddoctor, AustinD, oterorphase, doit456789
3098 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums23
Topics949
Posts3,057
Members3,099
Most Online952
Dec 16th, 2016
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
#1857 - 09/14/15 12:36 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
jrc621 Offline
FNG
jrc621  Offline
FNG

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
Eglin AFB
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any change to the current standards would be viewed as lowering the standards in order to accommodate women. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the current standards. Why spend all this money and manpower on a study that shouldn't even be done in the first place. If people are so strung up on opening all career fields to women, then do just that. If they can meet the current standards good for them, if not they shouldn't even have a voice in the conversation.

#1858 - 09/14/15 01:01 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: jrc621]  
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 32
ShortyZ99 Offline
Apprentice
ShortyZ99  Offline
Apprentice

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 32
Virginia
jrc621...it is my understanding that these standards are often evaluated from time to time to assess current applicability to current operations and needs in each career field. There seems to be a misconception that the standards are being lowered to accommodate females. I don't know if the two agendas just coincided, or if there was already a plan to re-evaluate the standards at this time, but the issue of women being incorporated piggybacked on.

Yukon correct me if I am wrong, you seem to be very familiar with all this, but the assessment of standards has the possibility to raise as well as lower standards correct? For instance recent reinstatement of the 50m underwater requirement for pre-scuba.

Last edited by ShortyZ99; 09/14/15 01:06 PM.
#1859 - 09/14/15 02:49 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: jrc621]  
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Yukon Offline
Operator
Yukon  Offline
Operator

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Anchorage AK
Originally Posted By: jrc621
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any change to the current standards would be viewed as lowering the standards in order to accommodate women.
Change in standards is not necessarily accommodation of compromise. Performance standards are nothing more than a measurement used within various constraints of time, cost, and other resources to evaluate ability and capability of the human body to do core or common tasks in the operational environment (occupational-specific) or in the training environment (course-specific). As the physical demands increase proportionately with risks in doing in the operational environment the performance standards emphasize doing with reliability, dependability, and survivability. Unfortunately, your position perspective is dependent on all of the AFSCs being discussed having currently existing occupational specific standards rather than recently developed and implemented course standards (TACP/EOD).

Originally Posted By: jrc621
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the current standards. Why spend all this money and manpower on a study that shouldn't even be done in the first place.
The study is necessary as the majority of the six currently closed to woman Air Force career fields (AFSCs) didn't develop, implement, and require meeting occupational-specific muscular strength and endurance and cardiovascular capacity essential to the performance of duties standards until many years, if not decades, after 1993.

While the current standards for each AFSC appear to be sufficient or adequate there is wrongness in how the physical performance standards of some AFSCs were implemented with minimal attempt and effort to comply in good faith with Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT.

Being overlooked in all physical performance standards conversations and discussions is the combat exclusion policy was only a policy. One of the five independent elements of the exclusion policy concerned physically demanding tasks.

Quote:
Physically Demanding Tasks: The Secretary of the Military Department concerned may restrict positions, which include physically demanding tasks that would exclude the vast majority of women.


At the time of the inception of the DOD Combat exclusion policy pertinent to Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment was implemented, a concurrent implemented intent was established that scientifically supportable physical standards be developed and implemented to mitigate the number of injuries incurred during a career (for both men and women) and expand the number of occupational specialties open to women. Unfortunately, the services budgeted minimal money and resources to develop occupational-specific performance standards until the DOD's Combat Exclusion Policy was rescinded effective.

Consequently, the AETC conducted assessment(scientifically conducted) that concluded June/July 2015 was needed to once again validate pararescue's occupational-specific performance standards as being in compliance with Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT and to verify and validate performance standards developed and implemented after 1993 as being in compliance with Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT.

While the current standards for each AFSC appear to be sufficient or adequate there is potential wrongness in how the physical performance standards of some AFSCs were implemented with minimal actual scientific connection to relevant performance standards. The AETC conducted assessment(scientifically conducted) that concluded June/July 2015 resolves any potential wrongness existing in the development and implementation of current physical performance standards. The resulting actions of this study can result in standards being raised as equally (presuming no coercive political-social engineering agenda influences) as being lowered.

