Ammo against the shoe clerks!

[magnetfreezer]

Shoe clerk buffoonery today. So the base we're at has a room at the gym with a play area for kids and workout stuff for their parents. My wife took our kids to the gym to play while she worked on the equipment. Our youngest slept in her carseat by my wife while the others played in the play area.

Partway through my wife's workout, a female in a services shirt confronted her. She told my wife that kids have to be one year old and walking to be allowed on the premises of the gym. My wife was told to collect the children and leave immediately. When she asked about it, the shoe gave the classic answer "It's in the AFI, do I need to show you?" At this point, my wife walked away and left quietly.

Not sure if we're going to take this anywhere, but it sucks to be denied access to excellent facilities due to some presumed rule (or interpretation) when she was the only one working out in the kids room and there was zero safety threat.

At least she knew there was an AFI. The great new idea of civilian FACs seem to be making stuff up as they go along. Had one of them tell everyone during the pretest brief "there's no way I'll let you max the pushups, it's impossible to do them that fast (67/min) with form that I consider correct". Good thing we don't have FAA check pilots replacing SEFEs yet.

[TarHeelPilot]

Not sure if we're going to take this anywhere, but it sucks to be denied access to excellent facilities due to some presumed rule (or interpretation) when she was the only one working out in the kids room and there was zero safety threat.

You found excellent facilities???

[BQZip01]

At least she knew there was an AFI. The great new idea of civilian FACs seem to be making stuff up as they go along. Had one of them tell everyone during the pretest brief "there's no way I'll let you max the pushups, it's impossible to do them that fast (67/min) with form that I consider correct". Good thing we don't have FAA check pilots replacing SEFEs yet.

I've heard multiple people complaining that the testers are making up rules just to make their jobs easier; "For the situps, your hands must be flat on the tops of your shoulders." When queried why, they responded, "It just makes it easier on us to see if you are doing a situp from a distance." F*** it! If it isn't in the AFI, I'm not doing it!

[Quartz]

Shoe clerk buffoonery today. So the base we're at has a room at the gym with a play area for kids and workout stuff for their parents. My wife took our kids to the gym to play while she worked on the equipment. Our youngest slept in her carseat by my wife while the others played in the play area.

Partway through my wife's workout, a female in a services shirt confronted her. She told my wife that kids have to be one year old and walking to be allowed on the premises of the gym. My wife was told to collect the children and leave immediately. When she asked about it, the shoe gave the classic answer "It's in the AFI, do I need to show you?" At this point, my wife walked away and left quietly.

Not sure if we're going to take this anywhere, but it sucks to be denied access to excellent facilities due to some presumed rule (or interpretation) when she was the only one working out in the kids room and there was zero safety threat.

I would have said, "Yes, show me the AFI!" But I wouldn't expect that from my spouse, or yours.

Since I have access to it, I checked for you. AFI 34-266 is the reg but it leads you to check your local supp if applicable, but info should be posted. I'll quote the main point: (PCA is Parent/Child Area)

Table 1.1: ...Under 6 years of age; Not allowed in facility with the exception of those facilities providing a parent/child area (PCA) for supervised play and/or those children who are supervised spectators in a sports or special event.

Note in Table 3.2: ...Local policy should be posted in the PCA that address the following: children must be supervised by their own parents/legal guardians; parents/legal guardians must maintain direct line-of-sight supervision of their children at all times; the maximum capacity of children and adults in the PCA; the age limit for the children using the PCA and indicating whether users must sign in at the reception desk acknowledging PCA policies.

[Mike Honcho]

I would have said, "Yes, show me the AFI!" But I wouldn't expect that from my spouse, or yours.

Exactly. Best thing to do (not really) is get your wife a job on base. 6-9 months and they'll be the "flyer's wife" that openly questions processes. Because we all know process and not the mission run the AF. LRS, I'm looking at you. With disgust.

[Guest]

Not sure if we're going to take this anywhere, but it sucks to be denied access to excellent facilities due to some presumed rule (or interpretation) when she was the only one working out in the kids room and there was zero safety threat.

It's pretty simple to find the answer if you really want the answer. Take two minutes and check the AFI. No one is being denied access. Your wife is not a victim here. She can still go to the gym. She just has to follow the rules, which may mean finding a sitter for the kid.

FWIW, it makes perfect sense to me why there would be a policy regarding kids in a military or civilian gym. I wouldn't want some kid crawling under a bar full of 45lb plates while I was on the squat rack. Neither would you.

[Fud]

It is also very easy to use the "ctl+F" to bring up the find function. Just type in the keywords after it. A lot of bad things can happen to a kid near any workout equipment. My wife's solution was to have a neighbor, who also worked out, to watch our kids, then she would return the favor later that day. Just an idea.

