New Anthro Standards

[vicki]

Hey Guys,

Just a heads-up. There are new anthro standards- 5' min. for SNFO and 5'4" min. for SNA. I'm borderline and may lose my designator. The whole thing is up in the air right now. I let y'all know when I know what's going on - right now I'm devestated, but hopefully I'll be able to get this figured out.

 

[Tahoe]

Best of luck getting things worked out-I know how much you want this!

 

[spidrwmn]

Any news on the possible anthros changes? I tried to check the Nami site, but I am unable to access the site ( 'site not responding'). Anyone else have this problem?
Vicki - good luck with everything, I hope it works out for the best.

- spider

 

[Jeff]

I wouldn't worry to much yet, Anthros tend to change all the time. I am 5'6" and was found outside the norm on a measurement and was told I was restricted from SH-60s and needed a fit check for a T-44. When I checked into API I suddenly didn't need anything, they said that I was cleared for all aircraft. They told me that they are always changing these things for various reasons so just hang in there.

 

[Tahoe]

Hey Vicki!

I saw your name as an OCS Grad in this weeks, "Navy Times." Great work, hope all is going well with your anthro standards!!

-Dave

 

[magnum]

How about those of us on the other end of the spectrum-I am 6'2"-good to go to fly any craft?

 

[nickou23]

All depends, they measure all kinds of stuff, thigh length, sitting height etc.
When I went to ACES, there was a guy shorter than me who was told he couldn't fly Prowlers because his torso was too long, but I and most of the other guys had no problems.

 

[Dave Shutter]

quote:How about those of us on the other end of the spectrum-I am 6'2"...

At 6'1 200 lbs I could fit right into Frumby's flight suit, but that is a good question. I've met Tomcat and Hornet pilots at 6'2 to 6'4, but it's the knee to buttock length that they say is the killer. I don't know Helo standards but it took me a good couple minutes to squeeze into an H-60 the last time I saw one up close. I'm not so sure about my possible helo career.

D

 

[Mahler]

Well, I had a bad experience at ACES a couple of months ago with the anthros part. I'm sure everyone I was there with has heard enough griping from me about it

When I went into the anthro room I was a little worried because I'm just over 6'3". I did all the measurements and I was over on the buttock to knee length. Before panic struck in I decided to ask the Petty Officer how much I was over. He looked it up and said I was 0.6 inches over in that department. My panic was diminished because I knew the next day I would have a cockpit check and everything would be good.

Well, the next morning arrived and we were at the supply wherehouse getting our flight gear. Me and this other guy were supposed to go do cockpit checks afterwards, but I guess the flight physiologist was feeling expecially lazy that day because he just called up our escort officers and said "don't worry about the checks, just tell James he can't fly jets". Needless to say I was pissed to no end. Later that night I was at the Pub and decided to drink just a bit too much, which supplied quite a hangover for our early morning PRT the next day (not recommended).

When I got home from P-cola I looked on the NAMI web site and found the procedures for anthro checks. It states: "If member does not meet anthro standards on initial measurement he must be retested three times by the AVT and the flight surgeon. Please pay attention--these are frequently missed by examiners!". Did I get this??? No way. I had one half a** check and that was it. I'm sure such a small discrepency like that should warrent a cockpit check, or at least a re-measurment as stated in the procedure list. Later that week when we were in the simulator bay, one of the simulator technicians was nice enough to seat me in one of the T-2 simulators and he said I fit prefectly in that cockpit. Luckily I get re-tested when I go back to start OCS.

My advice to anyone going to NAMI is to read all the information and procedures before you go so you don't get screwed over, because those guys down there don't really give a damn about your career. Heck, while we were there the optimology department took a two hour lunch break while the entire system was backed up beyond belief. I guess that's shore duty at its best.

Well, I think I've vented enough on here, I'll spare everyone anymore. Good luck to Vicki in trying to fix her anthro problem.....

-James

big jim

 

[Jeff]

James

I wouldn't sweat it to much, but you did get screwed. When they did my anthros the first time I was told that I couldn't even fly. I'm 5'7" and the doc didn't understand why. So she remeasured me and found that every measurement they took was off by atleast an inch. I have seen it on the other end to though, My buddy in API was told he had a sitting height to tall for jets, and had it remeasured and found they had him an inch to tall.

I would suggest contacting LTJG Myrick, she is the Public Affairs Office for NASC. I am not sure of her number but it is listed on the NASC web site (Naval Aviation Schools Command). SHe should be able to help you, and if not direct you to who can. Best of Luck.

 

[vicki]

Y'all are right. The regs change all the time as new info (ie mishaps) becomes available. Also, apparently people are fitting fine in training aircraft, but get to the RAG and have problems. The new regs are a lot tighter in an attempt to decrease or eliminate this problem. The flight physiologist here (at NASC) told me that people between 5'6" and 6'2" are usually good to go. Those over and under it will depend on specific measurements. Of course, how much those measurements actually mean is debatable. According to the numbers I can't fly anything, but after getting fitchecks I am all set. The problem is that these fitchecks are time-consuming and costly to the Navy. They are trying to eliminate doing them by going to a more restrictive standard that will hopefully prevent people getting all the way to the RAG and then not fitting in their airframe. I am just extremely fortunate that I was able to get fitchecked and keep my designator.

 

[Mahler]

I don't understand why fitchecks would be either costly or time consuming. While I was in P-cola, there was a bunch of T-2's, three F-18's and an EA-6B sitting right there next to each other in the same hanger (the Prowler was sitting just outside of it). This was also the very building I was hangin out in waiting for my fitcheck. It would have taken ten mintues for the flight physiologist to walk down a flight of stairs and seat me in each plane. I guess those stairs were just too much for him.

James

 

[vicki]

The official party line I got on why fitchecks are cost-prohibitive is as follows. For example, I was fitchecked in an SH-60. They have them at Pcola, but they flew me to JAX (Mayport actually, to the SH-60 RAG) for the fitcheck. Here's the logic. It is the RAG who has been throwing people back saying that they don't fit, so NASC wants the RAG to be the people signing off that Ensign Schmuckatelli fit in their aircraft. The fitcheck has to be performed by an Aeromedical Safety Officer along with a RAG IP who is also a squadron NATOPS officer. Therefore, these two people plus you plus the aircraft in question have to be in the same place at the same time. I agree that all this sounds a little crazy, but that's the way the new regs are written. So this single fitcheck cost the Navy a commercial airline ticket, a night in the Q, a rental car, plus my per diem. If one person needs fitchecks in multiple airframes (read multiple RAGs all over the country), this can get expensive pretty quickly.

 

[Dave Shutter]

quote:... If one person needs fitchecks in multiple airframes (read multiple RAGs all over the country), this can get expensive pretty quickly.

And then said person can go on to flunk out of API and never even get near any airframe at all. I understand why they want to generalize the anthro's to save them time and $$$, or at least try to, but still a raw deal for some though.

D

 

[Mahler]

That makes a bit more sense on the cost issue. When we were in P-cola, this wasn't explained to us. It's not the news of no jets that made me so upset. In fact, I think I want to fly Seahawks anyway. It's the idea of people just plain not doing their jobs that really gets to me. I've been dealing with this concept for the last year and a half with my recruiting district. I've even had to go as far as getting a JAG officer involved, and it looks like it might come to that again. But in the end, I have been the one who was right on every occasion. What really worries me is that the next ten years in the Navy is going to be the same. I just hope the Naval Aviation command is not as screwed up as CNRC.

James