Quote:
GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, provided that:

‘‘(a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT.—In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense—

‘‘(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards or evaluation on the basis of gender;

‘‘(2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and

‘‘(3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO USE OF SPECIFIC PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS.—(1) For any military occupational specialty for which the Secretary of Defense determines that specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, the Secretary shall prescribe specific physical requirements for members in that specialty and shall ensure (in the case of an occupational specialty that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces) that those requirements are applied on a gender-neutral basis.


‘‘(2) Whenever the Secretary establishes or revises a physical requirement for an occupational specialty, a member serving in that occupational specialty when the new requirement becomes effective, who is otherwise considered to be a satisfactory performer, shall be provided a reasonable period, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to meet the standard established by the new requirement. During that period, the new physical requirement may not be used to disqualify the member from continued service in that specialty.

‘‘(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CHANGES.—Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes to implement changes to the occupational standards for a military occupational field that are expected to result in an increase, or in a decrease, of at least 10 percent in the number of female members of the Armed Forces who enter, or are assigned to, that occupational field, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report providing notice of the change and the justification and rationale for the change. Such changes may then be implemented only after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such report is submitted.’’


Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT is the lawful authority source for the following policies:

Quote:
DODI 1308.3, DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures, November 5, 2002:

6.1.2.3. Military Services shall extend their physical fitness programs to incorporate occupational-specific physical fitness requirements for those career fields where it is deemed necessary to ensure adequate skill, performance, and safety. This extension shall include identifying each specific physical capability needed by the occupational specialties. These additional physical fitness standards development will include a risk assessment for prevention of injuries and will reflect levels of physical abilities necessary to meet the duty demands of the occupation. Once the levels or desired physical capability are identified, physical fitness training and testing should be linked to these capabilities. Emerging training methodologies should be considered when designing the appropriate physical fitness training.

6.1.3.1. Military Services shall develop and use physical fitness tests(PFTs) that evaluate aerobic capacity (e.g., timed run, submaximal cycling) and muscular strength and muscular endurance (e.g., push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, machine tests). PFTs assess Service-wide baseline generalized fitness levels and are not intended to represent mission or occupationally specific fitness demands.
Air Force is currently using TIER 1 to describe service wide personal fitness test standards and TIER 2 to describe occupational specific fitness tests.



Quote:
AFI36-2905 FITNESS PROGRAM 21 OCTOBER 2013

A2.1. Physical Fitness. Physical Fitness is the health and care of the body through physical activity. The health-related components of fitness are: cardiorespiratory endurance, body composition, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility-mobility-stability. Each component is a movement-related trait or capacity that is generally independent of the others. An underlying concept here is better status in each of the constituent components is associated with lower risk for development of disease or functional disability. The skill-related components of fitness are: agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time, and speed. These components are more genetically dependent than the health-related components and play a role in some AF specialties (occupation-specific).
Skill related is Tier 2 performance standards.


#1867 - 09/16/15 08:43 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Yukon Offline
Operator
Yukon  Offline
Operator

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Anchorage AK
USAF general: Women in combat standards test can keep up By Stephen Losey, Staff writer-Air Force Times 2:19 p.m. EDT September 16, 2015

Has some inaccuracies:

1. Other services have sent female service members through their special operations training programs, such as the Army's Ranger school, to see the women do the job.--- The Ranger School was never solely intended for members of the Army who plan to join the Ranger Regiment, it has always existed to provide leadership training opportunities that those who can complete the course can utilize in all jobs, positions, and units. As of this month it has been opened to woman. As Ranger school isn't a special operations training program it is not an example. Not a single woman has started a special operations training program yet.