[Quartz]

While Rainman and FUD have a good point, the area HU&W asked about are relatively new, and very small areas at base gyms. They are usually about the size of a raquettball court with 3-4 bikes/treadmills/ellip machines and a play area for kids. It's supposed to be away from everyone else so the parent can work out and watch the kid at the same time.

My off-base gym actually has a large area where you can drop off the kids and let them run off steam while I have time to workout without worrying about the rug rats. It's much better, but does cost more than the free AF gym.

And I gave the AFI reference, so that should save 1 of those 2 minutes...

[afnav]

On the gym topic, I really can't complain at all about the Offutt Field House. It has a gated play area for the kids around some aerobic equipment and another small basketball court with more aerobic stuff. My older ones do the treadmill and the younger ones play basketball. I've never been hassled about my kids in there for anything.

Granted, the gym at Offutt is probably the largest in the world, and has plenty of room for extra stuff like a play area. I definitely concur with the kids-around-weights safety concern.

I promise I won't make a habit of saying positive things about big blue.

[old crow]

On the gym topic, I really can't complain at all about the Offutt Field House.

Sure you can; the parking/construction sucks monkey balls

[Tank]

It's pretty simple to find the answer if you really want the answer. Take two minutes and check the AFI. No one is being denied access. Your wife is not a victim here. She can still go to the gym. She just has to follow the rules, which may mean finding a sitter for the kid.

FWIW, it makes perfect sense to me why there would be a policy regarding kids in a military or civilian gym. I wouldn't want some kid crawling under a bar full of 45lb plates while I was on the squat rack. Neither would you.

Sounds to me that she was denied access with her child in the carseat while in the parents room where there is workout equipment and a play area. If you can't take an infant in this area, where can you then? Why even have this room in the first place where parents can take there childen to work out?

My wife takes our 3 year old to the gym all the time where she works out in the parents room while my son plays in the play area and there are childen still in carseats always in there also with their parents. There are no 45lb plates in that room, along with no squat rack. So, to be denied access to that room with her infant child is crazy in my opinion and I would want to see that base sup to the AFI stating that rule.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Tank

[pawnman]

Sounds to me that she was denied access with her child in the carseat while in the parents room where there is workout equipment and a play area. If you can't take an infant in this area, where can you then? Why even have this room in the first place where parents can take there childen to work out?

My wife takes our 3 year old to the gym all the time where she works out in the parents room while my son plays in the play area and there are childen still in carseats always in there also with their parents. There are no 45lb plates in that room, along with no squat rack. So, to be denied access to that room with her infant child is crazy in my opinion and I would want to see that base sup to the AFI stating that rule.

Bingo. This was not a case of a kid wandering the gym aimlessly, at risk of having a barbell dropped on them. This was a baby in a carseat, in a room specifically designed for parents to bring their kids and keep an eye on them while they work out, away from the rest of the gym equipment.

[Jughead]

THREAD REVIVAL

Anyone got a good reference to what defines "adequate crew rest facilities"?

Closest I've come is AFI 34-246, para 1.13 (cited on p. 1 or 2 of this thread), which boils down to the final caveat, para 1.13.4, "The installation commander or the aircraft commander may waive aircrew lodging requirements on a temporary basis for reasons of military necessity."

That reg mostly addresses normal billeting on normal bases. What about a deployed location? 11-202V3 is pretty specific on the time factors of proper crew rest--but is there a definition somewhere of minimum standards for quarters that are deemed to permit aircrew "an opportunity for at least 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep" (para 9.8), or the "Rest is defined as a condition that allows an individual the opportunity to sleep" (para 9.4.5)?

If aircrew get forced into clearly inadequate ("clearly" to anyone who chooses to exercise common sense) quarters to the point that crew rest simply cannot happen, what can they point to if it's the *rest* that didn't (couldn't) happen, despite the appropriate number of hours elapsing?

[Guest Crew Report]

That's an individual's call saying that their crew rest couldn't happen due to the fact there were environmental elements affecting their crew rest. Then you ORM yourself off the flight. Leadership will quickly change their mentality when their aircrews are calling crew rest and cancelling sorties due to the same issue.

[ellsworb]

our 2-mws- vol 3 actually outlined that crew rest facilities needed to provide quiet, dark, cooled facilities for rest.

[Jughead]

That's an individual's call saying that their crew rest couldn't happen due to the fact there were environmental elements affecting their crew rest. Then you ORM yourself off the flight. Leadership will quickly change their mentality when their aircrews are calling crew rest and cancelling sorties due to the same issue.

