Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 15, 2018, 09:24:38 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Weekly PT
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print
Author Topic: Weekly PT  (Read 2794 times)
1King25
Newbie

Posts: 2
Unit: NER-ME-058

« on: June 29, 2018, 12:05:36 AM »

Now I understand that in CAP national HQ recommends doing weekly PT, but my squadron commander instituted weekly PT in full BDU/ABU uniforms because of lower attendance rates during our dedicated PT nights. He also said that there will be no PT tests until he says otherwise. Is this allowed?
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,591
Unit: Classified

« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2018, 08:12:14 AM »

This is something you need to talk to your CDC about.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2018, 09:28:53 AM »

Your unit needs to provide the CPFT once per quarter. The Commander does not need to provide it more frequently than that, but he needs to be able to provide that opportunity for testing and advancement in accordance with the curriculum under CAPR 60-1.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2018, 10:36:05 AM »

Now I understand that in CAP national HQ recommends doing weekly PT,

Cite please...

Most units do PT (and testing) about once per month, which, when you consider the limited number of contact
hours afforded cadets, is about all you can do and still hit the necessary other points of the program.

PT in field uniforms, especially during the summer, is actually punishing those who
are showing up, and sounds like a great way for the few cadets still interested to "vote with their feet".

Higher HQ needs to discuss the relative "merits" of this "idea", and suggest alternatives to retention and
participation with this CC.
Logged


Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,201

« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2018, 10:59:58 AM »

The primary reference here is CAPP 60-50.  The guidance in Chapter 2 requires 1 hour of fitness training a month, and recommends 10 minutes a week of fitness activity when possible.

No cadet (or commander) should settle for the minimum.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,304

« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2018, 12:26:01 PM »


... recommends 10 minutes a week of fitness activity when possible.


Regular PT once a month and other weeks that could be 10 minutes of drill in whatever UOD is and then get back to Aerospace or whatever the day's meeting normally is?
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2018, 12:48:39 PM »

That would be the general practice.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2018, 04:23:12 PM »


... recommends 10 minutes a week of fitness activity when possible.


Regular PT once a month and other weeks that could be 10 minutes of drill in whatever UOD is and then get back to Aerospace or whatever the day's meeting normally is?

Keep in mind that "fitness" includes forums, not just physical activity. This can be discussions on nutrition and other health habits.

But I wouldn't generally consider drill to be PT. PT in itself should be more active than marching: game day, physical challenge, something that keeps you moving at a higher tempo than walking or standing and doing facing movements.
Logged
1King25
Newbie

Posts: 2
Unit: NER-ME-058

« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2018, 05:40:12 PM »

Thank you to all that have replied. But please note when I say PT I'm talking push-ups, sit-ups, and running not classes or drill which we already do weekly, not that surprising. But, my main concern is his reasoning behind this seems to make this borderline hazing due to the fact that he put this in place because of the lower attendance during our monthly PT meetings.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2018, 05:44:17 PM »

Thank you to all that have replied. But please note when I say PT I'm talking push-ups, sit-ups, and running not classes or drill which we already do weekly, not that surprising. But, my main concern is his reasoning behind this seems to make this borderline hazing due to the fact that he put this in place because of the lower attendance during our monthly PT meetings.

It's not "hazing", per se, though it could arguably be considered punitive PT (good luck with that).

A concerned parent would do well to raise the concern with higher HQ, and or address directly the
issue of "what isn't being done" during all this PT, since few units have time to be doing much appreciable PT
at every meeting, especially the ones in which cadets wear blues, if they are also hitting the items
prescribed in the suggested monthly curriculum schedule.

Running in boots, especially the typically ill-fitting, poorly constructed cadet variants, is a very bad idea.
Logged


Brit_in_CAP
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394
Unit: MER-VA-002

« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2018, 09:46:00 AM »

Thank you to all that have replied. But please note when I say PT I'm talking push-ups, sit-ups, and running not classes or drill which we already do weekly, not that surprising. But, my main concern is his reasoning behind this seems to make this borderline hazing due to the fact that he put this in place because of the lower attendance during our monthly PT meetings.

It's not "hazing", per se, though it could arguably be considered punitive PT (good luck with that).

A concerned parent would do well to raise the concern with higher HQ, and or address directly the
issue of "what isn't being done" during all this PT, since few units have time to be doing much appreciable PT
at every meeting, especially the ones in which cadets wear blues, if they are also hitting the items
prescribed in the suggested monthly curriculum schedule.

Running in boots, especially the typically ill-fitting, poorly constructed cadet variants, is a very bad idea.
++1, especially the running in boots.  That practice was common during my RAF service and led to far too many serious injuries; running in boots needs to be approached carefully, especially in light of the fact that most people don't wear heavy shoes these days.  I strongly support the "concerned parent" approach recommended here.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2018, 10:07:36 AM »

"These boots are made for walking..."

Athletic shoes are for running, to protect your feet from injury and to keep them cool. Boots are for movement in the field, to protect your feet from getting worn out.

While there may be times for high tempo movement in boots, if the military wanted you to do endurance PT in boots, they wouldn't have PT uniforms.

