I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
Just like uncorrected visual acuity for pilots.
No, but his suggestion was saying that BCA should be part of the annual PHA. If that were the case, the Navy could no longer admin discharge those that fail because the doc couldn't legally report it to a chain of command without violating HIPAA.
How many O-3s have actually been given the chance to do so? I know a bunch of O-3s at Fallon (among other locations) that could crush the Strike Lead syllabus and do the same on a mission in country. In a world where 30 year olds win Super Bowls, get elected to Congress and run multi-billion dollar companies successfully, if given the chance/opportunity, I guarantee we have the talent pool within our service for similarly aged folks to be successful operational and strategic military leaders. Would everybody be able to? Absolutely not -- but there are plenty who could.
Whoa whoa whoa... that's nuanced and logical. It makes perfect sense. It will not stand up to legal scrutiny.
But they could legally report it to the CO, as there's no doctor/patient privilege in the military. It's neither here nor there, but if they decided to have your BCA be a part of a PHA, the instruction could be written so as to be in compliance with any applicable law.
That's not exactly true (moving beyond the BCA discussion). While dealing with an issue recently, as it was explained to me by two docs, the doc can report something that would be of concern for his command (or can respond to a CO's inquiry directly if it's a concern), but that doesn't mean the doc can just divulge any medical data on a whim due to HIPAA.
Could the argument be made that a BCA is a concern of the CO? Sure, and like you said, the instruction could be written in a way to cover both parties. But a CO can't just go randomly asking for data because he wants to know if one their people had the clap at some point in their life.
At the risk of being snippy....
Not too many billionaires under 30 (3?), and would say that they hire a sizable staff to run these companies who answer to a board.
As for football players, those 30 year olds have been playing in college and the pros for 12 years....seems to match with when most start the Strike Lead syllabus....
A syllabus for strike lead isn't just about getting people from a to b, but managing the risk and contingencies so that everyone gets from point a to b to c and back to a after accomplishing the mission and not making a tactical error that creates a strategic problem.
I don't suspect my reply will register, so I would recommend to see a CAG laptop and the questions that CAG asks, and maybe it will make more sense.
Most John Q Taxpayers that I know personally don't seem to have a problem with giving a guy his pension who served in the military for 20 years. There are still a lot of people who are perfectly fine with saying, "You can have that. I'll keep my day job" when it comes to talking about what we do for a living or when talking about guys getting blown up by IEDs and shot at in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I wasn't saying 'everyone', but there are certainly jobs where 20 years of it will earn you hearing loss, back problems, blown out knees, etc... at a faster rate than sitting at a desk in the civilian world.
I'm not suggesting a CO can just rifle through someone's medical record, only that there are certain medical details a CO is entitled to know about those they command and the BCA would certainly (and reasonably) fall into that category. I don't imagine HIPAA would factor in at all.
I've sat in on CAG laptops and have delivered portions of several, I'm willing to bet Ben4Prez has sat through CAG laptops as well. This debate can very easily slip into a community pissing match, so I'll do my best here.... A Level IV VFA super-JO, and particularly, an N5/N7 (Level V) staff JO is more than capable of leading a strike. Everyone of them? No. Most of them? Certainly. Why don't they, or why have you seen it? Because we have tied the SLUI syllabus to seniority in large part due to the resource constraints CVWs are operating under these days. As you must know, it's not often you can get the range space, tanker support, targets, ordnance, and adversaries to pull off a quality SLUI event. Because of this, the events that are available become prioritized and that's done by seniority. Is that the right way to do it? Maybe, maybe not. But because you haven't seen it done doesn't mean that there aren't A LOT of dudes who can. Honestly, the senior patch wearing LT is probably sharper and more capable of making the decisions you're talking about than many DH pilots who are either fresh off a non-flying tour trying to get back up to speed or getting pulled in three directions as the OPSO or MO.
I always hate when I am late to the party, because this was one of my talking (writing?) points. I have sat through and flown a lot of strikes and I was able to knock out my AIMC as a LT with three other guys who were LT's at the same time. We were all Fallon senior JO's who had substantial experience in the LFS environment and it was still a challenge. I have seen plenty of patch wearing DH's struggle through the syllabus and I have seen plenty of non-patch wearing DH's and LT's rock the syllabus. For every LT you think is capable of executing the AIMC syllabus, I can find two who are struggling through Level III or Level IV. We prioritize DH's for the strike leads because we are minimizing risk. Getting thirty plus planes into the air is no small feat so I would prefer not to waste the effort. Doing it in-house like we did in CVW-5 was painful at best. Actually I expect getting a Level IV hop done now takes some major muscle movement. I don't need to waste resources on a O-3 because I don't need any O-3's in a squadron to be strike leads. There are six other guys in the squadron as Wink pointed out that get it done for me when the time comes.
This conversation could also go down the line of junior O-3's are capable of being DH's or maybe even Skippers, but they need to do their time. I don't need more chiefs, I need better indians.
Just because a corpsman performs a procedure, doesn't mean it's automatically covered by patient privilege. I think? I'll admit I'm talking out of my ass on that one. Okay, don't do it as part of the PHA, just do it at the same time as the PHA. HN Timmy has been trained to do the height-weight and rope-choke or calipers or dunk tank or whatever, and he's one of the stations you have to hit on PHA/flight physical day. He can enter the data in PRIMS, so it's not part of your confidential medical record.
I'm short and stumpy and I like red meat, so up until I got into running two years ago, I'd been roped and choked (and passed) every year since I commissioned. Given the wildly varying results of the rope-choke math when none of my dimensions changed much over the years, clearly sometimes the CFL knew what he was doing, sometimes not. Not that HN Timmy can't also fuck things up, but when you do it every day as opposed to a collateral twice a year, at least fucking it up is less likely.