2. The Air Force plans to use those results to set the first gender-neutral occupational standards for those jobs, linked to specific tasks battlefield airmen are expected to do in combat.--Inaccurate as Pararescue and Combat Control has had gender-neutral occupational standards since before P. L. 103-160, Section 543, Gender-Neutral Occupational Performance Standards required such in 1993.

Further--"And they would say, in lots of cases, they were able to compete with and stay up with the men. There were some tasks where they would say that if they had known that was the task and they had the ability to train to that, over time they were pretty comfortable they would be able to do that."--is an unsubstantiated opinion. as the results of the tests are not yet published and available to scrutinize.

#1877 - 09/18/15 10:33 AM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 8
Sunshine93 Offline
FNG
Sunshine93  Offline
FNG

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 8
Hurlburt Field
So, if they're creating updated gender-neutral standards for BA career fields, shouldn't all AF requirements become gender-neutral? Such as the AFPFT?

Last edited by Sunshine93; 09/18/15 10:34 AM.
#1878 - 09/18/15 12:37 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Yukon Offline
Operator
Yukon  Offline
Operator

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Anchorage AK
It won't be done as many AFSCs are not sufficiently physically career demanding in all duty positions particularly as one in these AFSCs gains rank and obtains 7-skill level. Promotions removes from turning the wrenches to supervising others tuning the wrenches.

Look how many fail the standard fitness test and get UIF and administratively separated for being out of compliance with the Air Force Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs (Tier 1).


Quote:
DODI 1308.3, DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures, November 5, 2002:

6.1.2.3. Military Services shall extend their physical fitness programs to incorporate occupational-specific physical fitness requirements for those career fields where it is deemed necessary to ensure adequate skill, performance, and safety. This extension shall include identifying each specific physical capability needed by the occupational specialties. These additional physical fitness standards development will include a risk assessment for prevention of injuries and will reflect levels of physical abilities necessary to meet the duty demands of the occupation. Once the levels or desired physical capability are identified, physical fitness training and testing should be linked to these capabilities. Emerging training methodologies should be considered when designing the appropriate physical fitness training.

6.1.3.1. Military Services shall develop and use physical fitness tests(PFTs) that evaluate aerobic capacity (e.g., timed run, submaximal cycling) and muscular strength and muscular endurance (e.g., push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, machine tests). PFTs assess Service-wide baseline generalized fitness levels and are not intended to represent mission or occupationally specific fitness demands.


Air Force is currently using TIER 1 to describe service wide personal fitness test standards and TIER 2 to describe occupational specific fitness tests.

#2066 - 02/22/16 07:10 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 29
Ecastile Offline
Apprentice
Ecastile  Offline
Apprentice

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 29
SF
I think women should be allowed to train on a case by case basis granted by a waiver. For the same reason we dont let women box or compete against men in almost every competitive sport. I do think there are anomalies out there of certain women who could make it. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around women performing to the elite level that men can in this field. I see a ton of high level women fighters and they can't compete with the low level men we have. Doesn't make what I'm saying is right but that's my rationale.

#2067 - 02/22/16 08:13 PM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Yukon Offline
Operator
Yukon  Offline
Operator

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
Anchorage AK
No waiver required. All they need to do is meet the standards and complete all the required training. That's the policy and requirement for everybody.

#2372 - 07/05/16 02:31 AM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 7
20andWild Offline
FNG
20andWild  Offline
FNG

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 7
Denver, CO
I hope they get 77% less shot and have to everything up.


Maybe Ill make it, maybe i wont. But im not a pussy, so I won't fucking quit
#2373 - 07/05/16 02:32 AM Re: Women joining Air Force Special Operations Units, your thoughts? [Re: denroy17]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 7
20andWild Offline
FNG
20andWild  Offline
FNG

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 7
Denver, CO
Or maybe they will wise up and say that their own idea of joining spec ops was the patriarchy's fault,and we are raping them and then turn around and blow a whole SEAL team


Maybe Ill make it, maybe i wont. But im not a pussy, so I won't fucking quit
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Popular Topics(Views)