I've had several cadets who didn't like lacing up their boots because they were "uncomfortable." That's moronic, and it will absolutely lead to injury.
Logged
chuckmilam
Forum Regular

Posts: 123
Unit: GLR-KY-216

« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2018, 10:36:58 AM »

"Lower attendance rates during dedicated PT nights" seems to be one of the root issues here.  If cadets are skipping PT, how are they advancing in the program? 
Logged
chuckmilam
Forum Regular

Posts: 123
Unit: GLR-KY-216

« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2018, 10:38:04 AM »

I've had several cadets who didn't like lacing up their boots because they were "uncomfortable."

Generation S/FF?  Sandal/Flip-Flop?
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2018, 12:01:41 PM »

I've had several cadets who didn't like lacing up their boots because they were "uncomfortable."

Generation S/FF?  Sandal/Flip-Flop?

Professional arguers/spoiled sorts. "Mommy and daddy let me do what I want at home, so I'm going to try that here." Denied.


"Lower attendance rates during dedicated PT nights" seems to be one of the root issues here.  If cadets are skipping PT, how are they advancing in the program? 

It sounds like they aren't, hence their commander trying to enforce his own fitness standard to punish the unit to "motivate them."

Maybe it's things like this that lead the participation numbers to be down.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2018, 12:21:17 PM »

Lower participation across the board seems to be the issue, however with the new ACFP
the assessments are only done quarterly and the HFZ is good for 6 months, so a cadet
who only attends two meetings a year, could be promoting, at least PT-wise.

And we all know how reluctant many CC's are to press the participation issue if it impacts retention.

This isn't advocation, this is merely an indication of the minimums and an unintended consequence of the ACFP.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2018, 03:26:45 PM »

Lower participation across the board seems to be the issue, however with the new ACFP
the assessments are only done quarterly and the HFZ is good for 6 months, so a cadet
who only attends two meetings a year, could be promoting, at least PT-wise.

And we all know how reluctant many CC's are to press the participation issue if it impacts retention.

This isn't advocation, this is merely an indication of the minimums and an unintended consequence of the ACFP.

There's the counter to that as well: If the unit conducts the fitness test CPFT once per quarter, and a cadet fails that CPFT, they don't have another shot for another 3 months. Then, mom/dad say "No, you're not going to that meeting this week" when the next CPFT comes up. Now you have a cadet who hasn't been able to promote and says "screw it; I'm done."

That said, I wonder what this unit's active participation is like on "non-PT" days. If you have a 90% turnout when it isn't PT, and a 35% turnout when it is PT, then the cadets likely don't find your PT activities fun, and the unit needs to try and adapt to the audience. Similarly, if we're talking about a unit that has 7 active cadets participating, there's a problem with the overall program at that unit (excluding the lack of prospective cadets in the locale).

There are a lot of unknowns on this topic. But at the very least, PT should be used to enforce airmanship and healthy activities, not as a detriment to cadet life (to include a punishment). And you do not withhold someone's ability to advance because you don't think they deserve it. You save that for the review for that particular cadet when they have met the requirements to promote. I have a concern over a unit denying the opportunity to advance, if that's actually the case.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2018, 03:42:54 PM »

Agreed IMHO, there should be monthly opportunities to assess PT, expressly to insure that
cadets aren't penalized (too much) for missing a meeting due to legitimate conflicts with other
activities, illness, etc.
Logged


Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,142
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2018, 09:05:22 PM »

"Lower attendance rates during dedicated PT nights" seems to be one of the root issues here.  If cadets are skipping PT, how are they advancing in the program?


From my experience (and as I visit my subordinate units and I've run PT with a couple of them now) I have had a couple of plain spoken cadets stating to the effect:

"Well, Sir, none of the new guys need to pass PT to promote so some of them skip PT. The rest of us only have to pass twice a year and PT is such a lame event now, a lot of guys skip". This from young people who are very physically active and who are (many of them) JV and varsity and travel team athletes.

Commanders look in the books and see a passing score from March, and sign off (Cadet Oath to "participate actively" notwithstanding). So the law of unintended consequences is alive and is operating well.


V/r
Spam

Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,142
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2018, 09:12:51 PM »



Additional note:

I have also noticed a creeping ennui among the younger, physically active SMs working with cadets, who formerly were the duty officers for PT nights. One, a former cadet whom I jokingly referred to as the "Command Fitness Advisor" hadn't missed a PT night in years, and skipped his units PT night last week allegedly due to sprinkles (yeah, I showed up and slogged around the mile, it was safe). 

We used to have to tug back on the reins with these guys to keep them from running PT in thundershowers. Now we can't get them interested because of the lowered standards. The element of "Challenge" is absent, and I say that as a LTC who used to dread PT nights as a young Cadet Airman... I don't see a lot to say for the new program after three years now of dealing with it. I cannot believe that I actually saw an (ultimately successful) C/LTC fail his Spaatz PT test last fall, to his embarrassment, because he had lost conditioning in part due to the reduced intensity of standard unit PT.

So, I can't blame units like Idaho Wing and the OP's Squadron for, well, departing from the program of record.


V/r
Spam

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Weekly PT
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.267 seconds with 25 queries.