Agreed on that process. We're trying to be proactive, though, and avoid it altogether. I'm hoping to find something (which may not exist) that defines it--I can point to 11-202 all day, but if the attitude is "you should have had the opportunity to sleep there for 8 hours," then the back-and-forth starts....

our 2-mws- vol 3 actually outlined that crew rest facilities needed to provide quiet, dark, cooled facilities for rest.

I wish....

[Champ Kind]

Jughead, not sure if this will help or not, but here is an excerpt from AFI 34-246 (Air Force Lodging Program) - Linky

1.13. Transient Aircrew Lodging.

Lodging provides a private room/private bath to officer transient air- crew members (accommodations may include a shared kitchen and/or living area). For enlisted transient aircrew members, lodging provides a private room and a private or shared bath. Aircrew members are defined as anyone on the flight crew order. Ensure gender is considered when assigning lodging to air- crews.

1.13.1. When construction or maintenance in the vicinity of aircrew quarters could interrupt crew rest, general managers will not assign aircrew members to buildings in the area.

1.13.2. Lodging may assign other TDY personnel to transient aircrew accommodations if not required for aircrews and other on-base lodging is not available. When assigning other TDY personnel to aircrew accommodations, advise them of the varied aircrew members sleeping hours, and ask them to refrain from making any noise or disturbance that could interrupt crew rest.

1.13.3. Lodging will maintain aircrew integrity by housing the entire aircrew either on base or off base. If housed on base, lodging will house them as close together as possible, with no more than two stops to pick up all crew members. If lodged off base, lodging will house the aircrew in one commer- cial establishment.

1.13.4. The installation commander or the aircraft commander may waive aircrew lodging requirements on a temporary basis for reasons of military necessity.

[Herkdrvr]

That's an individual's call saying that their crew rest couldn't happen due to the fact there were environmental elements affecting their crew rest. Then you ORM yourself off the flight. Leadership will quickly change their mentality when their aircrews are calling crew rest and cancelling sorties due to the same issue.

Jug: Make sure that it's not just you--the entire crew needs to say that the facilities were inadequate. If four out of five crew members say they are good to fly, and you're the only one, you'll rapidly end up being 'that guy'.

[Jughead]

Jughead, not sure if this will help or not, but here is an excerpt from AFI 34-246 (Air Force Lodging Program) -

1.13.4. The installation commander or the aircraft commander may waive aircrew lodging requirements on a temporary basis for reasons of military necessity.

Yep, already had that, thanks. Our situation boils down to 1.13.4, since we're deployed. I was looking for a definition that gave min standards in order to meet the 11-202 requirements.

Jug: Make sure that it's not just you--the entire crew needs to say that the facilities were inadequate. If four out of five crew members say they are good to fly, and you're the only one, you'll rapidly end up being 'that guy'.

Good point--but, six out of six ACs were saying it, loudly, and I don't know of any of the individual crewdogs (roughly 120 people all told -- I'm an RJ guy) who disagreed the proposed lodging was a train wreck in progress.

I say "was," because we said it loudly enough. Funny how lodging had "no rooms available, period," but when our CC talks to them and says his next phone call is to the (Non-)Services CC, suddenly they have rooms.... The 'Deid is such a shit show, thank god I'm almost home....

Thanks for the help. I'd still love to find that definition, if it's out there, for future reference.... Anyone?

[Finance_Guy]

Yep, already had that, thanks. Our situation boils down to 1.13.4, since we're deployed. I was looking for a definition that gave min standards in order to meet the 11-202 requirements.

Good point--but, six out of six ACs were saying it, loudly, and I don't know of any of the individual crewdogs (roughly 120 people all told -- I'm an RJ guy) who disagreed the proposed lodging was a train wreck in progress.

I say "was," because we said it loudly enough. Funny how lodging had "no rooms available, period," but when our CC talks to them and says his next phone call is to the (Non-)Services CC, suddenly they have rooms.... The 'Deid is such a shit show, thank god I'm almost home....

Thanks for the help. I'd still love to find that definition, if it's out there, for future reference.... Anyone?

Don't aircrew get in the new Dorms at the 'Deid?

[Jughead]

Don't aircrew get in the new Dorms at the 'Deid?

Only for >179 deployments, unfortunately.

What really burns me is that they have plenty of open rooms on the Better People's Complex side, which would have completely avoided this issue, but we're not "eligible"....

[afnav]

Only for >179 deployments, unfortunately.

What really burns me is that they have plenty of open rooms on the Better People's Complex side, which would have completely avoided this issue, but we're not "eligible"....

When I was out there in the BPC in '09, they would throw concerts at the bra and I was kept awake in my room in a concrete building. I can only imagine what it was like for aircrew in the trailers getting ready to fly the next day. MWR is a good thing, but shit, have a little respect for guys going downrange...

You guys have my sympathy.